D200 18-200 Kit Availability

Folks- This isn't a question as much as an FYI. I've been listed at

several camera shops (B&H, Ritz, Norman Camera, others) for the D200

kit with the 18-200 VR lens. To my knowledge that kit isn't

shipping yet (I've heard various availability estimates from June to

end-of-summer). I got a call from Norman Camera yesterday- they got

ten D200 bodies and the 18-200 lenses separately today. The price

differences isn't much- $2,400 for the kit vs. $1,700 + $750 for the

lens. You may try that approach with them or another dealer if

you're as anxious as I am to get my hands on one. It should arrive

Friday. I've dealt with Norman Camera before and they've been

reliable in my experience. Cheers- Bob

Bob, That's what I did last week here in NJ.

Dan

I don't get this at all. Why spend $750 for a slow lens with mediocre performance? Read

the reviews!

hmmm...the reviews I've read have me in favor of this lens...thom hogan, bjorn rorslett, give nice reviews of it. Seems like the easy replacement for 18-70 and x-200. Doesn't sound like it's in league with the f2.8s but it covers the focal range of at least 2 of 'em at barely over 1/2 the cost of any one. And VR to boot! Finances are all that's keeping me off a wait list right now.

Read this review: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18200_3556vr/index.htm

 

I was not impressed with this lens when I shot with it just outside my local camera store.

>I don't get this at all. Why spend $750 for a slow lens with mediocre performance? Read the reviews!<

 

>Read this review: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18200_3556vr/index.htm

 

I was not impressed with this lens when I shot with it just outside my local camera store.<

 

Dan, Michael, you're spoil sports! Reviews have been terrific.

 

Michael, here's the meat of the review you linked to:

 

> Apart from a few weak spots the resolution figures are quite good though and it is possible to get very decent images from this lens under field conditions. The VR can surely help to safe [sic] the day in situations where similar zooms must fail utterly.<

 

Quite good resolution, VR, and a lens that for most people, most of the time, will never have to come off a camera body. And the camera body can make almost noiseless photos at ISO 800.

I have the 18-200mm VR and am very pleased with the performance! My work is outdoor and event photography and if I don't need the low light capability of an f2.8 lense or want carry the weight of a larger lens, the 18-200mm is the one to use. The VR works suprisingly well. My opinion from real world experience with the lense is great (color, contrast, and resolution) and doesn't leave my d200 very often.

This lens doesn't compare to any f2.8 lens ofcourse, but VR helps if you are taking picture of

stationary or slow moving subjects. I have some pictures in my folder of this lens and I think

I will keep it, especially for the price. For moving subjects or events, I will still use primes or

80-200 f2.8 lens, but for day to day and street photography, it gives you portability and VR

in a nice package. I am posting a couple of example of this lens.<div></div>

Some fast action shots are ok if there is enough light like this one.<div></div>

But in this one, which was taken in low light, you could see motion blurr at shutter speed

1/30. For fast action, especially in low light situation, one needs a fast lens and VR doesn't

help much.<div></div>

Well, I will post one more example to show how the VR sactive works on this lens. This

picture was taken from a cessna with VR in active mode.<div></div>

For that action shot that blurred at 1/30th, do people really think that much would have been lost if the ISO were increased to 400 or even 500? For my son's high school baseball games I shoot at ISO 400 routinely, and the results (even with my ancient D100) are just fine---or at least "noise" is not the problem.

<i>"Quite good resolution..."</i> -- 'Quite good resolution' is overpriced for $750. Simple as that.

>"Quite good resolution..." -- 'Quite good resolution' is overpriced for $750. Simple as that.<

 

Yaron, if it were overpriced, the lens would go unpurchased by the great unwashed. Clearly that is not so, if anything the lens is underpriced, since it sells for more money on the used market than it does new. The lens is worth every penny to a lot of people with Nikon cameras.

 

Whether or not "quite good resolution" matches your personal requirements and/or standards - apprently not - is another question, not necessarily related to price. While this lens might not float your boat a lot of other photographers aren't going to let you rain on their parade.

Dave- well said. I've got several AI-S primes which I'll use when required but the idea of this lens (with the good reviews it's gotten) for travel and family photog is just too tempting to ignore. 27-300 (35mm equiv.), with VR to boot, is one nice range to have. When I need it my trusty and ancient 50mm 1.4 will be put into use, manual focus and all.

 

Glad to have gotten this dialogue going! Cheers- Bob

I agree, well put.

 

It's underpriced for the consumer market, who'd rather spend twich as much ca$h on a Nikkor ultra zoom instead on a Sigma/Tamron ultra zoom.

.. of course it could be selling so well because a lot of snappers like the idea of not carrying another lens ..... dust fears, laziness?

 

Lots of ordinary guys can buy this level of equipment now on credit.

 

regards