Camera Labs

I have nikonD90, i not sure which lens i should go for
18-200 - but i lose the extra 100mm zoom
28-300 - i lose the initial 18to28 mm width

not sure which would the be the best one?
pls help

This all comes down to what you are shooting. If you are looking for a good walk around lens that will perform under most every day conditions then the 18-200 is the way to go.

If you are going to be doing wildlife not including small bird(you will need more reach to do birding well) then the 28-300 would be better suited to those needs.

If i could make a suggestion though. I assume you have the 18-105 kit lens which is a good general purpose lens, why not go with the 70-300mm lens. It is around 500$ and is a better lens then the 28-300mm. that would be the way I would go if I was you. The 18-200mm would only be giving you an extra 95mm length and is nearly 800$ Where as the 70-300 only overlaps 35mm.

Hope that helps.

_________________
A great photo is worth far more then a thousand words!

Visit Flickr!

Nikon D90/D60/MB-D80 Battery Grip/Sigma 70-200mm 2.8/AF-S 18-70mm /AF-S 70-300mm VR/AF-S 35mm /AF 50mm 1.8f

Unless you are planning on upgrading to full frame very soon, Id advise the 18-200. The wide end is much more important IMHO

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Both are good in terms of sharpness. Both are equally flawed in terms of (correctable) distortion. Both are great as walkaround one-lens solution. So in terms of technical quality, as well as built, I found both of them equal.

The issue, as it has already been mentioned, is what style of shooting you do? If you find that you're shooting - or like to shoot in the future - landscapes and you lie them wide, then, obviously, the 18-200 would be better than the 28-300, which in this regard is in no-man's land at its starting 28mm.

If, on the other hand, you're into details and you find yourself shooting - or intending to shoot - at the max zoom setting, then the 28-300mm would be better due to its longer reach (300mm x 1.5 dx crop factor = 450mm).

However, shooting styles are never so black-and-white, are they?.... One never always shoots wide or zoomed-in - it's inevitably a bit of both. One solution would be to get the 28-300 and then cover the wide angle with a Nikkor 10-24 zoom, for example. Then, you'd be pretty much set for a wide variety of situations with 2 lenses. And in the future, add the 35mm f1.8G for low-light.

Thanks for the reply
When i purchased the camera i went with Nikon 50mm f1.8 and but i was not sure what i should buy. 18-200 or 28-300.
I had planned something like tokina/sigma/tamron 12-24 and Nikon 28-300
is tokina/sigma better options?

Hello sporob, and welcome to the friendly Camera Labs forum!
To enjoy your stay here please have a look at the house-rules!
----
You've certainly read my review of the 28-300 over here?!
The 28-300 is on average a bit better than the 18-200, but - as i warned in my review - you'd certainly want/need something shorter than the 28mm on the wide end. That could be one of those 10-24mm lenses of which Nikon also has one on offer, or a 12-24mm would also do fine.
But still you might be finding swapping lenses a lot if you are in a situation where you need something in the range of 18-40mm.
So my personal advice:
- If you're pretty sure that you'll stay with a DX body in the foreseeable future: get the 18-200
- If you're thinking about upgrading to an FX-body sometime and you can muster the financial resources: get the 28-300 and complement it with some ultrawide zoom at the short end.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

I have to correct my post a bit. I read the lens wrong, i was thinking the 55-300 which is not as good as the 70-300.

The 28-300 is a great lens all be it expensive. I would agree that the 28-300 paired with the 10-24 nikon or even the 10-20mm sigma would be a great combo.

I usually use my 35mm and 50mm as my walk around lenses even though i have the 18-70 I like the primes because of there far better sharpness and small size. I can have one mounted and the other in my pocket eliminating the need to carry my camera bag all day.

_________________
A great photo is worth far more then a thousand words!

Visit Flickr!

Nikon D90/D60/MB-D80 Battery Grip/Sigma 70-200mm 2.8/AF-S 18-70mm /AF-S 70-300mm VR/AF-S 35mm /AF 50mm 1.8f

The main disadvantages of the 28-300 would be the lack of wide angle (Considering that you're using the DX format). Having to attach a wide angle lens can sometimes be a bit of a pain when compared to the all-around job that zooms like the 18-200 can do. Also, the 28-300 has a more expensive price. Other than that, it's a great lens.

As David mentioned, carrying a prime is always good. Something like the 35mm F1.8 should suit your needs nicely, it's small, sharp and fast. When I shoot with primes, I don't often miss zooming in and out however I can't speak for you.

_________________
-Evan

Gear: 7 Nikon Nikkor AI-S and AF-S lenses, SB-700 flash, Nikon D7000, Nikon FM, variety of accessories

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
- Ansel Adams