Nikon 18 - 200 VR lens for D300 ...

[cory_reynolds]

Hello! I have a ? regarding the nikon 18 - 200 VR lens. I have read that this

lens is a great and very good reviews on it. I will eventually be buying a D300

camera, but i've seen kits lens for this camera. The 18 - 200 mm VR lens is

$2500.00 w/ the D300. Is it worth the extra money to get the lens w/ this

camera or should buy the camera and try to buy the lens on ebay / craiglists

when i have more money saved up?

 

My current lenses are: 50mm f1.8, 18 - 70mm (D70s kit lens), Sigma 24 - 70 f2.8,

Tamron macro 90mm f2.8, Tamron 28 - 300 mm.

 

Thanks for any input.

 

Cory

[Peter_in_PA]

I LOVE my 18-200 and it's a great walk-around/vacation lens.

 

But if I were you. I'd keep the 50, the 18-70, and the Tamron macro (maybe the Sigma, too),

and get the D300 with the VR 70-300 VR lens. It's a KILLER deal right now with a HUGE

rebate if you buy them together.

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/pdfs/70-300mm_12.10.pdf

[ShunCheung]

First of all, $2500 for a D300 + 18-200 AF-S VR kit is not particularly a good deal. While the D300 is still around $1800, you should be able to get the 18-200 for less than $700. In other words, you are better off getting them separatly.

 

The 18-200 is a good choice if convenient is important to you. It has too many limitations for my taste. Currently, I don't own any lens whose maximum aperture is below f4 (in any part of its zoom range).

[phototransformations]

I'm not sure, with the lenses you have, why you'd want to buy the 18-200VR, unless you really believe that the convenience factor will outweigh the cost. Your current lenses more than duplicate the range, and the quality of the 18-200VR, in my opinion, is inferior to the lenses you already have. What advantages do you see it having that outweigh its iffy sharpness, distortion, CA, and vignetting?

[Michael R Freeman]

I agree with the comments above. I think you would be far better off selling the Tamron 28~300mm and replacing that with the AF-S VR 70~300mm instead of duplicating what you already have covered with an 18~200mm. You already have the short end covered with the AF-S 18~70mm DX, and that lens will give better pictorial results in that range than the AF-S VR 18~200mm.

 

Unless you want the convenience of an all-in-one lens (and can accept the compromises that such a design must have) you would be better off IMHO covering the same range with two lenses. I'm sure you have heard the expression "jack of all trades - master of none"? By the nature of the compromises that are necessary for such a wide zoom range (11X) that's kind of what the 18~200mm (and any other superzoom) is optically. It's pretty good for what it does, but other (less expensive) lenses can do the same job better.

[eric_mudama1]

The above posts are (IMO) good advice. I think the 70-300 is an excellent lens, and $150 off is a great deal.

[diane_madura]

Does anybody know if this is the only rebate Nikon is offering now? I have been unable to find any rebate information by doing a search. Not even the one mentioned above comes up.

[diane_madura]

Cory, if you dig deeper, you'll find that reviews on the 18-200 are mixed. If you want a lens for vacations, one where you won't need to keep changing lenses, I could see why you'd want the 18-200. Some members here love it, others sold theirs. I would use the Nikon 18-200 over the Tamron 28-300 any day. I have both lenses.

 

Now if you want to make 13 X 19 prints, maybe the 18-200 wouldn't be the best choice. But if you're only going to print 4 X 6 prints, that's another story.

[photo5]

I had the 18-200mm VR, and I enjoyed the zoom range a lot. I wasn't so impressed with the image quality, and the lens has some pretty bad distortion at 18mm, a focal length I use a lot. I decided to sell it and keep my 18-70mm, and instead I bought the Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom to suit my telephoto needs, and I like that lens very much. The 18-70mm is my favorite lens for all general uses, it's lightweight, sharp, and is a great performer for the money.

[rarmstrong]

Cory,

 

Excellent advice from all above. I recently purchased this lens with the D300 and have been very pleased with it's early results. The strongest point I believe is that it is a great lens to have on the D300 for just grabbing your camera and heading out to discover whatever you find interesting. It also helps to be paired with the D300 which is just superb. Enjoy the camera!

 

Dick

[donald_weston1]

I have this lens, and others, that are sharper. Yes, the 70-300mmVR, 70-200mmVR, and many others are sharper. But what do you want to carry? There are times and places for all of them. The 18-200VR is a good lens if you get a sharp copy of it. I bought one early on, first batch, and was not impressed and sold it. I recently bought it again and this time have what I would consider an excellent copy. I am comfortable printing images that are in good light, not necessarily bright daytime light, and am comfortable printing up to 24x36 inches. When I am looking for a good do all lens, this fits the bill nicely. There are other times when I will bring out the other glass for specific needs but this can be a very useful lens. YMMV...

[paul mitchell]

The 18-200 VR lens I owned was sharper than both the 18-70's I've tried and at least as good as my Tamron 17-50/2.8. I was never disappointed with it but eventually sold it to fund a macro lens. Nearly new examples are quite common on ebay & I'd recommend that route. If it doesn't suit you: sell it on. You won't lose much.

[ncordova]

I don't have an answer, but for street rallies, demonstrations, etc. I'd like to have a zoom

lens that would allow me go wide for crowd shots, and still zoom in to get closer to some

action. Having to change often is not really an option, and I'd prefer to carry one camera

instead of having to run around with multiple. I already will carry a small P & S. So, I

thought about the 18-200mm VR but I also don't like the compromises.

 

What about the Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR? Seems to have less

compromises than the 18-200mm VR, although at what now appears to be a strange

range.

 

Best,

 

N

[Mary Doo]

The 18-200 appears to be appropriate for your described purposes. I don't understand why you think the 24-120 is better. Since I got the 18-200 I have forgotton about the 24-120VR.

 

Mary