I narrowed my choices down to the Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens, and the Nikon18-200mm VR f.3.5-5.6? Which lens?

Question

I've posted a question like this before, and still haven't bought a lens. I am serious this time.

This is going to be for general use. I'm not a professional photographer, but I do know how to take photographs. I feel like the portrait lens will work with the kind of pictures I take, but the 18-200mm lens has more range. I prefer the portrait lens' price, but I found a store that will sell me the 18-200mm for a reasonable price.

Legitimate answers only. Thanks.

Answer 1

The 18-200mm is a good lens, but doesn't really match up to all the hype surrounding it - its a consumer lens, way too dark at the long end for professional use. It main claim to fame is that Ken Rockwell, a rather opinionated photography blogger (who oddly enough writes tons of "reviews" based on spec sheets of things he does not own or has not even tried himself), raves about it. BTW, you can ignore most of the availability stories you read. Its MUCH easier to find in stock these days.

You seem to think that the 50mm f/1.8 (assuming D version unless you found a deal on a new-old-stock non-D which can sometimes be found for US$100) will do the job. Check the return policy at your store, get it and take it out for the afternoon. Best case you save $600 and confirm your impressions, worst case you spent an afternoon in the outdoors taking some pictures (which still doesn't sound like a bad alternative to me).

Answer 2

Do you need the extra couple of stops the f/1.8 offers? Meaning, frequent low-light shooting? If so, then it's the 50mm for you.

I'm not a big fan of swiss army knife type lenses (like the 18-200) because I believe they don't do anything *well.* And I'd rather have something that's more challenging to use, but gives better results (like the 50mm). I used only a 50mm lens for the first 5 years.

Still, most people would find the 18-200 to be more useful to them, and most of them will never even buy another lens.

Answer 3

Personally, I'm perfectly content to work with nothing but a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera.

On a digital, though, I wouldn't dream of it because it would be too long for my taste.

Were I only going to buy one lens for a DSLR, I would be inclined to go with something more like a 35mm f2, which would be roughly equivalent to the 50mm on a 35mm camera.

In any case, though, why not get both? The 50mm 1.8 will be $100 at the most, and less if you can buy it used. It's small and light enough that you can stick it in your pocket if you need to. This would give you the versatility of the superzoom, with the low light ability and shallow depth of field of the 1.8 lens for not much more money than just buying the zoom by itself.

Answer 4

Personally I would go with the 50mm 1.8. Being able to shoot in low light is priceless. I have a 50 1.8 on my Canon and I use it all the time.

Now you say you have found a store that sells a lens at a reasonable price. You need to check them out with the better business bureaus web site.

http://search.bbb.org/

Answer 5

The 50 mm is a specialized professional lens, made to do one job and do it very well. If there is any variety to your work, then without question you need the 18-200. This lens has been quite scarce so my advice is if someone is willing to sell you one at a reasonable price and they have it in stock, then don't sit here asking questions! Race out and buy it!

Answer 6

It depends on the kind of pictures you take. Portraits, landscapes, whatever. I like the zoom, myself but its probably heavier than the other one.