What's wrong with the 18-200VR?

Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
929
Location
Texas
I started with the Sigma 18-200 OS based on price. The build quality was mediocre. It had a significant tight spot in the zoom in the 70-80mm area. It was like there was a speed bump in the zoom ring. It also would zoom out or in depending on whether you held it pointing up or down. The one benefit of that was that when it was pointed up or down the speed bump was less noticeable. I took it back to the store and swapped for the 18-200 VR. It doesn't creep and it has no speed bumps.

In answer to the original question, there's one thing wrong with the 18-200 VR. Nobody gives them away as gifts. :biggrin:
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
3,629
Location
Springfield, VA & Cape Charles, VA
I guess I don't own a "travel" lens or "travel kit". Lenses in the 5X to 10X+ zoom range are full of compromises and they scare me away. The 18-200VR is no exception but it does seem to get better reviews than most, even if they are mixed. Still, if I were going to travel, and the purpose of the travel was, at least in part, to take pictures, I'd want nothing but my best glass. If that means I have to tolerate the size and weight of the lens(es) I love then so be it. YMMV.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
604
Location
Houston, Tx
The problem with this lens is that its almost $800 brand new and it has the same apertures as most kit lenses. VR aside, I'd pay that much for a lens with constant 2.8 through out the zoom.

Plus, its not a 'snobby' enough lens for that price. :)
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
604
Location
Houston, Tx
So, go on, pay for it (but for what???)
Regards
I did. And for that much money, you can buy two brand new 18-135 kit lenses and have enough for a 50 1.8 and nice dinner for your wife/gf to butter them up for a nice portrait shoot.

But then again, that's my opinion and its your money. I chose to spend mine on a good lens with decent zoom that has versatility in low lights.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
3,704
Location
Rockingham, NC (Currently in Afghanistan)
I did. And for that much money, you can buy two brand new 18-135 kit lenses and have enough for a 50 1.8 and nice dinner for your wife/gf to butter them up for a nice portrait shoot.

But then again, that's my opinion and its your money. I chose to spend mine on a good lens with decent zoom that has versatility in low lights.
Which 2.8 zoom did you buy for that price?
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
966
Location
Nottingham, UK
It's problem is that the optically superior 18-55VR, 55-200VR can be bought for less money, and probably with enough change to get a 50 f/1.8 too if you need low light.
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
20,703
Location
SW Virginia
Which 2.8 zoom did you buy for that price?
...inquiring minds want to know...

It's problem is that the optically superior 18-55VR, 55-200VR can be bought for less money, and probably with enough change to get a 50 f/1.8 too if you need low light.
But then you've gotta change lenses every time you need to cross the 55mm threshold. And the 18-55 I have (not VR) has plastic lens mount.

Different strokes for different folks as they say.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
604
Location
Houston, Tx
Which 2.8 zoom did you buy for that price?
I just recently bought a 28-70 2.8 used for $950. I bought it to replace my Sigma 24-70 2.8 whick I bought for $430. I also had a 18-200 Sigma OS HSM which I bought for $500.

If you use it all the time and you like it, it might be worth the value to you. To me, I couldn't justify the price. Also, if the brand isn't that important, both Sigma and Tamron offer great constant 2.8 lenses at a lower price to satisfy many needs.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
3,704
Location
Rockingham, NC (Currently in Afghanistan)
It's problem is that the optically superior 18-55VR, 55-200VR can be bought for less money, and probably with enough change to get a 50 f/1.8 too if you need low light.
But it's benefit compared to that combo is, it's one lens, so you don't miss a shot because you've got the wrong lens mounted. What one has to decide if that benefit outweighs the minor problems you get with this lens. For me, this has been a great lens. Is it the quality of my 70-200/2.8 VR, or my 85/1.4, or my 17-55/2.8? Absolutely not, but that quality comes at a price. Those 3 lenses are incredibly heavy and bulky compared to the 18-200, and not even close in convenience. I've got a 16x20 portrait of my daughter hung on the wall in my living room that was taken with the 18-200 lens, and I would challenge anybody here to show me where it could be noticeably improved with one of the other lenses. Would I have used one of my "pro" lenses to shoot this image if I had them at the time? Of course. Do I think the difference would have been huge? Nope. Here's a web sized version of that portrait followed by a 100% unsharpened crop. Don't judge it based on the lighting. I was really just playing around with the CLS feature of the D80 and SB-600 off camera without any diffusers or modifiers, so the lighting isn't perfect. Anyway, I think this makes a decent case for the lens in question.

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


And the 100% unsharpened crop.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,519
Location
Suwanee, GA
I like the 18-200...the VR works great. These were taken friday...hand held.

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)
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
604
Location
Houston, Tx
I like the 18-200...the VR works great. These were taken friday...hand held.

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)
if those were on a tripod, I'd think there was something wrong. :wink:
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
60
Location
S.F. Bay Area
The problem with this lens is that its almost $800 brand new and it has the same apertures as most kit lenses. VR aside, I'd pay that much for a lens with constant 2.8 through out the zoom.

Plus, its not a 'snobby' enough lens for that price. :)
I paid $649 for mine Brand New. I use others for specific tasks but the 18-200mm vr is what stays on my camera for a very nice walking around lens.

In the end, different strokes for different folks applies:smile:
 
G

Gary Mayo

Guest
Heck, everyone is being so nice, I'll bite :biggrin:.
Off the topic, but you hit the nail on the head in that line of yours.

99.999% of the people and moderators here are real gems and that is why the success of this board should be a model for all other camera boards!!!
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
604
Location
Houston, Tx
I paid $649 for mine Brand New. I use others for specific tasks but the 18-200mm vr is what stays on my camera for a very nice walking around lens.

In the end, different strokes for different folks applies:smile:
very true.

at the end, (as I mentioned before) its my opinion and your money
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,475
Location
Live in Ohio but from NJ
Jim,

It's a good lens. You've used it where it's very effective, stopped down and good light. I tried one and didn't like it. Not sharp enough wide open for the $. Couldn't stand the zoom creep. Not particularly fast focusing. So for static shots @ f11 it's a fabulous lens. For action shots wide open? I'm not sure it's up for the task. It does make a nice walk around lens.
 

Latest posts

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