Zoom factor and quality VR 18-55, 18-200, 55-200

Hello Nikon-friends, does anybody knows an comparison of the optical quality of

the two lenses 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR in comparison to the 18-200 VR?

I studied the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR at the D40 and D300 : in both tests they

showed excellent results. Im just wondering if the larger zoom factor 11 ! of

the 18-200 gives the same good results. Another limitation is the macro

function of the 18-200 VR ? Thanks Joerg

Hi, Jörg,

 

18-55 "VR" hasn't hit the market yet. Only specs and MTF chats are available from Nikon website in English. I used to use a non-VR "II" version and the image quality was surprizingly good for the price.

 

For the non-VR 18-55, VR and non-VR 55-200 and 18-200, you may want to check here:

 

http://www.photozone.de/

 

If you really need the full 18-200 range, you'd better go directly for 18-200. If you don't need longer focal length so strongly, 18-70 is worth considering. I switched from 18-55 to 18-70 and very satisfied with the decision.

 

Hope this would be of any help.

Well, Thomas Mangelson won America Photo's Nature photograph of the year award with a shot of penguins he took with the 18-200 zoom.

If you live in the US the 18-55mm VR is available at BH Photo

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/532521-USA/Nikon_2176_18_55mm_f_3_5_5_6G_VR_AF_S.html

simple physics will tell you it's impossible to design an 11x zoom without some compromises in IQ. that compromise is the convenience of having a wide enough range to go from wide to telephoto. that said, there's nothing like the 18-200 for casual snapshots and travel if you're willing to live with its limitations. IMO an 18-70/70-300 VR combo IMO is better than an 18-55/55-200 combo or the 18-200, but the IQ of all the nikon 18-xx zooms is fairly similar, with some sample variation. generally, the 18-70 comes first, followed by the 18-55, 18-135, and 18-200. YMMV.

I briefly owned the 55-200VR. I say briefly because I found it to be one of the worst Nikon lenses I've ever owned. Maybe I had a bad sample. But it just wasn't up to par.

Jorg,

See this link below from camera labs... it has the exact comparison that you are looking for. sample Pictures . worth a look

 

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor_kit_lens_group_test/

Hi Nikon-friends, thanks Akira for photozone. If we compare MTF of 18-55 : its better than that the 18-200, if we compare chromatic issues than the 55-200 is better than the 18-200. So it makes sence to live with the 18-55 VR as the universal lense (around the normal view 35 - 60 film standard).I heared that the new VR-versions are a little bit improved.I tested them using a D300 - great result for the size, weight and price. However Jim had a bad lense. Might be I had a similar problem with my 18-35/D - I sold it, but this lense (600 E) was defenitely not so good like the 18-55 VR. Thanks Madhu, interesting homepage. Also here it was found that the chromatic problem of the 18-200 exists a little bit. One additional advantage of the 18-55, 55-200: they eating small 52 filters.

Any new tests ?

Best regards Joerg