Would you ditch the super-zoom?

[super duper]

Hi, I"m after lens help (again!). I currently have a
~35mm f/1.8 (great for kids snaps, which is the majority of my shooting, but too short for chasing them around the park etc)
~60mm f/2.8 macro (macro is just for fun, use this for portraits when the 35mm is too wide. I love that I can still get real close up, but the AF is too slow and the lens is too short to be chasing the kids around)
~135mm f/2 DC (AF is far far far far too slow for action shots, but this lens takes a GORGEOUS picture).
~18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (my jack-of-all-trades lens).

I am considering selling the superzoom and buying a 300mm f/4. Would you do it? Currenly I use the superzoom all the time, primarily at 200mm.

I know I will be loosing all wide-angle capabilities by doing this, but hope to also add a dedicated wide angle at christmas time (If I don't sell the superzoom I would probably have to choose between a wide angle and the300mm)

[arthurking83]

I'd definitely ditch the 18-200mm for only two other updates:
Either the 300mm/4 or for more versatility the Sigma 100-300mm/4, plus a super wide angle lens along the lines of a (Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 or 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6) or (Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8).

In general when you want wide, you really want wide ... not some psuedo 18mm wide-ish-ness :p

I can still see the value in having an allrounder lens for those times when you want to travel very lightly.. ie. just a camera and lens and not with all the kit.
Although, if you suddenly find yourself afflicted with this condition again in the future(if you do get rid of the 18-200mm) then something like the 18-105 could be had for a very reasonable sum!

[super duper]

Thanks King, I just listed it for sale :) I agree, 18mm is no where near as wide as I want to be, but beggars can't be choosers! If I can sell my zoom, I can't see me getting 3 new lenses; so it'll only be the 300mm for now, and the wide angle for xmas. I am fortunate enough to have a back-up camera, so I'm thinking put a small lens on the back up camera for when the action gets close....hopefully I won't miss the versatility of the zoom too much.

[gqtuazon]

300mm f4 is a great lens but based on my experience, I easily get tired with just one FL. You can only take so many pictures using that lens (mostly with wildlife and sports). But if that is your primary reason, then that's ok. I would have held a little longer with your 18-200mm just in case the 300mm prime doesn't work well with your shooting style. Now you won't have a good travel lens just in case.

[super duper]

This has been my theory for a long time Glenn, but now I'm really wanting the 300mm and this is the only way to speed up the process. I do worry I won't have the versatility anymore, but I don't do a lot of travelling. The 300mm will be used for my kids sports and general out-doors stuff.

Although, having said all this, it's not sold yet! I won't be negotiating on my price, if I don't get any takers it's not going any where. And I just noticed a few of the online retailers don't have any 300mm lenses in stock :eek:

[RRRoger]

I got rid of my 18-200 "the only DX lens I would have if I could only have one" and bought a Nikkor 10-24 and 28-300.
The 28-300 is quite good at 300 and even better at 28mm plus it can also be used on FX.
I use mine on a D7000 for Sports.

If I were to go with a prime 300, it would be the f/2.8 as it works a lot better with a teleconverter than others.

Good Nikon Glass, especially used, is an investment that will go up in value.

[arthurking83]

I got rid of my 18-200 "the only DX lens I would have if I could only have one" and bought a Nikkor 10-24 and 28-300.
......

I'm not sure I understand? :confused:

If the 18-200 is the only DX lens you could have if you could only have one, why did you swap it for a 10-24mm then?

[super duper]

If I were to go with a prime 300, it would be the f/2.8

Financially, this is not an option :(

Thanks for the advice and thoughts :D

[RRRoger]

I'm not sure I understand? :confused:

If the 18-200 is the only DX lens you could have if you could only have one, why did you swap it for a 10-24mm then?

I am not limited to just one lens and each of the 10-24 & 28-300 are not only better but cover a much broader range between them.

[RRRoger]

Financially, this is not an option :(

Thanks for the advice and thoughts :D

I would own both the 300 f/2.8 and the 200 f/2.0 if I could justify the cost as a business expense, and
although I consider them a very good investment, especially used, I do not have that much cash.

You can buy a 28-300 for far less.

[Speedway]

For the little you would get for the 18-200 second hand I would keep it and get the wide angle then save for the 300 prime, I have the Sigma 18-250 and am more than happy with it at the moment. I would love the 70-200 F2.8L but if ever it is years away.
Keith.