18-200 or 18-135mm definitely is the best choice. If you want a bit more 'punch' in your images, 24-105mm is your next choice.

Have it

Wait, the 18-200 was actually $1,020. The 18-300 is $999. That's weird the better one is cheaper. At least, i think it's better.
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2196/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-300mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR.html

I paid $800 for the 18-200. More range doesn't necessarily mean it's better.

True. I heard it can get soft around the ends with the huge ranges (18-200 and above). Is that true with yours? Would it even be noticeable at all for me or is that mainly an issue for the portrait photographers. Wait, do you have it on a Nikon?

Every superzoom lens sacrifices a of lot quality. But if you intent to use the pics for internet galleries etc. max 1280p it wont be even noticable.

The only problems I've had at long focal lengths has been when I'm zooming to 200 and the car is getting even farther away. But when it stays in range, I've never had any problem, at least from the lens' standpoint. This was taken at 200mm and the Jalpa is perfectly sharp (at least in the original photo). But the sweet spot is around 100mm. Yes I have it on the D3100 which honestly is one of the...I don't wanna say worst cameras, but it's one of the most basic.

Oh, that's a really good looking photo. I guess those people on the internet writing the reviews just grade way too hard then or are trying to do the lens isn't intended for. I use a D3200 which is pretty similar to your camera. My last two questions are, does the range of 18 work well too? And is the lens as fast as an 18-55 so i could like, take photos of a car driving by at 75 mph while i'm going 75 mph?

The low end of the range looks great in terms of photo quality, but it doesn't feel quite as wide as the low end of the 18-55. I haven't actually compared them side-by-side in that sense but just from a feel while shooting, it didn't seem like I could get as much in the frame as I did before. But that will rarely come into play, although when it does it's a bit annoying and helpless lol. And so far I've had a lot of trouble with moving shots (beyond just the car cruising towards me at low speed), but I think it's more user error than the lens. I never had an unsharp shot on the 18-55, but I was letting the camera do all the work. Now that I'm taking more control, I'm making mistakes here and there.

Sounds good. I'll probably buy that then and just keep the 18-55 in my bag to put on when on the throughway and use the 18-200 everywhere else. Thank you.

I was about to say. I shopped lenses a month ago and figured it wasn't worth getting a 18-200, even though it is a hassle to change between the 18-55 and 55-200.