Looking for a new zoom lens for a DX frame Nikon, should I get Nikon 18-200mm or something else?

Question

(I thought this question would already have been asked/answered here, but if it is I can't find it.)

I'll soon be doing some handheld indoor/low-light photography, so I want a VR lens to help with that.

I currently have the following lenses:

• Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED DX - ok, but it doesn't have VR
• Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG - cheap and slow, doesn't have VR, and I often find myself wanting to go wider than 70mm.
• Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - ok, and good for low light, but at 30mm it can mean getting pretty close for head shots.

I have two camera bodies: a D300s and a D70.

So, my choices seem to be:

Option 1: 18-200mm VR, cost ~£545
Lens: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF DX VR 17/20 by Thom or Ken Rockwell

Option 2: 18-105mm VR and 55-200mm VR, cost ~£460
18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR for ~£220, 15/20 by Thom or Ken Rockwell
55-200mm f4-5.6 G AF-S DX VR IF-ED for ~£240, 16/25 by Thom or 23/25 from Ken Rockwell

Option 3: 16-85mm VR and 55-200mm VR, cost ~£675
16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR for ~£435, 16/20 by Thom or Ken Rockwell
55-200mm f4-5.6 G AF-S DX VR IF-ED for ~£240, 16/25 by Thom or 23/25 from Ken Rockwell

Option 4: Something else?

Comparing Option 1 and 2, Thom's review scores suggest the 18-200mm is better (although he still "highly recommends" the other two), and Ken Rockwell suggests go for the 18-200mm if the extra ~£100 isn't an issue.

Comparing Option 1 and 3, Thom's scores are a little closer, and Ken still suggests the 18-200mm, and spending £675 is really in the more-than-I-want-to-spend zone.

So, signs are pointing towards the 18-200mm being the best choice, but that's mostly only from two opinions (albeit from authorative/popular professionals).

Would anyone here recommend anything different?
(Or should I stop wasting time and just order the 18-200mm?)

More Details:

I'll happily photograph most things, but my main focus is landscapes, trees, and related stuff, and it's generally either handheld or on a beanbag. So yeah, VR will be a help when in a forest, or just random handheld shots.

But I am actively looking at upgrading now due to photographing soon at an event, which will be mostly people shots, so that is a factor too.

The event itself is all day long, will be both indoors and outside, so could be a range of different conditions and lighting types. However, the photos are for recording the event, and unlikely to be used past a web gallery, so print-quality shots are not essential.

Looking on dpreview (here and here), it seems the D300s might produce acceptable results (for web-gallery use) at ISO 3200/6400 with Noise Reduction? (The the exposure calculator gives 1/125s at f/4 for that.)

Given that, would any of the f/3.5-5.6 lenses above therefore be good enough, or is it pushing things a bit far?

Answer

It sounds like you want to be photographing people, and VR won't help anywhere near as much as a fast aperture for that kind of indoor photography.

For example, based on this exposure calculator, your shutter speed at ISO 1600 under "domestic interiors at night" lighting will be 1/15 at f/5.6 and 1/30 at f/4 -- neither of which is fast enough to stop even modest human motion, and VR won't help with that. Keep in mind that those zooms are only f/3.5 or f/4 at the very widest focal lengths.

I believe your options are:

• Fast prime (e.g. 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8), which would be well within your budget.
• Pro f/2.8 zoom, which is not in your budget for buying but probably is for renting.

The former would get you a shutter speed of ~1/180 and VR won't be necessary. You could probably even back off the ISO a bit.

w.r.t. More Details

None of the lenses you propose can be relied on to get good portraits inside. You may get lucky (e.g., exceptionally bright, people very still) but if you're being relied on as an event photographer, that's a huge risk. Keep in mind you'll be shooting at f/5.6 if you zoom in much. And VR can't be relied on for shake-free shots at 1/15 and 1/30; you'll have a higher hit rate, but it's no guarantee. Nikon will claim 4 stops improvement in workable shutter speed, but it's uncommon to actually get that.

I recommend you read this blog post over at LensRentals. It covers common mistakes for first-time event photographers, and I'm concerned that a number of them may be developing already.

Check more discussion of this question.