Nikon 18-200 VR...Any one using it?

[dlomeister]

I am not a big fan of these types of lenses. The more and more I think about it, though, it seems as though it would come in handy when visiting, oh say, Disneyland. I am taking the kiddies this weekend and don't want to lug around a 70-200 and I don't think a 24-70 would give me enough reach.

What do y'all think?

BTW-I can make the purchase tomorrow before 7 pm PST.

[tomrock]

It's a "good" but not really a great lens. I think for taking the kids to Disneyland it would be fine, and it lets you get away with carrying just one lens.

[Jeff Perry]

dlomeister, you do know that it will be a huge waste on the D3 and D700. If your plan is to use it on the D300s then I will tell you it is a very excellent walking around lens (for DX sensors). I have one, and love it, and it is always on the D300. My girlfriend has a D80 with the 18-200Vr and except for the occasional switch to the 105VR Micro, it is the only lens she has ever used.

As an alterntive, I will also tell you that I just picked up the Tamron 28-300 VC for both FX and DX sensors, and am generally pleased with the quality of the lens. The AF hunts in low-light more than I would like, almost unusable in low light at 300mm, but to have the extra reach 95% of the time, and to have full use of the FX sensor, it is worth it. When mounted on the DX body, it has a field of view equivalent to a 45-450. Bonus, extra credit! And the VC is rock solid.

If Nikon had brought out such a lens, it would be a real winner, but alas there is a gap there that others have filled. I considered the Tamron 18-270 VC, but again like the Nikkor, it is "exclusively" a DX lens, and when mounted on an FX body, there is a huge real estate penalty you pay.

Jeff

[LeeF]

As a walk around lens, the 18-200 is well suited. It's especially good about f8.

I only use mine occasionally since I've purchased a Tamron 17-55 2.8 and a Nikon 70-200 2.8. I;ve been spoiled by the sharpness of those two lenses.

If I were going to Disneyland, I would still take the Nikon 18-200 in spite of my love for my other lenses. It's just too much to carry for too long a time. I wouldn't even take a camera bag. An extra CF card and an extra battery in my pocket and I'm good to go.

BTW: I use a Nikon D200.

Have a good trip.

[Dirk]

This lens has lovers and haters. the zoom range is great but that usually means that this lens is not great in the optics. it all depends on the price to pay , here in holland the cheapest one (new) was around 580 euro (and entrange fee is not the only thing you buy in Disneyland ) so it can be expensive trip and the other thing this lens is not ligth sensitive as your 70-200 vr is. it is also a pretty heavy lens my advise would be take the 24-70 and the 70-200 with you and the best camera body and one spare battery and enough memmory and leave this lens for what is is ( a lens which is not great, too heavy to poor in poor (bad light) , too much vignetering, too much CA errors and bad perfomance for the price too pay imho) .. ok i don't have it , i could buy it secondhand for 400 euro but even that price was too high imho the only thing good is the range , but believe me you are now addicted to light sensative, don't buy this one , good and save trip have fun..

[dlomeister]

Originally Posted by tomrock

It's a "good" but not really a great lens. I think for taking the kids to Disneyland it would be fine, and it lets you get away with carrying just one lens.

That is what I was thinking. I am not excited about carrying a couple thousand worth of equipment with me. You never know what can happen. I will be using a D300.

BTW-Some special "K" is on it's way!

[dlomeister]

Originally Posted by Jeff Perry

dlomeister, you do know that it will be a huge waste on the D3 and D700. If your plan is to use it on the D300s then I will tell you it is a very excellent walking around lens (for DX sensors). I have one, and love it, and it is always on the D300. My girlfriend has a D80 with the 18-200Vr and except for the occasional switch to the 105VR Micro, it is the only lens she has ever used.

As an alterntive, I will also tell you that I just picked up the Tamron 28-300 VC for both FX and DX sensors, and am generally pleased with the quality of the lens. The AF hunts in low-light more than I would like, almost unusable in low light at 300mm, but to have the extra reach 95% of the time, and to have full use of the FX sensor, it is worth it. When mounted on the DX body, it has a field of view equivalent to a 45-450. Bonus, extra credit! And the VC is rock solid.

If Nikon had brought out such a lens, it would be a real winner, but alas there is a gap there that others have filled. I considered the Tamron 18-270 VC, but again like the Nikkor, it is "exclusively" a DX lens, and when mounted on an FX body, there is a huge real estate penalty you pay.

Jeff

Jeff,

I am aware that this lens will be a waste on the D3 and D700. I am considering this lens for just that; trip where I don't, won't or can't take all my equipment.

In regards to the Tamron, I will look into it tomorrow when I visit my local camera shop (Calumet). If I find it to my liking, I'll consider it. I'll let you know.

BTW-Some special "K" on it way!

[dlomeister]

Originally Posted by LeeF

As a walk around lens, the 18-200 is well suited. It's especially good about f8.

I only use mine occasionally since I've purchased a Tamron 17-55 2.8 and a Nikon 70-200 2.8. I;ve been spoiled by the sharpness of those two lenses.

If I were going to Disneyland, I would still take the Nikon 18-200 in spite of my love for my other lenses. It's just too much to carry for too long a time. I wouldn't even take a camera bag. An extra CF card and an extra battery in my pocket and I'm good to go.

BTW: I use a Nikon D200.

Have a good trip.

I, too, have been spoiled with my 24-70 and 70-200. And I am sure that many others who have tasted high end lenses would agree.

There are actually a total of 3 lenses I am going to check out tomorrow:

Sigma 18-200, Tamron ??-300 and the Nikon 18-200.

We will see how it goes.

Previous to the D300 ugrade, I also used the D200. Great camera, IMHO.

BTW-Some special "K" on it way!

[dlomeister]

Originally Posted by d70freak

This lens has lovers and haters. the zoom range is great but that usually means that this lens is not great in the optics. it all depends on the price to pay , here in holland the cheapest one (new) was around 580 euro (and entrange fee is not the only thing you buy in Disneyland ) so it can be expensive trip and the other thing this lens is not ligth sensitive as your 70-200 vr is. it is also a pretty heavy lens my advise would be take the 24-70 and the 70-200 with you and the best camera body and one spare battery and enough memmory and leave this lens for what is is ( a lens which is not great, too heavy to poor in poor (bad light) , too much vignetering, too much CA errors and bad perfomance for the price too pay imho) .. ok i don't have it , i could buy it secondhand for 400 euro but even that price was too high imho the only thing good is the range , but believe me you are now addicted to light sensative, don't buy this one , good and save trip have fun..

That is kind of my problem. I really don't want to carry so much equipment with me. Spare battery and CF are not a problem. Carrying a bag full of "toys" is. Don't get me wrong, though. I would love to take the "other kids" with me but my daughter (4 going on 1 and my son (2 going on 16) will be a handful on their own.

BTW-Some special "K" on the way!

[Dirk]

i have a tamron 28-200 and the pictures are great much better than what i have seen from the 18-200 ok the tammy isn't a high end either but the price for the money at least is much better than with the nikon. my tammy is a 1:3.8-5.8 macro , a good lens and not so heavy as the 18-200 vr and if you have steady hand you will be surpired the picture quality of it.. and my nikon version works perfect, the only thing you have to lock the aperature ring , but after that it works great and flawless

i also have a sigma 28-200 and whaen i compaired th shots , the tammy was the best and the most fare lens imho . and i use it most on holidays when i think i need the range when not i take the 18-70 dx ed a great lens

2004 DX AF-S DX VR 18-200mm 3,5-5,6 G ED 7,5 11
the last one is the number of people tested it the 7.5 would claim it is good , but if i were you go tammy go .. ( no i don't have tammy shares )

[Dirk]

yes kids can be a handfull , that is why i don't i ave kids (at least not to my knowlegde ) have a nice trip and have fun. better good reading and thinking than buying too soon or put the money on Landsbanki iceland (which i would not do.. they are broke.. bankrupt .. )

[NFG]

I borrowed a Tamron 18-250 for a trip to Japan, instead of my 18-200, and I was consistently thrilled with the results. Better clarity at all lengths, better contrast and a generally pleasing output at all times. I have nothing bad to say about it, there were simply no instances where it let me down.

The Nikon 18-200 was a constant disappointment in the two years i owned it.

[Douglas]

This is the first time ive ever heard someone say bad things about the 18-200VR lens. Anyone able to go more in depth what issues they have with it? I was seriously looking to purchase this within the next week and a half because of the universalness of the lens and because all ive seen are good reviews. I dont want to make a $700 mistake

[NFG]

I bought mine after reading a series of reviews that all said, basically, 'acceptable compromises considering the extreme range of the lens'. What I got was a lens that was never really sharp, never really had good contrast, and after I got some other good lenses (50mm 1.8, 10-17mm fisheye, 105mm VR) and trying out other lenses (Tamron 18-250) I came to the realization that it wasn't any kind of acceptable compromise: it was a crap lens with a lot of positive comments by less discriminating people.

The Tamron was so much better, smaller, lighter and cheaper that I consider the 18-200 VR an expensive mistake. I have since sold it to someone who thinks it's a great lens.

Try both, if you can. I know that if I hadn't gone full frame with the D700 I'd have picked up the Tamron for myself.

[Douglas]

I dont know. The lack of VR and that 6.3 is kind of intimidating. I do 90% hand held shots.

[k9ofkaos]

Here's my 2 cents worth.

Take a look at the image I posted in this thread.

For Sis, by request

I took it with my D300 and the 18-200 VR. It's plenty sharp as you can see. This lens almost never comes off my camera. I have an 80-200 which is so sharp it will cut you, but for everyday purposes the 18-200 delivers beyond my expectations.

Best wishes and have fun at Disney. My family spent a week there back in March and had a great time.

[Songman45]

If the intent is to get pics of the kids at an amusement park far reach isn't going to be your friend anyway. Keep in mind there will be a crowd and every step you have to take away from your subjects is a step that will fill with a potnetial obstruction. Remember also the distance can impact your getting their attention. Telephoto will have the tendancy to narrow the field of vew and will omit the expanse. I would choose something in the medium wide through long normal reach for focal lengths. 28 [now 24] - 70 or 28-105 to me would be a good walking around lens for a theme park. The narrower the range of zoom, the better for optic quality. I think 200mm is a bit long for the situation and 18-200 is an awful wide spread, too heavy on the long end where the results are going to be most compromised.

Steve

[excia]

I keep the Nikon 18-200 on my D300 at all times, but on my D700 I keep the Nikon 24-70. The 18-200 always seems like a compromise, especially in low light (I shoot way too much indoors in very poor lighting for work-related events). In bright light though it's hard to beat.

I have a collection of photos from Dubai with my old D200. This is the Burj Al Arab hotel from quite a distance away:



It's not as sharp as I'd like, and the D200 definitely suffered at 1600 ISO, but overall the lens worked well enough.

[pixelchix]

I don't have another lens for my D300 except for the 18-200(it came with the camera) but I do plan to get another as soon as my bank account recoups But so far I am very impressed with it and I have had no probs at low light situations. Even the iso bumped up produces fairly good results. I do miss my macro lens tho and have to decide which one will satisfy me the most.

[NFG]

I never found the VR to provide a noticable benefit. Even if you do, you might want to consider the Tamrom purely for the contrast and colour. It's possible my lens was soft, but the colour on the 18-200 was never agreeable. It was hard enough shooting with the D70s and its rather dull rendering of colours, but the results from the Tamron made me think it came with a new sensor. =D

Here are a few samples from a recent trip to Japan/Korea. They're un-tweaked, converted to JPG en-masse using whatever defaults the FastStone viewer uses.

Korean food vendor at night (18mm)

Passing Train (48mm)

Girl & Flowers (80mm)

Akihabara crowd shot (100mm)

Japanese girl (250mm)