Should I sell my Nikon 18-105 and replace with Nikon 18-200?

I want the sharpest images possible. Which lens will give me the highest quality images? The additional range of the 18-200 is a bonus but I'm mainly concerned with picture quality.

Both are of good quality, but the smaller range of the 18 to 105 means less stress for the lens designer, thus very likely a better lens for sharpness and linear drawing. If you can try the one against the other then do so, otherwise stick with what you have got to avoid probable disappointment.

The 18-200mm has pretty good quality, but it sags in parts of the range. The 18-105mm is better. If you want to extend your range it would be better to add a 55-200mm AF-S VR or 70-300 AF-S VR. (Don't get the cheap 70-300mm.)

I have both lenses, and the 18-200 is a fine lens. It's build quality is superior to the 18-105mm. For one, the lens has a metal mount - and the 18-105's mount is plastic. That is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.

While there are some very minor distortion issues with the 18-200, it's not normally noticeable. I bought the lens so that I could take it on cruises and would not have to lug my heavy bazooka-sided Nikon 80-200 f/2.8.

So I suppose in some sense I use the 18-200 as a specialty lens, but it's my all around walk-about lens when I'm traveling.

I bought mine at Nikon's outlet store.

http://shop.nikonusa.com/...D.43897200

They sell refurbished lenses, and I bought mine for under $700, which is $150 less than retail. They also have the earlier model of that lens at their outlet store from time-to-time, for about $75 less. There's really not much difference between the two lenses. Both are actually VR II versions, but the newest lens (the one I have) has a zoom lock on the barrel to prevent zoom creep.

If you go to Nikon's Outlet, know that stock varies from day-to-day, and they don't always have any single item in stock. There's only a 90 day warranty on the lens though, rather than the normal 1yr/5yr.

Check out Ken Rockwell's review of both 18-200s and the 18-105.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/...0mm-ii.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/.../18200.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/...-105mm.htm

While I don't agree with everything Ken Rockwell says, I do agree with him in this instance.

The Nikon 18-200mm is pretty much the best superzoom on the market (ignoring the $2300 Canon 28-300mm L), but if you want the best possible image quality, then superzooms are not the place to look - they typically have the worst image quality of all types of lenses (albeit the Nikon one holds its ground fairly well).

Look at zooms with less relative difference between the wide and the long end, or ideally at prime lenses (which don't zoom at all). These pretty much always offer the very best image quality you can get for the money, as they are the easiest to design and manufacture - the lens design need not bother with zooming stuff, and thus can be optimized for sharpness and other quality related things without having to compromise on them.

The 18-200mm outperforms the 18-105mm lens, but neither will give you the sharpness of a good quality prime.