This weekend I went through the exercise of putting together an online gallery. I gathered a bunch of my better images and fiddled with the pages. When I got finished, I noticed that I had a fair number of images from the 18-200VR in there. I went back and actually counted, and I was floored by what I found. The 18-200 was indeed well represented - in fact, it was the top producer, with 19% of all images. After that were the Sigma 10-20, Nikon 35-70/f2.8 and 200/f4 Micro, and the 10.5mm took 5th place, each with about 9%. 19 lenses had at least one in the collection. The interesting thing about this is that I almost never bring the 18-200 when I am going out on a photo expedition. If I'm headed to Yosemite for the week, the 18-200 stays home. If I go to a baseball game, there's no point to bringing it unless it's a day game. And it isn't suited to some sorts of work, such as birding. And even with that sort of a disadvantage, it still produced almost twice as many in the gallery as the next closest lens. That surprised me. A lot. The particularly salient thing here is that these weren't chosen from of all the shots that weren't the back of the lenscap. These were chosen from the ones I like best, and I chose the approx 0.8% based on how good the image looked overall - composition, image quality, processing, the whole chain. I put a whole bunch into the gallery, and then I removed ones that weren't up to par. Bear in mind also that I have a lot of good glass - 35-70/f2.8, 80-200/f2.8, 200/f4 Micro, 135/f2, Tamron 90/f2.8, 35/f1.4 are all in the category of "I haven't heard anything negative about these" and I have confidence in most of the rest (eg Bigma, 55/f2.8 Micro). And as noted, that's what I take when I'm bent on producing good images. Oh - and I've only owned the 18-200 for about half the period that contributed to the collection. If I'd have had it throughout the whole period, the proportion might have been even higher. (Note that the same could also be said of many of the other lenses that I've acquired relatively recently, especially the 35/f1.4 and 80-200/f2.8.) Interestingly, I own four 50-something mm lenses, and the three non-macros collectively struck out: a total goose egg. I constantly see people told that the 50/f1.8 is a must-have, and I've always been skeptical. Now I know why: I don't use it much and I produce fewer keepers from that length. The 18-200VR demonstrated its versatility, too: in ten categories, it placed in every single one except one, namely birds. This tells me a few things: - There are opportunities all the time, and a lot of them come when I don't have a lot of other gear with me. - The 18-200 definitely is not embarrassed in good company. Sure the copies on the web are only 1024 pix on a side, but I've just spent a week with the originals. I can easily pick out a couple of the lenses by their sharpness (notably the 200/f4 Micro and 35/f1.4) but not many of the others. - I need to think of the 18-200 in a different light, at least if there is enough light... If you're interested, the gallery is at http://images.blw.net/ngallery.