What's wrong with the 18-200VR?

Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
929
Location
Texas
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.
Why 2 kit lenses? Why not 1 kit lens and a macro or flash or something?
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
531
Location
Warrenton, VA
So, go on, pay for it (but for what???)
Regards
Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, $750.

Yes, it gives up the 18-50mm end, but at anything much closer than infinity it gives up nothing at the long end to the 18-200mm VR.

Internal focus & internal zoom = no protruding front element or dimensional changes = no creep. Tidy, very good build; Snappy output. Quite nice overall.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,475
Location
Live in Ohio but from NJ
Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, $750.

Yes, it gives up the 18-50mm end, but at anything much closer than infinity it gives up nothing at the long end to the 18-200mm VR.

Internal focus & internal zoom = no protruding front element or dimensional changes = no creep. Tidy, very good build; Snappy output. Quite nice overall.
The 18-200 and Sigma 50-150 2.8 aren't even on the same planet let alone same league. Especially considering I got my 50-150 through that ebay 30% off "buy it now" deal for about $525.

I actually use the Sigma 17-70 / 50-150 combination and couldn't be happier with the performance (the 17-70 is a bargain and just a great little lens). I certainly appreciate the value of carrying one lens covering 18-200 but the Nikon isn't a good value to me given the overall performance.
 
N

newlawyer

Guest
VR vs VRII???

Is/was there a re-release or model change in the 18-200 VR? I sort of have my mind set on one yet often see the different labels and am concerned that I get the most recent/new and improved (lol) version.
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
250
Location
New Jersey
ugh, this thread has just swayed me back to the unsure side...

i'm brand new to the dslr world, shooting with a d60. i see that a good deal of you guys who have more negative opinions shoot with pro glass and pro bodies. right now i have the 18-55 and 55-200, however i'd love to upgrade to the 18-200 in the next few months. now, i don't do very much traveling, but the convenience of one all around lens really appeals to me as i'd love to just have one lens that i can take anywhere and everywhere.

i don't do much printing at all, mostly because my shots aren't that great yet. however i'd like some room to grow and eventually get some framed shots for around my room and house. will this lens allow me some room to develop my skills? or will i be craving better IQ within a few months of ownership?

with all that said, do you think the 18-200 would be a good pick for me? i'd like to invest later in the nikon 105mm and 50mm f/1.8, but that's down the line.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
306
Location
Vancouver
I don't know about you, but I love this lens, if it can produce results like these:

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


I am fully satisfied. Only complain is if only it could be faster, but again a convenience superzoom is gonna have some compromises in other areas. It's excellent for what it is. Oh and I chose 18-200 over 18-55 / 55-200 combo because I got it brand new for under $650 CAD after tax :)

dL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
734
Location
On the Redwood Coast
The 18-200VR is my most used lens owing to my style. I do mostly walk-around target of opportunity shooting. With my nature shots I've gotten in four juried shows with images from it. I have a 30x20 print hanging in a gallery right now that is very very detailed. Could they have been sharper, more contrasty, more saturated with "better" glass? I honestly don't know. In all of those I would have been fumbling to change lenses and lost the shot. What I want to do is get the shot when it's there.

Truly, different strokes.....
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
517
Location
Canada
DL,

that is an awesome pic. You can just feel the energy in it!!!

I love this lens as well, I just picked up the 60mm af-s not too long ago and have a hard time taking it off my d300, but still love the quick can do all 18-200. And if my wife ever wants to use the camera, that is the lens she wants on it! And for a travel lens... don't think you can get anything better?

hand held 170mm, f/7.1, iso200. (not the best but didn't really have the time to setup for a better shot, was with a group on the move...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
4,077
Location
henderson, nv
I used this lens last night in dark conditions with only the onboard camera flash and I have to say I am not unhappy with its performance given the circumstances


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


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
250
Location
New Jersey
The 18-200VR is my most used lens owing to my style. I do mostly walk-around target of opportunity shooting. With my nature shots I've gotten in four juried shows with images from it. I have a 30x20 print hanging in a gallery right now that is very very detailed. Could they have been sharper, more contrasty, more saturated with "better" glass? I honestly don't know. In all of those I would have been fumbling to change lenses and lost the shot. What I want to do is get the shot when it's there.

Truly, different strokes.....
ah thank you, i think this really put things into perspective for me.

i'll probably still go back and forth and be hesitant to buy this lens in the coming months i'm using to save up some cash for it, but i have a pretty good feeling that at this point in my photography "career", this lens will serve me quite well. it's versatility and convenience just have more gravity than the fact that there a few minor gripes about IQ
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
517
Location
Canada
this lens is actually not to bad with sharpness too....good for some portraits :rolleyes:

170mm, f/5.6, iso 2800
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
306
Location
Vancouver
Not bad for onboard flash!! Sorry for going off-topic, but would the D300 onboard flash be better than a D40?

dL
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
61
Location
Canberra Australia
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
517
Location
Canada
Doesn't the 18-200 preform better with the d300 as well compared to the prior models?
better CA, possible better focus?
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
1,074
Location
SF Bay Area, California
I believe someone typed this earlier, but this lens is great for what it is. That being, a very flexible "walk-around" lens. Nothing more and it serves this purpose well.

I took a trip to Hawaii in June and carried all of the lens I listed below, excluding the 18-200 (I didin't own one yet), and I packed everything in my Lowepro backpack. Man, was that a heavy backpack!!

Carrying the 85, 17-55 and 70-200 is a chore! I could have brought the 18-200 to fill in for those three lens, and perhaps the 35m f2, and my back would have felt better!

My current approach is to use the "good" glass (read heavy) for events where I know what I need for the shots I want to take. And for travel/walking-around, I'll take my 18-200 and 35m. I think this approach will provide me with the results I'm looking for from my photography.

Anyway, the 18-200mm is a "great" lens for the purpose it was intended.
 

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