Lens recommendation in 18-200mm other than VR Nikkor?

Is there a Nikon 18-200mm thats not a VR? Im wanting a Nikon "or somthing as good" in a 18-200mm for my d80

but I dont need the VR. Any help?

BillDozer

Nikon lenses:

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page

So, to answer your question, No. Not in their current line up. But, they could have something that the VR lens replaced. Doing a quick look,all I can find is a 28-200mm at Nikonlinks.com.

The 18-200 VR is Nikon's only 18-200 lens.

 

The closest thing to it w/o VR is the 18-135 DX.

 

Why wouldn't you want VR in such a long/slow high ratio zoom anyway?

You can turn VR off if you don't want to use it.

On the long end (i.e. giving up the 18mm), you have the 28-200mm G lens. Compact and decent performance. And full frame to boot.<div></div>

Sorry. I did it again. It's early. It's actully not AF-S. But it's fine with everything but the D40/D40x/D60.

 

Shun.... Feel free to correct the caption on the picture and delete this message.

Second vote for the 28-200 G Nikkor. Is no longer available, and I have seen prices in excess of $1000, while original price was about $350. It has near macro capability - close focus correction, 3 ED elements, and 3 Aspherical elements. The only bad thing about it is the plastic lens mount.

Is it a cost issue? because if not, just get the 18-200 if you need the range. If you don't need the long range, look at the 16-

85 from Nikon. I've heard not-so-great stuff about the third-party lenses compared to the Nikon in that range, except, as I

recall, the Sigma with OS.

 

In a zoom like this you want VR. It's a big deal.

Well I talked with a NIKON rep yesterday at my local camera store and he says all the VR is for is older people that

cant hold a steady hand. HE said a young guy like me dont need the VR. He says all the VR does is let the

camera go down 5 more stops then normal while holding in your hand without getting camera shake.

Im wanting to carry one lens and that lens would do it all for what I do. But hell thats alot of money for a lens.

Bill

Bill, it sounds to me like he was trying to sell you something without VR.

No not at all, I told him I had a nikon 18-70mm and he said to keep using that lens. He said it was a outstanding lens and to keep using it.

Bill, if I was you I'd ask him why the $ 1700.00 pro lens 70-200mm f/2.8 has VR if it's only for "older people that cant hold a steady hand. "

 

Or how about the 300mm f/2.8 VR, or the 400mm VR, 500mm VR or the 600mm VR........

 

No, he's just doing something. If I was you I'd keep the 18-70 & buy the 70-300VR & have a great setup.

 

No, VR lenses are not only for old people with the shakes....

 

If you want just one lens.... the 18-200VR is a great lens. I love mine but only use it for specific things.

 

Lil :-)

Even folks with fairly steady hands can benefit from VR in some circumstances. Panning to follow action is one

situation that VR handles very well. Even with fast shutter speeds it's possible to jiggle the camera just

enough for photographer-induced motion blur to be a factor. So if you ever need to pan with movements to follow

races (foot, cycling, auto) it'll help. If you ever shoot while on the move, whether walking, riding or flying,

it can help.

 

VR is just a tool. Too often it's dismissed as a crutch by folks who don't happen to need that particular tool.

 

Try a VR lens like the 18-200 at the shop. Use it with and without VR. Try it panning or while side-stepping or

shuffling sideways, mimicking following with erratic movement. Compare results. Maybe you can use it, maybe not.

 

If not, check out the Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC, which should cost less. There's also an OS (Sigma's

version of VR) version of that lens.

Your salesman needs to find a new way to say that. VR is useful for everybody.