Everyone like their 18-200?

[jdrose]

I was wondering, now that people have a chance to be around them for awhile,

how you like it? Any complaints or praise?

 

Are you getting along with the slow apertures? Color, contrast and acuity

acceptable?

 

I am attracted to the lens but am weary as well. I like the convenience but I

have never had a zoom that I have really liked.

 

 

Thanks.

[Rick Waller]

"but I have never had a zoom that I have really liked."

 

Have you ever used the 70-200/2.8, the 17-35/2.8. the 28-70/2.8 or the 17-55/2.8? If you have used ANY of these lenses and "did not like them", it is unlikely that you will "like" the 18-200.

[Matt Laur]

Love mine. Obviously you have to be aware of what you can and can't get away within its range, but it's so light, sharp, and stable (the VR really does work) that it's really hard to resist walking around with it mounted.

 

My ONLY complaint is that, nose-down on a tripod or looking acutely down on a subject, the zoom on my unit will sometimes drift out. Hardly a showstopper since that's rarely how I'm using it. The optical quality is a delight. Using it very, very happily on a D200.

[jdrose]

Mr. Waller,

 

I think I see your point. I have always used "low brow" zooms in the f/3.5 to 5.6 range. The 18-200 is the equal to the 2.8s?

[elliot1]

I just purchased my 6th nikon lens. I have a couple of inexpensive ones and and a couple of 'pro' lenses that I use for event photography. For fun, I have done side-by-side comparisons. For the most part, they all give the same results.

 

The 18-200 gives you a lot a value for the money, and will give you wonderful pictures - but if you don't like zooms, you don't like zooms, and you won't like this one either.

[ronaldo_r]

Canon users are big fans as there's nothing comparable for our mount.

[rob t.]

Anyone know where I can get one of these in stock (without paying a huge premium)?

[Rick Waller]

I hope I didn't sound condescending JD Rose. I was just struck by your comment that you were generally not impressed by zoom lenses. I was merely trying to ascertain whether you had sampled some of the great Nikon zooms or were reacting to the mid price range so called consumer zooms.

 

I have used the 18-200 (a borrowed one) and it does do a very nice job across a wide focal range. For convenience, it is hard to beat. Does it match the aforementioned lenses in optical quality across the entire zoom range and across the entire range of apertures? No, not to my eye. But shooting at the sweet mid apertures somewhat longer than 18mm and somewhat less than 200mm can get you some great shots.

 

And of course it cannot match the faster 2.8 glass in the big fellas; but if you are carrying the big boys for any length of time, one can long for the relative lightweight and ease of handling.

 

Photography, like most good things in life, is often a compromise between price, convenience, weight. I own a 300mm/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 zoom, but if I am planning a long extended hike humping the gear on my shoulder or back, I often leave some of the big lenses, take my 17-55/2.8 and reach for my 70-300f4-5.6 plasticy feeling consumer lens. . It is so short and light that I can toss it in a vest pocket and, with judicious settings and decent light, I can routinely get keepers that would not have been available were I saddled with an extra 10 lbs of pro glass. You can't shoot with the big pro sets unless you can get the glass, bodies and tripod to the location.

 

When I was younger, I could carry insane amounts of gear on my back, shoulders, hips, etc. The older I get, the easier I find the decision to lighten my pack. I find the 70-300 to be a much better lens than many of the "critics" on blogs like these make it out to be.

 

And a Nikon 6T diopter (weight measured in ounces) screwed onto the 70-300 actually allows me some macro capability without dragging along my 200/4 micro.

[photo5]

I bought an 18-200 and decided it was overpriced. I really don't need VR most times. I may buy it again if it comes down to $599 or so, but for $890 (I paid on ebay) it was too much and I sold it. I'm sticking with my good ole 18-70mm Nikon for now and it is terrific!

 

Dave

[mmene]

I own the lens for 3 months and I agree with Eric. My only complain is the creeping problem. There are many ways to fix it Nikon but they didn't.

[juan_parm_nides]

I have a 18-200 VR lens too. It is a nice all around lens . I have seen your photos at photo.net Gallery Portfolio and I can say the Nikkor 18-200VR could perform the same. You photos are shooted with a lot of light, so no problem to close the lens a little to improve sharpness. The VR helps a lot too.

Cheers.

[paul.droluk]

I bought it for the convenience factor, but sold it soon there-after. I think it really depends

on how large you print. For web crap it's as good as any. To my eye it wasn't sharp enough

once prints got beyond 8x12 or so, and I rarely print that small.

 

I also did some side by side testing of the VR function in ample light. VR definately reduced

sharpness. I'm sure it's beneficial in low light situations, but I always use a tripod in low light

anyway.

[adw]

I love my results, colours, speed, VR performance... However what drives me crazy is the lens creeping while over my shoulder. The camera sits on my shoulder to look inconspicuous while walking around town - not so with a fully extended 200mm lens hanging off!

[Peter_in_PA]

I've had it for about 8 months. I just love it. It is absolutely great for what it's designed for, a

one-lens walk-around solution for vacations and such. It's not perfect, as what I really want

is a 12-400 f2.8 with VR and for only 500 bucks, but until they make that...

 

And I've always like zooms, but I've used some pretty awesome ones in the past. 17-35 f2.8

and 35-70 f2.8 are, for digital, imho, as good as the primes in their zoom range.

[robert_hooper1]

Overall contrast, color, acutance are acceptable with the 18-200mm, although performance does fall off at the long end with my sample. I use this lens for casual travel photography, snapshots, or when my family coerces me into taking pictures at a social function. The 18-200mm is amazing for its focal range and it has made me a real fan of VR. I also have the 18-70mm and must say that images taken with my sample produce slightly better looking images than the 18-200mm using your standard of color, contrast & acutance.

 

Which brings me to the subject sample variation. There does seem to be quality control and sample variation issues within the 18-200mm production. If you decide to purchase one, examine it thoroughly right out of the box; as if you were checking out a used lens. Shine a bright light through one end and look into the other. My 18-200mm had a 4mm scratch in the center of an interior element which I did not discover for weeks.

 

Personally, I would not use the 18-200mm for serious work, but I am otherwise quite pleased with it and would buy another if something to the one I have.

[klix]

I had one for 2 months, then sold it. It's a nice, very capable, very convenient lens. It's a strong contender for a one-lens kit, especially for traveling.

 

But I do about 98% of my non-macro shooting between 17-35mm and 70-200mm, and I have f2.8 zooms that cover those FL ranges. And no, I don't mind lugging those two lenses (and then some) when I travel.

 

KL

[vivid_earth_photographics]

I'm not a pro but love photography and playing with my D80. I waited 4 months for my 18-200mm VR to arrive from J&R Computer (www.jr.com). I think it cost $799. While waiting, I used a friend's pro-quality 28-70mm 2.8 Nikkor on my new D80. The 28-70mm had predictably amazing sharpness, color, etc. It's weight also was remarkable--to carry that lens around for 2 weeks while traveling also required that I carry a constant supply of ibuprofen for the neck and back pain. Now that I'm using the 18-200mm VR, I've dumped the Advil and walk around with a big smile. Vr works just as promised and effectively makes the lens faster than 3.5-5.6. Color looks terrific to my untrained eye and I'm pleased with the sharpness for the up to 8x10 prints I've made so far. Bokeh was better with the pro lens, but in most cases I can compensate with a little photoshop work for DOF that is too deep on the occassions I care. My 18-200 doesn't seem to drift out when pointed down if I leave it at 18mm. I know other people have different experiences. If you can afford it, I think this is a great lens cosidering that it is by it's very nature a compromise of sorts.

[Mary Doo]

"...what drives me crazy is the lens creeping while over my shoulder."

 

That would drive me crazy too. But it is supposed to be locked at 18mm. I cannot make mine creep even when I pull on it. I think you should perhaps talk to Nikon about that.

 

It's my walkaround lens on the D200.

 

Mary

[Matt Laur]

Just as a follow-up, I should say that, as mentioned above by some other folks, I have absolutely NO problems with the zoom creeping out when it's parked in the 18mm (fully collapsed) position - it really does stay put solidly in that mode. So, for walking around, it's NOT going to go sliding out on me. The only time the behavior ever gets annoying is when you're on a tripod in an acute downward-looking angle with the lens already zoomed out some. The sort of angle at which you'd be doing most portrait shots, for example, would not be enough to drift it out. Since the lens is really meant as a get-out-there-and-shoot do-it-all wonder product, I frankly don't consider the lack of some mid-range locking mechanism (or far more aggressive damping) to be a problem: rather, the lack of them is part of what keeps this lens so quick to use, light, and small.

[kevin_beretta]

<p>I like mine, but when I started out with it, I had a lot of isues trying to get sharp pics. Forget shooting at 200 mm handheld. You need a tripod. Overall, I'd love to get a 16-85 and a 105 2.8 and call it good.</p>