shivaz Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Hi all, The lens I am curions about is the Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR, just wondering if any of you use this lens proffesionaly? If so, what do you like about it, if not, have you tried it? thanks everyone, Shivaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_rubenstein___nyc Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Take this for what it's worth, because I haven't used it yet: The comments that I've seen of people who I trust are along the lines of "It's a good lens, but the focus is slow in low light." For me, this would rule it out as a wedding lens. I tried using a 18-70/3.5-4.5 for weddings and it also has slow, not very reliable, focus in low light and I don't even take it as a back up lens any more. It may work fine for outdoor, day time weddings and you could probably use it for your primary lens (I know, it's not as sharp as pro zooms and primes, but I'll bet it's good enough.) It's probably a dandy personal use lens, but it's pretty expensive for what may be limited usage for wedding work. Not to mention it's also difficult to find in stock anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicola inglis Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Hi Shivaz, My husband recently purchased this lens for me, I did not have huge expectations of it and I have been pleasantly surprised. I had thought it would be a good home lens but gave it a run at one wedding and now it's part of my standard wedding kit. It is very versatile as long as there is enough light. Since I mostly do outside weddings (and I still have the 80-200 2.8 for the occassional dark church) the light is not usually a problem. It is very cool being able to go from wide angle to zoom with one lens on one camera. I have used it for two weddings now and one event (Relay for Life) and my experience is that it is sharp. It is also lots lighter than the 80-200 and shorter too so it's easier to work with in simple physical terms. My only issue has been when i forgot the rule about the shutter speed having to be the same or faster than the focal length and I tried to shoot at 200 with a shutter speed of only 100th of a second (doh!) and the pics were blurry (of course). I could have opened up the aperture and solved the problem so not really a lens issue, just plain old user error! One thing to consider is the fact that it has the push-pull focus thing (it's not IF) so it's potentially sucking more dust onto your sensor than an internal focus one would be. I quite like the push-pull thing though because it means I look over at my assistant using it and see straightaway whether she is at full zoom or wide :-) But dust on the sensor is a pain, so I guess the jury is still out on that facet of it. At this stage I'm pretty happy with it, much happier than I expected to be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicola inglis Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 oops, it is IF, what I mean is the barrrel goes in and out as you focus (unlike the 80-200 which always looks the same from the outside. Sorry, not sure what the technical term for that is :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 At a sports event I was shooting about 4 months ago, my 70-200 2.8 malfunctioned. I ended up shooting 3/4 of the event with the 18-200. I had to increase the ISO a little but the pictures came out as good as any other event I had shot for this client - they were pleased. I had a 6 week break in events and I decided to send my 17-55 to Nikon for service for an intermittant focussing problem. Sure enough, just after I sent it in, I booked an event a couple of weeks out. I ended up shooting the sweet sixteen with the 18-200. The room was very dark except for the dj's lights and some lights around the bar and those pictures came out superb as well (shot about 1000 images. I'm not selling my 70-200 or my 17-55, but the 18-200 really delivers, and I would feel comfortable shooting any event with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_ellis Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I use it for beach weddings where there's plenty of light and love it. I like the wide zoom range so I don't have to change lenses on the beach- too risky. I'm getting a 70-200 for churches, but that lens will never go near the sand! I've found that in dim churches, it just didn't pull in enough light. When you can add some bounce flash, it works great.I've also run into problems with sports at dusk/night or indoor sports like basketball and volleyball. It can be a little slow to focus in these conditions. It is the main lens I use 99% of the time though. The 70-200 will be for difficult lighting situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagesax Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I have a friend at camera store that let me borrow it for a day. As Bruce said for a normal wedding it's fine. If you need to make prints greater than 8X12, you will see a difference compared to a 70-200. But clients probably won't see it. In low light it will suffer some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_nako Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Ive heard it described as the ultimate 'walk around' lens. I have one of these and I use it all the time. Sure, if you need more light, if you're printing poster images, if you're on an assignment for Vogue magazine, then maybe its not the right lens to use in that situation. However, it's the lens that I keep on my camera unless I have a specific need, as it covers most situations very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellery_chua___singapore Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I noted Bruce's opinion of the 17-70, I felt a need to balance his view. I have used this extensively for wedding with both interior ball rooms read that as lower to low light and for outside wedding on a professional basis - it works, it delivers. A tool to be use if that is what you have. Yes I would also agree that a 18-55 is sexier for lower/low light work with a differential focus slant but it not always necessary to use this. Perhaps his problem with low light focusing is more a sample variation issue - I had use 2 samples of the 17-55 and one just acquires focus better than the other - shooting in the same vennue approx the same lighting. If the light level drop to coal mine dark - I am pulling out the 50/1.8 r 1.4; the 28/1/.4 and the 85/1.8 these would work better than a zoom provided you can visualise their field of view. I think the lens could work out but I have not used this. If you can do a rental to try it out first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shivaz Posted March 25, 2007 Author Share Posted March 25, 2007 Thanks all for the helpfull replies. I have decided to purchase a d200 with the 18-200 as well as a 50 1.8. This is as far as my funds will take me now, but in the future I look foreward to having some faster glass, in the meantime if I ever need some I can always rent. thanks again, Shivaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 The focus does hunt in low light. I don't think you'd want to use this lens in a church. For well lit scenes and daylight the lens is great...way better than you'd expect for a so called "super zoom". <p> Also, it blurs the background nicely. Here's a very quick grab shot made when I was testing the lens.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now