Is the 18-200mm lens a dud?

[blw777]

My wife and I have both the Nikkor 18-200VR and the Sigma 18-200OS. Both are sharp and are great walkaround lenses. I find the build better on the Sigma but the Nikkor is one stop faster.

Slight correction: the Nikkor is one third stop faster, and only at the long end. (f/5.6 vs f/6.3. A full stop faster would be f/6.3 vs f/4.5.)

 

[weiran]

A full stop would be from f/5.6 to f/8

 

[LyndeeLoo]

I wouldn't give up my 18-200mm for anything. I find it to be a great all-around lens and I've had no problems with creep or anything else.

 

[nht800]

Your 18-200 samples above look much sharper and more contrast than the one I had but sold recently to get 16-85 + 70-300 VR. My old 18-200 was usually over exposured ( in day light) with my D80. ( I don't get this problem with my 16-85 or 70-300 VR).
At present, I'm very happy with my new combo. Wide at 16mm and long above 200mm are very helpful but I still miss the range from 85-200mm in a walk-around lens. Surely, I will buy the 18-200 again in couple years if Nikon update its optic, or maybe a Nikon 18-250! Tamron has 18-270 ,why don't you, Nikon?
I think your copies in this thread are pretty good. I saw many great pictures produced by this lens.

 

[RayLarson]

A full stop would be from f/5.6 to f/8

Obviously math is not my strong suit...LOL. Yes a full stop is f8 from f5.6
Generally speaking the Nikkor is slightly faster at 200 than the Sigma. :smile:

 

[RayLarson]

Your 18-200 samples above look much sharper and more contrast than the one I had but sold recently to get 16-85 + 70-300 VR. My old 18-200 was usually over exposured ( in day light) with my D80. ( I don't get this problem with my 16-85 or 70-300 VR).
At present, I'm very happy with my new combo. Wide at 16mm and long above 200mm are very helpful but I still miss the range from 85-200mm in a walk-around lens. Surely, I will buy the 18-200 again in couple years if Nikon update its optic, or maybe a Nikon 18-250! Tamron has 18-270 ,why don't you, Nikon?
I think your copies in this thread are pretty good. I saw many great pictures produced by this lens.

I use a D80 and shoot at-0.3 to -0.7ev. That seems to clear up the cronic overexposure of the D80 meter

 

[nht800]

I use a D80 and shoot at-0.3 to -0.7ev. That seems to clear up the cronic overexposure of the D80 meter

Agree! I did the same exposure compensation with my 18-200. However, when I use my D80 with 16-85, the exposures are just right straight out the camera. Although D80 tends to be over exposured a little bit, I think the problem came out from the 18-200 about 90%, not only the D80 meter problem. Or because D80 and 18-200 have not very good communication??It seems 18-200 looks much better on D300 as I saw on the net.
Here are some shots with 16-85 and D80, pointed to the beach ( when I were in CA last month), no EV compensations, straight out from my D80. These were resized for web site, so look not as sharp as the original sizes.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[fitzz47]

I sold my 18-135,18-55vr and my 55-200vr, and got my 18-200vr.It has not been off the camera since i got it.

 

[MikeT]

Wow! Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions!

have you thought about keeping your 18-135 and adding a 70-300 VR?

Just a thought

Thanks Edward
I'm looking for a replacement for my 18-135 if I pass it on to my brother. So if the 18-200 is comparable to 18-135 then I'll probably go with it. I shoot mostly at the wide end, but wouldn't mind having a little extra zoom on the long end either.

...Also, here are a couple of threads that talk some about the lens:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=177255&highlight=18-200mm


https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=186206&highlight=18-200mm

Thanks Scott!
I don't know how I missed this thread. This is some good reading.

My copy is plenty sharp. I would rather have one 18-200 than a 18-135 and 70-300. Lens creep is aggravating at times, but not as much as carrying two or three lenses around.

Thanks John
The lens creep does concern me. I wonder if it's been corrected on the newer VRII release?

short answer: yes
long answer: yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Yes. Please elaborate!

I sold my 18-135,18-55vr and my 55-200vr, and got my 18-200vr.It has not been off the camera since i got it.

Jim,
Was it the newer VRII?


MikeT

 

[LRogers]

I went to the 18-200 even though I already had the 18-135. I wanted to be able to tack on the Canon close up lens for a lower budget macro solution and the 72mm size of the 18-200 allowed for that. The 18-200 is now always on my camera. I too have the 70-300 and I love it, but I'm saving up for the 70-200 2.8 (Again the options abound). Eventually, I'll add the 24-700 2.8.

I've had the zoom creep that others refer to; but for my price range, the 18-200 gave me just a little more than the 135 and I don't find it hard to control unless I'm leaning over or pointing straight up. I had great shots from both. I did have some issues with the 18-135 were the lens would loosen up and give me cpu errors. I've not had any issues with the 18-200.

 

[davidwegs]

I shoot with a variety of lenses, so bear that in mind.

Lens list (in the covered range of the 18-200 for Nikon at least) is:

Tokina: 16-50 & 50-135
Sigma 20/1.8, 50/1.4
Tamron 17-50


Nikon:
17-55
18-200
35
50 in the 1.4 and 1.8
85 in the 1.4 and 1.8
70-200/Vr

They are the lenses that the 18-200 covers for me.

Does the 18-200 fair well against that venerable set... yes.

Is it as good as some? No, but pretty good non the less.

My main reason for this lens is as a backup to all the others. I do use it frequently when travelling and for personal trips. I am pleased with the results from it and a D300 body. I am currently liking it on the D90 too.

If I had to do it again, and I paid $799.00 for mine, I would.

 

[tamhas]

For me, the zoom creep isn't much of an issue in practical terms. I only see it when I have taken a shot at something other than 18mm and then walk around with the camera dangling. If the lens is parked at 18mm, it seems not to creep. At least so far. But, in practical terms when shooting, one's hand is on the zoom, so creep is not an issue then.

I'm absolutely tickled with mine. It covers a tremendous range and seems very sharp. The only exposure issues I've had were either because I accidentally nudged one of the settings or because of subject matter, i.e. white flowers and black ravens ... but that's not the fault of either the lens or the camera. I do have an interest in going wider than 18mm, so got the Sigma 10-20, which I am also very pleased with. Now the question is whether to add the Sigma 150-500mm or not.

 

[stphoto]

Here's another fan of the 18-200VR. I paid a premium for it in the Spring of 2007 because I was a couple of weeks away from a trip and didn't want to spend a lot of time shuffling lens. I liked it so much I have kept it on my D70 most of the time since unless I'm shooting wildlife (80-400VR) or sports (70-200VR). As a travel lens, it can't be beat. I hope Nikon decides to update their 28-300G to VR for when I move to FX in the future.

Here's why I love this lens. I took this in the Foggy Bottom Washtington Metro station hand held (and leaning aginst a pole) at a shutter speed of 1/15th of a second at 18mm.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Then at 200mm inside the Air & Space Museum at 1/30th.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Pa]

Here's another fan of the 18-200VR. I paid a premium for it in the Spring of 2007 because I was a couple of weeks away from a trip and didn't want to spend a lot of time shuffling lens. I liked it so much I have kept it on my D70 most of the time since unless I'm shooting wildlife (80-400VR) or sports (70-200VR). As a travel lens, it can't be beat. I hope Nikon decides to update their 28-300G to VR for when I move to FX in the future.

Nice examples, Scott. You can see I'm a fan, as I have two - one for the wife's D40 and one for me on the D200 for travel.

I think you mean the 28-200G. That's a pretty good lens too that we got a lot of use from before the 18-200 became available.

 

[chettrick]

I like my 18-200 VR, don't know if it is VRII. ONly comes off the D300 when I put on Sigma 50-500 for the long range. Soccer, wildlife sort of things.

Got a week long trip next week, lots fo shooting but don't paln on changing lenses unless the distance is needed. Wanted to get a TC for it but have nto being able to find one yet. Read that the conflict when lens at 18mm area.

 

[RickW]

Nht800 - you do realize that you have something stuck on your sensor, don't you? It is present in all of the posted shots.

Upper left corner.

 

[xenonsupra]

Care to elaborate?

Yes, I owned one for about 6 months. Took over 10,000 pictures with it.

Everyone is posting pictures resized down to about 25% of the original size, so of course they are going to look great. If you zoom in to 100% the amount of chromatic aberration and lack of sharpness can really be seen.

Both pics are straight out of the camera.

Example of 100% crop 18-200

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Example of 100% crop of 28-70

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

There is a pretty noticeable difference between the two if you ask me...

 

[stphoto]

Nice examples, Scott. You can see I'm a fan, as I have two - one for the wife's D40 and one for me on the D200 for travel.

I think you mean the 28-200G. That's a pretty good lens too that we got a lot of use from before the 18-200 became available.

Whoops...well, I do hope Nikon does make a 28-300VR to keep the same focal length as the 18-200VR DX. The range is perfect for travel and walking about.

 

[Randy]

mine is over a year old and doesn't creep

 

[fitzz47]

Wow! Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions!


Thanks Edward
I'm looking for a replacement for my 18-135 if I pass it on to my brother. So if the 18-200 is comparable to 18-135 then I'll probably go with it. I shoot mostly at the wide end, but wouldn't mind having a little extra zoom on the long end either.



Thanks Scott!
I don't know how I missed this thread. This is some good reading.




Thanks John
The lens creep does concern me. I wonder if it's been corrected on the newer VRII release?



Yes. Please elaborate!




Jim,
Was it the newer vrII

yes it is