Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX

Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
220
Location
Huntingdon, UK
Hi,

Does anyone have an opinion on this lens? Thinking about putting in a preorder and collecting one next visit to US in May. Should I go for the faster 200VR?

Want a VR to replace my existing 18-135 kit lens.

Chris
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Belgium
I don't really understand the question...
you are asking if you should order a VW Golf/Rabbit or go for the Porsche Carrera 4

back to the 18-200VR, I am a big fan for the versatility even if the lens is not on par with pro-glass like the 70-200VR. Highly recommended as a travel/nonobtrusive lens.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,814
Location
Sanford, FL
Real Name
William Beem
It's a wonderful lens, but it's not all things to all people. I love mine, but I still need something faster. Keep in mind that VR lets you shoot at slower shutter speeds, but does nothing to help you increase shutter speed in lower light conditions.

The question you need to ask yourself is "how do I intend to use this lens?" If you want to walk the streets and shoot stationary subjects, it'll do fine. If you need to capture motion, it's not the right tool unless you're in a bright daylight area.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
300
Location
Bay Area, CA
I agree with Gugs, though I would make the example even more extreme: you're asking if you should get a Honda Accord or a Harley Davidson. It all comes down to use. The Harley sure is nice, but not when you need to carry 4 w/ luggage. I've got the 18-200 and love it.

Good luck,
Brian
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
220
Location
Huntingdon, UK
HHHmmmm....I'd rather a Porsche, but have a Honda. The Honda does most of the stuff a Porsche does, but often not quite as quickly. The analogy stands - I did mention that it was intended to replace an 18-135 and I tend to use that as the lens that stays on the camera unless I specifically want to do something specific.

I think therefore, that the keenness of the answers answers my question. Probably exactly what I want. Thanks all!
 
L

Logan

Guest
Hi,

Does anyone have an opinion on this lens? Thinking about putting in a preorder and collecting one next visit to US in May. Should I go for the faster 200VR?

Want a VR to replace my existing 18-135 kit lens.

Chris
HHHmmmm....I'd rather a Porsche, but have a Honda. The Honda does most of the stuff a Porsche does, but often not quite as quickly. The analogy stands - I did mention that it was intended to replace an 18-135 and I tend to use that as the lens that stays on the camera unless I specifically want to do something specific.

I think therefore, that the keenness of the answers answers my question. Probably exactly what I want. Thanks all!
this is kind of a weird question, and like guy said you comparing apple and oranges... the 200 VR is a $4000 lens while the 18-200 is a $800? this makes no sense to me really, they are in completely different ballparks... mind clarifying?
 
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
2,576
Location
Camberley, UK
Hi Chris

I bought my 18-200 a couple of months ago and love it! Get some good shots with it and it does just about everything I want, bar macro.

But, as ya know Chris, I got a macro lens. :)

Martin
 
R

RForshey

Guest
this is kind of a weird question, and like guy said you comparing apple and oranges... the 200 VR is a $4000 lens while the 18-200 is a $800? this makes no sense to me really, they are in completely different ballparks... mind clarifying?
I'm sure your opinion would be valid anyway, as you own both, eh? Lot's of experience...
 
L

Logan

Guest
I'm sure your opinion would be valid anyway, as you own both, eh? Lot's of experience...
i never said i owned both Randy, now did i? so you could lay off, i was just stating my OPINION... you know the right to have my own personal comment to try and help him out! :mad: So really, what was the point of making your post? to make me look stupid and like a complete jerk ; o wait, you did that for yourself.

your entitled your opinion as well, but you really dont have to "call me out" in a public forum, its kind of childish and rude.
 
R

RForshey

Guest
i never said i owned both Randy, now did i? so you could lay off, i was just stating my OPINION... you know the right to have my own personal comment to try and help him out! :mad: So really, what was the point of making your post? to make me look stupid and like a complete jerk ; o wait, you did that for yourself.

your entitled your opinion as well, but you really dont have to "call me out" in a public forum, its kind of childish and rude.
Your post was Very rude, and you intimated the OP was an idiot. I merely am commenting on the fact that although you have many opinions on lenses, you own none of them. Very curious as to how you've arrived at your opinion without any experience? But wait! I guess because you are a teenager, you should be given allowances...
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
259
Location
Seattle,WA
Hi,

Does anyone have an opinion on this lens? Thinking about putting in a preorder and collecting one next visit to US in May. Should I go for the faster 200VR?

Want a VR to replace my existing 18-135 kit lens.

Chris
I think 18-200 will be nice replacement for your 18-135, you get more focal range plus it's VR and if you don't like the lens you can always easily sell it.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
85
Location
Worcester, UK
Chris,
I have an 18-135 also, and I too considered upgrading to an 18-200.
Everything I've read says how great the 18-200 is. So you won't go wrong buying it.
But I've decided to get the 70-300 VR and a 50mm for less than the 18-200.
This extends my range, I like to photograph sports, birdies etc.

And I felt the 18-200 wasn't giving me that much more than the 18-135 - which IMO is a darn good lens.




Randy,
way to hijack a thread mate! To my untrained eye that looked like a bit of a sniper attack.
Logan wasn't exactly rude, just clarifying!
 
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
17,633
Location
Chicago, IL
I'm sure your opinion would be valid anyway, as you own both, eh? Lot's of experience...
i never said i owned both Randy, now did i? so you could lay off, i was just stating my OPINION... you know the right to have my own personal comment to try and help him out! :mad: So really, what was the point of making your post? to make me look stupid and like a complete jerk ; o wait, you did that for yourself.

your entitled your opinion as well, but you really dont have to "call me out" in a public forum, its kind of childish and rude.
Let's back off a notch fellas....
 
L

Logan

Guest
Your post was Very rude, and you intimated the OP was an idiot. I merely am commenting on the fact that although you have many opinions on lenses, you own none of them. Very curious as to how you've arrived at your opinion without any experience? But wait! I guess because you are a teenager, you should be given allowances...
excuse me if i came off rude to Chris, i was simply lending a comment and asking for a little clarification. I dont see how being a teenager has anything to do with it; I may not own either lens, but based on reading on them and having a basic knowledge i am entitled to ask for clarification on what he is asking. One is a much more of a specialty lens the other, and i was just asking him to possibly clear up a few questions. So i am sorry if i came off rude, I apologize to Chris if that is how he took, but i am not sorry for asking a simple question and lending a simple opinion.

Chris,
I am sorry if i came off rude to you. I think that if you were to get a lens the 18-200 VR would be a wonderful replacement, i have HEARD and READ great things about it, granted i dont own it. if you want a great replacement for the kit lens, this would be my choice.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
574
Location
Escondido, California
Chris,

I assume by "200 VR" you are referring to the 18-200 VR vs your current 18-135mm lens. (Some may have thought you were referring to the 200 VR f/2.0 lens)

I own both lenses. I bought the 18-135 lens to use with the D40 because it gives a good all-around range that fits the camera better (size-wise) than the 18-200 VR.

I bought the 18-200 VR lens not long after I purchased the D200. Those two are truly a good match from a size and balance viewpoint. Of course, the 18-200 VR lens is a good match for any of Nikon's DSLR cameras and it will certainly work nicely with your D80.

From a quality viewpoint, I would say that they are really very similar in their overlapping ranges - from 18-135mm. At the wide end with the 18-135mm you can get a little bit of color fringing that is evident when shooting high contrast items, like window edges when shooting from indoors to outdoors, etc. This is a very minor issue for me and is easily corrected if I find a problem with it.

The 18-200 VR is a very sharp lens throughout its range with the weakest part being at 18mm (as is the 135mm lens), It has some barrel distortion at the wide end and a little bit of moustache distortion at the long-end, but neither are enough to bother unless you are looking at a serious pro photo requirement.

From an all-around lens, there is no doubt that the 18-200 VR is simply the very best travel do-all lens that Nikon makes. The difference between 135mm and 200mm is significant if you need it to catch that long distance smile or frame the landscape shot you really want. VR is also outstanding on this lens. VR is less important up to about 135mm, but once you get longer, it is very helpful in reducing camera shake issues, especially at lower shutter speeds.

Based on my experience, I think you would really enjoy the added range and VR feature of the 18-200 VR over your 18-135mm lens. You could easily sell the 'kit' lens because it is still very popular in its own right and I don't think you would look back at all.

Regards,

Paul
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Belgium
Buy a Canon 500D in 72mm for about $125 and you can do some pretty decent macro photography with the 18-200VR.
Fully agree but do not forget you'll not reach 1:1 magnification (magnification is proportional to the focal length and you need 500mm for a 1:1 ratio with a 500D) - other than that, the 18-200VR + 500D is an incredible combo for close-ups (another advantage: you don't have to switch lenses at all, just add the 500D when you need it)
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
300
Location
Bay Area, CA
and don't forget you get VR with the 500D as well, and the only true VR macro option from Nikon is the 105 VR.

Brian
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
2,152
Location
Texas
I think it really depends on what your main focus of photography is. I have the 18 - 135 and I also wanted to upgrade and had a toss up between the 18 - 200VR and the 70 - 300VR. I chose to go with the 70 - 300 and just keep the 18 - 135, which I think is a great walk around lens. I like the extra reach the 70 - 300VR gives me and it is actually not that heavy to carry around. If you don't need the extra reach then I would say go with the 18 - 200VR and sell the 18 - 135. I have heard nothing but good things about it.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom