Nikon have just reported that my Nikon 18-200 requires £300 worth repairs. That’s half the cost of buying a new one, so a repair doesn’t really make sense for a 7 year old lens, particularly as most of the working parts will have to be replaced.Thanks

at one time i had the 55-200vr. a nice and lightweight  sharp lens. going for a song on the used market as there are so many around. i only got shot of mine because i was getting more use and reach out of the 70-300 vr.the 55-200 vr is a good choice on a budget, dont skimp and the non vr version.

Could go with the best non-F2.8 zoom combo for DX - a 16-85 paired with a 70-300vr.    If you need less weight, pick one of the two that fits the situation.If you really want to go light, and only one lens, and it has to be on a DSLR, then you're back to a superzoom.   Pick any of them - my opinion is that they are all more similar than different.   Nikon is probably better, but you pay a lot more for small improvements.   I don't think any of them are sharp on the long end, just adequate.Another two-lens combo that's light and cheap - 18-105vr and 55-200vr.

The 18-105 kit lens is as good as the more expensive 16-85. On the used market I purchased an 18-105 for $250 US. for what it is ,it is hard to beat on price and performance.

When I had my D7000, I really liked the 18-70 lens on it. I got one for $125 used and it was my prefered walkaround lens when I didnt want to lug around my 24-70 2.8.

The 24-120 f4 is the perfect "all in one" lens IMHO ....

NikonManSoCal wrote:The 24-120 f4 is the perfect "all in one" lens IMHO ....On a crop sensor camera? One would presume that the O.P. was using a crop sensor camera if he had an 18-200. This makes the 24-120 somewhat compromised with respect to its wide angle capability.

I would repair it. At the moment you are without a lens. By doing the repair you will end up with a good 18-200 at half the price of a new one and you will know it's history.To replace it with something better? On DX I would get a 17-55 f2.8 to compliment your 70-300.I wouldn't go and pay the same as what that repair bill is for a lesser lens.The 24-120 f4 is a good option but as stated above, wide ind is a compromise on DX.Steve

I prefer the 16-85 to one starting at 18mm, as it provides significantly wider angle (and combines ideally with the 70-300 in your kit). Of course if this does not matter to you,  the suggested lenses may be ok. I found that the 18-200 was poor at both extremes of its range and felt  the long end was a waste for me.

breivogel wrote:I prefer the 16-85 to one starting at 18mm, as it provides significantly wider angle (and combines ideally with the 70-300 in your kit). Of course if this does not matter to you,  the suggested lenses may be ok. I found that the 18-200 was poor at both extremes of its range and felt  the long end was a waste for me.Good advice. The OP will be spending about GBP150 over the top of having the 18-200 repaired. Also, counter to my previous post, the 18-200 is as you say, weak at the  ends, and the long end  is covered by his 70-300. This lens my cost him more but his kit will be better for it.

Whilst the 18-105 may be an excellent quality lens, I would rather have something longer so that I can reach interesting birds etc etc. I have no intention of carrying my 70-300 in a back pack. It's far too heavy.I know that the 18-200 had lots of faults but they didn't have much of an impact on my photography - the lens is more than adequate for my skills. Has anyone also used the Tamron? Is it markedly worse than the 18-200?Thanks for the comments so far

If you are travelling/touring with only one body then I'd only take one lens - the Nikon 18-300. Who wants to be fart @rsing around changing lenses (unless you have heaps of time and no-one else is waiting for you to get the shot)? Otherwise take both bodies - one with a 16-85 and the other with 70-300 - then you're covered for all contingencies!

Meyricke wrote:Whilst the 18-105 may be an excellent quality lens, I would rather have something longer so that I can reach interesting birds etc etc. I have no intention of carrying my 70-300 in a back pack. It's far too heavy.I know that the 18-200 had lots of faults but they didn't have much of an impact on my photography - the lens is more than adequate for my skills. Has anyone also used the Tamron? Is it markedly worse than the 18-200?Thanks for the comments so farAs much as I do not like super ratio zoom lenses, I think Nikon's 18-200 is probably the best out there. I don't think that Tamron is as good or even that close.A couple of years ago my gal decided she wanted a super ratio zoom lens. We bought the Nikon and over time both decided we did not like the IQ. The contrast was muddy and it just wasn't sharp at 200mm. We sold it and tried the Tamron 18-270 and both of us were even more dissatisfied with the output. We also tried the Sigma 18-200 and it might have been the worst. She now uses an older Nikon 18-135 without VR and is totally happy. It doesn't breath much so she's close to the length of the focus breathing 18-200 at some distances.If we were to do it again, and if she was willing to put up with the contrast and sharpness, we'd get the Nikon 18-200 over everything else we tried.For the money, I'd get your lens repaired. You'll know it's in good condition and it will be cleaned, callibrated and updated by Nikon. It's hard to beat that with anything new at anywhere near the price. Moreover, I think it's the best of the bunch.Good luck and don't drop your lens.

I wouldn't replace it, if I still had remaining a serviceable 18-55 and a 70-300VR. The latter is less than 200 grams heavier than the 18-200, and will probably be in the pack and so weighing on your neck less. Weigh that out in water, and take that much less. You'll have some reach in case you see distant wildlife. Or if much reduced weight really matters, get a smaller travel system (I use a Nikon V1).

I don't know what is wrong with your lens but if it is no good to you now you may get a bit for it if you sell it as faulty on Ebay. It is surprising just how much some people will pay for damaged or broken camera gear.As for a replacement I can only advise getting another one exactly the same. The Nikon 18-200mm vr is by far the best lens in it's class. Forget the Tamron & Sigma they are not even close.

Leonard Migliore wrote:NikonManSoCal wrote:The 24-120 f4 is the perfect "all in one" lens IMHO ....On a crop sensor camera? One would presume that the O.P. was using a crop sensor camera if he had an 18-200. This makes the 24-120 somewhat compromised with respect to its wide angle capability.Good point Leonard - i missed that one! thanks!

it's much better than the 18-xxx zooms....Good luck

+1 for that - if my 18-200 died then the 18-300 is what I would replace it with

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I have decided to have the 18-200 repaired.The shorter lenses - 18-105 etc - don't give me enough reach. The 18-300 is longer than I need and is much heavier - an important issue when you are an old man with arthritis!Several people suggest that the 18-200 is a much better lens than the third party products and that once it has been repaired by Nikon it will also have been cleaned, calibrated etc etc. I can only hope that Nikon do a good job!