18-200 nikon vr / or not.

[ewhalen]

Because the specs are awful? Because I've held one and used one?

I'm just curious why a Canon guy feels he is qualified to comment on a Nikon lens. The best test of a photographer is the images they produce, not the stuff they have. Not every lens is for everyone. I own a Quantaray lens, low end price, not the best glass, but it fits the need I have for it and was worth the money spent. One man's junk is another's treasure. enuf said in my opinion.

Came across PBASE and thought, this looks like a really useful and interesting site, so decided to sign up...........but I do wonder and hope that this thread is not typical. What started as a request by someone for help and opinions seems to have generated into a nasty slanging match mainly due to the snidey, uncalled for and self opinionated comments of one person.
Not all of us I suspect, as normal down to earth working class photographers, can afford endless purchases of prime lenses, so we make the best use of our meager supplies of cash that we can. Also "one mans meat is another mans poison". It always seems that in any forum there are always those that seem to get enjoyment out of putting people down and belittling their efforts and opinions.............perhaps they could all get together and start their own forum and leave the rest of us to enjoy being affable and pleasant in a forum that we can enjoy and learn from.

He asked for opinions on this lens, I gave them. I'm a "working man" just as much as the next person, but would rather save for a year or two years to afford a nice lens I will enjoy for years...rather than buy a cheap zoom lens that wont last me long at all.

[p6steve]

Personally, I have no experience with this lens, but I pay a great deal of attention to and have a lot of respect for this guy......and he says it's a miracle of a lens!

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

I've bought a lot of stuff on his recommendations and have been nothing but amazed by what it can all do. I'm a keen amateur who's been using a D50 with the 18-70 for the last 18 months, but want something a bit more versatile. I've read perhaps 200 user reviews and 190 of them have been 100% positive. That's good enough for me.....

I'm on a budget and don't have money to fling around on three bodies and half a dozen prime lenses. I love my D50 and have no need for more pixels or more functions.
Oh yes - I just bought my 18-200 off ebay for the equivalent of £300 (once I've sold my 18-70). BARGAIN !!!

[onceagain]

oh, ok?

Because the specs are awful? Because I've held one and used one?

I'm just curious why a Canon guy feels he is qualified to comment on a Nikon lens. The best test of a photographer is the images they produce, not the stuff they have. Not every lens is for everyone. I own a Quantaray lens, low end price, not the best glass, but it fits the need I have for it and was worth the money spent. One man's junk is another's treasure. enuf said in my opinion.

Came across PBASE and thought, this looks like a really useful and interesting site, so decided to sign up...........but I do wonder and hope that this thread is not typical. What started as a request by someone for help and opinions seems to have generated into a nasty slanging match mainly due to the snidey, uncalled for and self opinionated comments of one person.
Not all of us I suspect, as normal down to earth working class photographers, can afford endless purchases of prime lenses, so we make the best use of our meager supplies of cash that we can. Also "one mans meat is another mans poison". It always seems that in any forum there are always those that seem to get enjoyment out of putting people down and belittling their efforts and opinions.............perhaps they could all get together and start their own forum and leave the rest of us to enjoy being affable and pleasant in a forum that we can enjoy and learn from.

He asked for opinions on this lens, I gave them. I'm a "working man" just as much as the next person, but would rather save for a year or two years to afford a nice lens I will enjoy for years...rather than buy a cheap zoom lens that wont last me long at all.

[daanstringer]

i use the 18-200 and i really don't like the lensdistortion, but i never used another lens so i don't know how bad their distortion would be

[inukshuk94]

Now we are talking about a walk around lens so we can't compare this with primes or 2.8 zooms. I have the 18-200 VR added to my list and love it. PERIOD. It's the best one out there with the same range. If I want something better, well it's simple I just put it on. But for an all in one it's the best out there so far. Id say go for it and have fun.

[e2thaa]

as a kit lens, the 18-200 goes with the d series nicely.
it is a one-lens solution for those who need/want such a thing.
but it's no better optically than the 18-70 or even the 18-55. as others have pointed out, its plastic and slowwwwww.
and at $750 -- for a while it was going for $900 which is ridiculous for a non-pro lens -- it's over priced.
the $500 70-300 vr is better; not only is it a better lens with less distortion, but it makes more sense to have vr on a 300mm lens. with good technique and a fast shutter, i can handhold at 200mm with my tokina 24-200, which only cost me $300 at B&H and is made of metal. metal, i said.
now if the 18-200 was a 2.8 it might be a better lens. but you cant get a 2.8 11x zoom because nobody makes one.

[oktobersky]

I have it...it's a perfect walking around/vacation lens for DSLR photos without a huge bag to carry around on vacation. And even though it's slow, I've taken it to concerts and gotten really nice shots with it. It's a great all-purpose lens....but don't expect it to be more than that.

[alrmj]

Hey I use it for all my shots...

Have a look at my gallery and let me know what you think......

Ali

[buckphotography]

I read about half of responses to the questions and I am simply amazed. I own a d70, d200, 18-70 zoom, 18-200 vr, 80-400 vr, and 50mm 1.4. In my world, the most important things I create are small works of arts (remember, this is my world). I started shooting again about 4 years ago and I have recently realized that my “artâ€

[bertone61]

Funny thread.... "Mine is bigger than yours" I have often heared in playschool...
I know a lot of so called pros using prime lenses. However, many pics of these guys are just crap and I would never put them online.

Why not use the 18-200? First of all I can only recommend to test it if possible. Forget Ken Rockwell, forget the numerous tests. Pictures are always very subjective, what the testers may like could be crap in your eyes. So go and talk to 18-200VR - users and look at their pictures. Find out if they're a treated or not. Consider what for you will need the lens, if the speed and AF-speed is okay for the pics you want to shoot.
If all is okay go and get the darn thing if you like it and do not listen to what self proclaimed specialists tell you.

If this does not help you read what buckphotography wrote. And read it again and again

Just a hint, consider the 55-200VR if you do not need the range between 18 and 50MM. It makes even better pictures than the overall good 70-300VR, only the AF is remarkably slower....

Regards
S.

[tuckeruk]

The 18-200mm is a great lens for what it is - a super zoom, with all the negatives that entails.

Personally I think it's prudent to invest slightly more in the optically superior 18-70mm 70-300mm VR combo.

I wonder about anyone who worries they'll miss a shot because they don't have the right lens on, do you guys never eat/sleep/go to the bathroom? I imagine I miss thousands of shots daily!

Hope that helps.

Geoff

[tuckeruk]

Just a hint, consider the 55-200VR if you do not need the range between 18 and 50MM. It makes even better pictures than the overall good 70-300VR, only the AF is remarkably slower....

Regards
S.

If you check the Photozone tests you'll see the 55-200mm VR tested has higher distortions, increased vignetting, lower and less even MTF readings, and higher CA when compared to the tested 70-300mm VR. Not entirely surprising when one considers the 70-300's extra ED element and full frame design.

Just a thought.

Geoff

[rojay]

I have had this lens for over a year and love it. I bought it as a kit with a D200 body and never for a second regretted my decision. Perhaps the greatest all around lens ever built, by Nikon at least. I use it when I only want to carry ONE lens.

To the guy who thinks this lens sucks:

Lens specs are not your biggest problem. Arguing specs in a forum like this is nothing more than a pissing contest. It is not going to improve your technique, lack of imagination, or inability to be there at the magic moment.

This lens, and virtually every prime or zoom lens made, by Canon, or Nikon, or even Quantaray for that matter, are capable of recording amazing images in the right hands. Personal preferences and requirements are far more important considerations than noise, sharpness, distortion, blah, blah, blah blah blah blah.

You should spend more time shooting pictures and less time collecting gear, changing lenses and talking trash on a bulletin board.

One lens.

Take more photos.

[bertone61]

Just a hint, consider the 55-200VR if you do not need the range between 18 and 50MM. It makes even better pictures than the overall good 70-300VR, only the AF is remarkably slower....

Regards
S.

If you check the Photozone tests you'll see the 55-200mm VR tested has higher distortions, increased vignetting, lower and less even MTF readings, and higher CA when compared to the tested 70-300mm VR. Not entirely surprising when one considers the 70-300's extra ED element and full frame design.

Just a thought.

Geoff

Mh... yes the test says so. Indeed. I have gathered different experiences but it is not impossible that the 70-300 we compared was defective. I talked to a well known pro yesterday and he confirmed similar experiences and he also said that the image quality of the 55-200VR is slightly better than on the 70-300VR and he confirmed that the AF is very slow (on the 55-200). And now we arrived exactly on that point where I say: always test the lenses... too many could be's.....

However, I will test the 70-300 again and see what I will find out, then come back to you...

Regards
Steve

[ewhalen]

I have had this lens for over a year and love it. I bought it as a kit with a D200 body and never for a second regretted my decision. Perhaps the greatest all around lens ever built, by Nikon at least. I use it when I only want to carry ONE lens.

To the guy who thinks this lens sucks:

Lens specs are not your biggest problem. Arguing specs in a forum like this is nothing more than a pissing contest. It is not going to improve your technique, lack of imagination, or inability to be there at the magic moment.

This lens, and virtually every prime or zoom lens made, by Canon, or Nikon, or even Quantaray for that matter, are capable of recording amazing images in the right hands. Personal preferences and requirements are far more important considerations than noise, sharpness, distortion, blah, blah, blah blah blah blah.

You should spend more time shooting pictures and less time collecting gear, changing lenses and talking trash on a bulletin board.

One lens.

Take more photos.

They can all take photos....unless it is too dark, the subject is moving too fast, is too far away, etc.

I'd rather have 2 cameras with two lenses on me...deal with the weight...and have the right tool for the job....than have a minivan of camera lenses.