Camera Labs

Hi all ... when I'm out and about (I travel a lot for business) I've been shooting with a D40 and the 18-200 super-zoom. I love being able to capture a wide range of subjects without having to change lenses.

I'm interested in upgrading to the D7000 and during my research I've come across one writer who recommends the 28-300 over the 18-200 (but no specifics). Anyone have any thoughts on whether or not one lens is superior to the other? I don't expect to ever get an FX camera so the ability of the 28-300 to support FX isn't interesting, and I don't think the difference in focal range will make much of a difference to me. Is there a quality difference or anything else that differentiates these two super-zooms?

Just wondering if there's any good reason to trade my 18-200 for a 28-300 or if I'd just be wasting money. Thanks!

Welcome to the forums!

Simply put, you'll lose part of the wideangle, and gain some more telephoto. Quality should be mostly identical, but the weight will probably be more (as the 28-300 is a piece of full frame glass).

Depends on what you need, really.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

Thanks for the reply. I suspected there might not be a quality difference but you never know ... sometimes I've been unhappy with the focus on the 18-200 but that would likely be more due to the D40 than the lens. I'd bet moving up to the D7000 would produce better results.

I think I'd love to have the 28-300, coupled with the fast 14-24 f2.8 for interiors, but that's more lens than I can afford!

I agree with citruspers, depends what you are shooting. I would go back to some of your albums from your business trips and look at the focal lengths of your shots. See if u use certain ranges of lengths. If u are often shotting from 18-25, u might miss having the 18-200 and using the wider end of the range. Or maybe u zoom in alot and would take advantage of the 300 end. In any case I think both will perform similarly on your D7000 so it depends on ur range. Ur right you could get the 28-300 and also a wide angle but then you might be defeating the whole purpose of what u like about the zoom lens in that you will having to be switching between lenses.

I myself have the D7000 and 18-200mm and for a hobbyist photographer like myself I love being able to shoot with one lens all day, quality is good enough for any prints I will be doing for my home and thats it!! I find myself loving architechture and landscapes so next on my list is the tokina 11-16mm as i want something a bit wider. SO my advice is to see what focal lengths u use and what u want the lens for then make ur decision.

Thanks Gregv ...Before I got the 18-200 I carried the 18-55 kit and 55-200 that came with my D40 package, and I was switching lenses constantly. I think the 18-200 sufficiently captures the range I need. My only gripe is low-light situations indoors that force use of the flash, I was thinking that adding a fast low zoom would take care of these situations. But you're right, I got the super-zoom to avoid carrying more lenses! I think I'll get the D7000 and shoot with the 18-200 for a while and see how I feel. Lenses can always be added.

Of course, the D7000 has to get restocked first

I too have a D40 which has served me well for several years. I am a casual photographer who takes photos mainly of family, sporting events, and nature. So an all-purpose lens is important. The kit lens(18-55) is just too limiting. I would like to buy the 18-200 lens for the D40 but am wondering about the limitations of my D40 with the upgraded lens. I would appreciate any feedback so I can make a wise decision about this purchase. Would it be smarter to buy a better camera body like the D7000 that everyone is praising? Thank you.

If you have the feeling that your current 18-55mm kit-lens is limiting you, you should just go with that insight. I assume that you would like to get "closer" to the action by having a longer focal length available for some shots. if this is the case you should go for the 18-200 instead of the 28-300. I allows you to zoom to almost 4x the length/magnification of your current lens wihout swapping lenses and losing valuable time in doing so. But if you have time the Nikon 70-300 VR lens is also a very good alternative. Just keep in mind that you will be needing to exchange lenses should the 70mm on the short end of the tele-zoom turns out to be too long for a shooting situation.
The 28-300 is effectively too long on the short end to let you get away with just one lens: you need to keep your 18-55 (and carry it with you) for those situations where 28mm (=42mm equivalent focal length on a full-frame/film-body) is already too long.

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

Hmmm, personally I'd go for the 18-200 because I like wide-angle landscape shots.

That being said, I remember there being a Lightroom Plugin...I think it was called "Jf data plot" or something that let you see the focal length distribution of the shots you've taken. As mentioned before, it seems like that might be able to help you make a more informed decision!