Nikon 18-200mm users, a question

[photo5]

To all 18-200mm users:

 

I have the 18-70mm and purchased the 18-200mm recently for a trip to Japan. After testing the lens,

and being blown away by the VR feature (shooting at full zoom and 1/4 second is OK!), I decided the lens

didn't beat the 18-70mm at the same range in terms of image quality, so to save weight I took the

18-70mm with me and left the 18-200mm at home. I'm glad I did too as carrying the D80 with the

18-70mm lens attached seems a perfect match and I've been very happy with the images I have taken.

Only a few times have I wished for the VR function as most days I am home by nightfall.

 

So my question is, have you replaced your 18-70mm with the 18-200mm and ever had any regrets? I

really feel the 18-70mm is an excellent lens, but sometimes it is nice to have the extra zoom.

 

I have found one problem with this lens however, and I wonder if anyone else has experienced it. When

zoomed out to 200mm, the upper left side of the photo is more out of focus than the other three corners.

I'm talking about a fairly significant part of the image too, not just the extreme corner. Stopping down to

f11 helps a tiny bit, but the problem is still noticable.

 

I don't plan to part with my 18-70mm. It's worth more than the money I would get for selling it. I look

forward to hearing your opinions.

 

Thanks!

 

Dave

[kurt_holter]

I sold my 18-70 last winter when my 18-200 was delivered. Many times I kind of wish I'd kept it.

 

I've even contemplated selling my 18-200 and getting another 18-70 to replace it.

 

However, every time I get ready to do this, I happen to squeeze off a shot at 1/8 ot 1/4 second at the long end of the 18-200 that looks very good. At this point, I decide to hang on to it.

 

I should point out that for me, both lenses are used exclusively as "walking around" lenses on a D200 body. They both pale in comparison to the f2.8 AF-S zooms I use on the job in terms of crispness and contrast.

 

Kurt

[adw]

I found the image quality to be much the same. However the one huge gripe I have with my

18-200 is how it creeps downwards when I carry the camera on the shoulder.

 

Im sure I will damage the lens walking around zoomed out to 200mm and also it just attracts

unnessicery attention to myself and camera, asking for trouble!

[Peter_in_PA]

Never had teh 18-70, but I didn't have ANY problems carrying around the 18-200 on a

vacation. I do NOT have any problem with a big out-of-focus area with mine. I would suggest

you get it serviced.

[hash]

I never had the 18-70. Went from 24-120 VR to the 18-200 VR and never looked back. It is sharper and wider and longer, and VR works even better. This lens and the 50/1.8 are all the lenses one will ever really need in "normal" circumstances IMHO.

 

And my lens doesn't creep. I bought it early - it seems only later production lenses has the creep problum.

[douglas_greenberg]

I bought the 18-200VR lens so that I could go out with basically only one lens in many circumstances. The VR function was also an attraction. I actually haven't found the image quality to be particularly better than that of my Sigma 18-125mm. zoom (an excellent value), but the added reach is helpful, even if at 200mm. the resolution is clearly not stellar. Sometimes the point is to get the photo, period. For situations where I just want "walking around" photos, it's fine. When I really want or need tip-top optical quality, I use other lenses.

 

The lens creep issue doesn't bother me much. When I carry the lens I tend always to zoom it back to the lowest setting, by habit, and at minimal zoom it doesn't creep.

 

I have thought that the 18-200 zoom is perhaps not worth what I paid for it, but that's water under the bridge.

 

As for Dave's lens, I recall that some of the earlier 24-120VR lenses had a similar problem with unsharpness on one side. You should definitely send it back to Nikon and demand that it be fixed/replaced on warranty.

[adrian_gerlich1]

You may want to consider the new 18-135 AF-S, it is quite sharp but I haven't compared it with the 18-70.

[louisekennedy]

I recently brought the 18-200 with me on a trip to China. I enjoyed it for the big shots

(great wall, etc) but I found that I needed something that would perform in lower light, so I

found myself putting my 24mm 2.8 on most of the time, and saving the 18-20 for shots

where I needed to zoom. the 24 was a great performer out in the streets. I left my 18-70

at home.

 

I'm not a big fan of the 18-200, but then I wasn't a great fan of the 18-70. I like it more

than the 18-70, it's an overall better lens. It's definately a keeper, and I would probably

bring it with me on a trip just in case. But I doubt I'll leave it on my camera as many have

said they do when they travel.

[roger_s]

I just sold my 18-70, and am waiting for the 18-200, so this discussion is relevant to me, although I can only contribute theoretically until I get my 18-200.

 

My thoughts are: at 24mm, the 18-200 would probably only be approx half a stop slower, which can be compensated for by higher ISO.

 

The kind of photos I'm interested in are people photos, either photojournalistic or portrait. This is how I weighed up the alternatives: For me, if I had to choose between a blurry-optically superior vs. VR-sharp-optically inferior shots, I'd choose the latter.

 

The point is, a blurry handheld shot is totally useless.

 

For my style of shooting, it is the content of the photo that counts, and if VR can give me a useable shot, then I can put up with a bit of marginal optical inferiority.

 

If I have a blurry photo, then I have no useable photo.

[louisb1]

I've only had an afternoon with my 18-200 lens since buying it last Saturday but so far I am pleased with the results. At full zoom the images are a tad soft but easily compensated for by some post processing. I'm still at the "this thing is awesome" stage - and keep realising that I have very little need for any more lenses at present as I also own the excellent Sigma 10-20 uwa zoom.

 

Attached is a massively downsized example at full zoom, f12 1/40th.

 

LouisB<div></div>

[hearst]

I never had an 18-70, but I've been very happy with the 18-200, and have used it almost exclusively since I got it about 6 months ago. It did have zoom creep but I returned it to Nikon and they fixed it quickly.

 

It also has a situation where sometimes it won't autofocus after being autofocused close up, but if I wiggle the focus a few times it works OK. I read that this is an issue that can't be fixed.

 

Nevertheless, I love it.

[tumble2113]

Dave,

I too find the question interesting, as you might have seen I was strongly considering the 18-200 but being frugal (read cheap) I opted to try the 18 - 70 (And sell the 18-55) and I am quite happy with the decision. As I hear more about the 18-200 I think I will hold off even longer and see what the people have to say about the 135.

 

As much as I like an all in one, it just seems like it doesn't quite work out that way, and if you don't like it at 200, then maybe the 18-135 is the better choice, if its sharp at 135

[oleg_novikov]

You might be interested in reading my review of the lens:

 

http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/18200vr/18200vr.shtml

 

Hope that this helps.

[douglas_greenberg]

To Joe, above: What did Nikon actually do to remedy the "lens creep?" I haven't heard of Nikon having a fix for this issue. As I said previously, it's not a major problem for me, but if it could be remedied at no expense to me, I'd consider sending it to Nikon.