D3100 and Nikon 18-200mm VRII lenses

[robusto400]

I am considering buying the D3100 and want the vesatility of a single all purpose lenses with the Nikon 18-200mm VR. I am occasional photographer and want simplicity in use vs highly technical model (I have D70 and have found that too much). My question is that with the 3100 being small and lightweight compared to larger size models is the 18-200 so much larger in size and weight that it is awkward and bulky mounted on the 3100? Also is it work paying more for the Nikon 18-200 vs less expensive models from other manufacturers with same specs and focal length? Thanks for your input.

[Grandpaw]

The only thing I can comment on is the Nikon 18-200VR lens and i highly recommend it. I have one and have printed and sold many 20x30 inch pictures with this lens, Jeff

[Franglais]

I have used the Nikon 18-200VR with the D60 (same body as the D3100). It (almost) never seemed big or heavy to me. It's slightly bigger than the 18-70 that you have on your D70 but as far as I can make out it's similar to the 18-105 which is the most common kit lens with the D3100.

I say almost never - it's true that when I go out in a city at night I want something really small and discrete to do pictures in the street. The 35mm f1.8 is perfect for this with the D60 body.

After long experience of buying (and discarding) lenses my opinion is - you get what you pay for. An 18-200 is rocket science requiring lots of special glass to give you good results with such a wide zoom range. That's why the Nikon lens is so expensive.

[sic0048]

What did you not like about the D70? Depending on your answer, it might be that the D3100 isn't going to be any better. I'd hate for you to spend your money getting a new body and still be disappointed.

It might be that a photography course at Greenville Tech (or another venue) might be a better AND cheaper solution. Take a look at the Photography Fundamentals Course being offered in March.

[volks]

When I upgraged from my D5000, I looked at the D3100 but found it to just a tad too small and light for heavier lenses and bought the D7000. I'm not a big guy, but then, if it feels good in your hands... also agree with someones comment that it might not be much of an upgrade from the D70.

[Username2343]

I have a D60, and I like those bodies even thought they're plastic, and look funny with a bigger lens on them. I don't have an 18-200 lens but I do have a 70-300 which is big and heavy, no problems mounting that on it so far.

I'm not a professional or anything close to that, but I always thought Nikon lenses were overrated. Sigma and Tamron lenses are cheaper and I think are of the same quality as similar Nikons.

If I had to pick one lens to go with though, I would go with one of the 17-70 or 28-75 f2.8 lenses. You can get the same effect of 200mm by taking one to three steps forward.

Everything above is just my personal opinion, no real facts involved.

[n8]

I got the 18-200 shortly after buying my d40 a while back. While the lens is probably bigger then the camera body, it still handled pretty well. After upgrading to a d90, and then again to my d7000, it certainly feels better on a body with a bit more heft, and even better when adding a grip. I personally will probably always stay with Nikon glass, one, just because that's how I am, and two, my experience with third party lenses hasn't been the best. Not horrible mind you, but if I've got the Nikon version and a Tamron or Sigma version...the Nikon's gonna win in build, usability, and probably IQ. After buying my 60mm micro, I decided to compare it to my dad's Sigma 105mm macro. The sigma was sharp, but rendered colors (blacks at least) horribly. The af was also noisy and hunted a lot, and the overall operation of the lens was not intuitive. That's my 2 cents.