Is it worth paying twice as much for an 18-200 over an 18-55+55-200 nikkor?

Question

This is a stupid rhetorical question so I apologize in advance. Probably no one will be able to give me a good answer because the question itself *can't* be answered. Still.. I own an 18-55 kit lens and a 55-200 vr for which I paid half what I would have had to pay for an 18-200. Even now, months later, I'm wondering if there's any advantage to the 18-200 over this lens pair other than not having to switch lenses. Theoretically, switching lenses frequently will get dirt into my camera and eventually damage the sensor - but that isn't *that* likely and I would in any case still switch to primes now and then. So..... is there any good reason to pay double what an 18-55, 55-200 costs just for the convenience of not having to switch lenses; or is there some other, weird, solid reason for only owning the 18-200 since, from what I've heard, image quality is so similar as to be indistinguishable?

The speed of all three lenses is the same - slow. The 18-200 goes from 3.5 to 5.6; while the 18-55 goes from 3.5 to 5.6 and the 55-200 goes from 4 to 5.6. While the 18-55 doesnt have vr, that's less important in a wide-angle lens. The 55-200 does have vr.

Answer 1

Compare the "speed" of the 3 lenses in question. If the 18-200mm is a faster lens and has Vibration Reduction (VR) then it might be worth the money, especially if the 18-55 & 55-200 lack VR.

Answer 2

Although new lens design is great, don't forget that a zoom is a compromise, an average if you will of quality at any given focal length. Therefore the greater the zoom range, the harder it is to design a lens that preforms well at any given focal lengths, especially at wider apertures, hence you don't see a 18-200mm f/2.8 lens. Nor do you see professionals using these extremely long zoom lenses, as they are more concerned with avoiding barrel or pincushion distortion, light falloff at the frame edge, chromatic aberrations and other optical "issues" inherent to camera lenses. The decision is ultimately yours, which you should make based on your shooting needs. When the situation is changing fast, you may wish you had the greater flexibility of the giant zoom.
I will add one more bit to this answer, stick to the Nikon lenses. Off brand you may save money, but you will see a noticeable difference in quality, I speak from experience.

Answer 3

It all depends on what you normally photograph and the lighting conditions where y ou normally photograph.

Any zoom lens will have reduced apertures. The man who answered that the zooms were trade offs is right. Straight glass is much better. You trade a little quality for convenience.

Your big mistake would be to purchase an inexpensive aftermarket lens like a Quantaray - try to stick with the lenses made for your camera by its manufacturer, but that is, of course, dependent upon your money and what you are doing.