Comparing 18-200mm lenses

[martin_aspeli]

Hi,

<p>

From my previous question here yesterday, I've come to the conclusion that I really want an 18-200mm

lens to keep on my D300 as a default/all-round/walk-around lens, complementing a 30mm f/1.4

prime (as a "normal" and low-light) and a 50mm f/1.8 prime (as a portrait and/or low-light lens). I

have an unopened Nikon 55-200 VR (intended for a D40 which I'm now selling), which I'm thinking to

return to offset the cost of an 18-200.

</p>

<p>

There seems to be a few choices here. The Nikkor is obviously the most expensive and probably the

best, but I'd like some opinions on whether it's really worth the extra money.

</p>

<ul>

<li>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6-ED-IF-Zoom-

Nikkor/dp/B000BY52NU/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201399337&sr=1-13">Nikkor

18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR</a> - $650</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NOSCGW/sr=1-1/qid=1201417519/ref=noref?

ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201417519&sr=1-1">Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 OS</a> - $440</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Digital-

Cameras/dp/B0007U0GZC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201399337&sr=1-2">The same

Sigma, just without OC or the built-in HSM AF motor</a> - $190</li>

<li>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-Autofocus-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-

Nikon/dp/B0007WK8NA/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201399337&sr=1-4">Tamron 18-

200 f/3.5-6.3</a> - $370</li>

</ul>

<p>

As possible alternatives, there's the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-135mm-3-5-5-

6G-Zoom-Nikkor-Digital/dp/B000HJPK0Y/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?

ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201417953&sr=8-1">Nikon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6</a> at $330 or

possibly the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-70mm-3-5-4-5G-AF-S-

Nikkor/dp/B0001YEOCU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1201417968&sr=8-1">Nikon

18-70 f/3.5-4.5</a> at $300.

</p>

<p>

Now, I know a lot of people swear by Nikkors and wouldn't touch a Sigma or Tamron, but I'm less

puritan (and this is likely not the last lens I ever buy) - I'd like to hear arguments in favour of either. The

18-200 VR Nikkor is really more than I *should* spend, but then so was the D300. I could buy it if it's

really going to make a very noticeable difference.

</p>

<p>

Thanks!

</p>

<p>

Martin

</p>

[phototransformations]

Well, FWIW, I have been quite unhappy with my 18-200VR and hardly use it. I am annoyed by the zoom creep, find it not very sharp, and find that it vignettes enough so that even PTLens has trouble fixing it -- and not just at the wide end. I had to back to Nikon to be adjusted, but it's not much improved. On the other hand, some people swear by it. Hard to say whether they are just less fussy or got a really good copy. The one I have is far less sharp than the 18-70 or my Tamron 28-75.

[photo5]

I too found the 18-200mm VR less sharp than my 18-70mm, and also the extreme distortion at 18mm was unacceptable to me, so it was sold shortly after I bought it. There is an issue of sample variation with this lens, so best to buy it locally and return it for another one if you find any problems. Mine had some alignment problems that really showed up at 200mm. All in all a real fun lens to shoot with though having VR and all. I'm still shooting with my 18-70mm and waiting for Nikon to announce their 16-85mm VR zoom that was leaked a while ago.

[nutmeg-42]

I bought my 18-200 VR lens thinking that I would be just doubling up on the lenses I already

had and was prepared to sell it if I found it to be average. I love it. I know it has weaknesses,

but for a walk around lens (especially for holidays) I'm extremely happy with the shots that it

takes and I have found the VR very handy. I tend to get into a bad habit of rushing my

photography and some shots I thought would show blur have actually turned out quite good

and I'm sure I have VR to thank for that.

[martin_aspeli]

Man, buying lenses is hard. :-) Here's two people saying it's unsharp, one saying it's great,

and Ken Rockwell thinks it's the best lens since sliced bread.

 

But, bring on the law of averages... more opinions please! ;-)

[tonybeach]

"Man, buying lenses is hard. :-)"

 

> Nikon is likely to announce some new lenses this week. Wait and see what comes out, it may just suit your needs and budget better.

 

"But, bring on the law of averages... more opinions please! ;-)"

 

> http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm

[rene gm]

If you are willing to correct the distortion and the vignetting wide open at 18mm, there is the inexpensive 18-135mm. In terms of sharpness, it is way better than the 18-200, but due to the missing VR, only if available light is sufficient, or you use a tripod. It also ends at 135mm, of course.

[Matthew Brennan]

If you go with the 18-200 VR be sure it's a GOOD copy..... Mine was a very poor specimen indeed and a trip to Nikon repair made no difference what so ever. I rated my 18-70 higher than the 18-200 VR but then I had a poor copy apparantly.............

Spend your glass money on something else than the 18-200 VR - just my 20 cents and others will yell me down for saying so.

[bruce_margolis]

"I've come to the conclusion that I really want an 18-200mm lens to keep on my D300 as a default/all-round/walk-around lens"

 

Martin, I have both the D300 and the 18-200VR. It is easily the most love it/hate it lens I can recall. Maybe there are extreme sample variations, maybe the lens just does better on certain bodies. Do a search on PN and you will find dozens of threads about it.

 

IMO, VR in this lens is wonderful but another thing that really helps is the high ISO ability of the D300. The weakest part of the 18-200 is the long end. Since the Tamron/Sigma versions are even slower, I would pass on them.

 

If you want another independent opinion, check out this one....

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AFS18-200VR

 

In the end, the only opinion that matters is your own. Try it out and see if it works for you.

[mitchell_fluhrer]

I was none too pleased with my 18-200 either and just sold it along with my D80 as I wait for my D300. I had thought the 18-200 could just extend my 18-70, but not so. Not nearly as sharp as the 18-70 and the zoom creep was annoying as well. I am now trying to figure out which zoom to get as I sold my 18-70 too...

[Matt Laur]

I've got the 18-200 and the 18-70, as well as some primes that fall into those ranges, and a beefy, fast, pro zoom. When I'm out and about, not anticipating any particular style or subject? The 18-200 stays on the camera. It's a bundle of compromises, but the VR has made for some workable shots that would otherwise have been poor, and the 18mm distortion has never proven to bother me at all. I absolutely will mount up other lenses given the ability to predict that I'll need them (and want to carry them). But early in the game, it's a pretty good option - especially with at least one fast prime like the 50/1.8 in the bag.

[heartyfisher]

I Have the 18-200vr.. Didnt like it much at first because its was not as sharp as the 18-70 but 18-200 vr is just much much more versatile... love it hate it? The VR is very useful ! Its very good but not great at everything eg portrait, macro, tele, wide, landscape. Wide angle VR is amazing where I can take pictures at up to 1 second shutter speed which was impossible without this technology. Ie its great for holidays where you want to take all kinds of pictures and carring around a tripod would be rather troublesome.

 

If I was buying now I would consider the Sigma seriously as it reviews sharper than the nikkor! Tamron I would pass on because it lacks OS/VR.

 

18-135 is very sharp but has higher CA.

 

18-70 is an excellent lens.. I still use its sometimes.. but I would wait for the recently leaked 16-85 VR it is supposed to be even sharper than the 18-70!! pair that with the 70-300vr or 80-400vr and you are set!

 

If it is as sharp as they say, for holidays, it may even replace my 18-200VR.. cus the 16mm wide end is nice.

[mooredriven]

When asking about lenses, especially the 18-200, you'll get a wide range of opinions. If you plan to use it as a walk around lens, and want the flexibility, then the 18-200 is a good solution. I have the D300/Nikkor 18-200 combo and enjoy the flexibility and image quality it provides. Is it the sharpest lens? No. Is it a good all around lens? Yes.

 

I think the following post summarizes why people enjoy the lens. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OAes

 

I think you've already convinced yourself to purchase the lens. Buy it, try it, if you don't like it, sell it. It's still a lens in demand.

 

Dale

[martin_aspeli]

This whole discussion is a bit agonizing. :)

 

The issues of focal length, speed and size/weight are all straightforward. However, I read a

review that says there's Slight Barrel Distortion at 18mm and Visible Pincushion Distortion

at 135mm or whatever... I can see the test images in the reviews and understand what it's

all about, but ... will I actually care?

 

There seems to be a huge degree of variation in the reviews of these lenses - both in

forums like this and on websites (like KenRockwell.com or ByThom.com) that try to carry

an opinion, ranging from "this lens replaced a bag full of lenses and I use it daily" to

reviews that basically says you need to understand all these types of distortion in detail

and pick your settings carefully to get good results. Yikes!

 

I am not taking pictures for money, I generally shoot JPG, I keep my pictures in iPhoto and

I print only a few pictures to hang on my wall from time to time. I want a usable lens that

doesn't give me headaches and allows me to take pictures I'll be happy with, and makes

me happy while taking them. I'm sure eventually I'll spend $1500 on some amazing piece

of glass, but that's not what this is all about.

 

So... for the money, the Sigma 18-200 looks nice. I used one in the shop, and took some

nice pictures, but of course that's nothing but a simple test. If everyone agreed that the

Nikkor 18-200 was way better, I'd have found the spare cash for that. If someone can tell

me that I'll be way happier with an 18-70 and forego a bit of zoom, so be it. I guess the

frustration seems to be that there are more negatives than positives being thrown around.

 

Ah well, it's all a part of the fun, I guess. :)

 

Martin

[hbs]

I've had my 18-200 VR for over a year now and, in general, I've been happy with it. I agree with most of the other posters that it isn't the sharpest lens in the world, but mine isn't that bad either. The zoom creep is a non-issue for me. The versatility is a big plus. I did make the mistake of buying a cheap uncoated UV filter for it -- I've ordered a B+W MRC to replace it.

 

Another lens you might want to consider is the Tamron 17-50. I got one recently for my D300 and I love it. Very sharp and a lot less expensive than the very highly rated Nikon 17-55.

 

No matter what you get you can always sell it as long as you don't abuse it. You'll probably lose a little money, but you'll be paying for the learning experience.

[Matt Laur]

<i>I can see the test images in the reviews and understand what it's all about, but ... will I actually care?</i>

<br><br>

In short, no. Not at all. I've once or twice used simple correction sliders in software (Capture NX, and others) to take care of a shot that - because of content that was visually important because of very strong architectural lines - was more appealing with a tweak or two.

<br><br>

It's important to remember that many (not all, by any means) of the comments - especially the less favorable ones - about this lens come from people that have used dozens of lenses, and regularly use precision primes, pro zooms at three times the cost of the 18-200 (with far less versatility), and who split hairs on this subject almost as a sport. Some are casual shooters who want their one miracle lens to be perfect. Neither of those camps will be happy with this lens because they're not thinking of it from a typical, real-life user's point of view. There's simply no way that a lens of this class will be the last one you buy.

<br><br>

At the risk of provokoing considerable eye-rolling from people who've seen me link to it before, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6692079&size=lg"><b>right here</b></a> is a shot using the Nikon 18-200 at 18mm. If you look closely at the buildings on the right- and left-most boundaries, you'll see some perspective distortion (the buildings appear to lean out of the frame a bit). Make <i>sure</i> that you understand the difference between that effect - which is a function of the focal length and the angle, true of essentially ANY lens without tilt/shift capabilities trying to take that same shot - and barrel/pinchushion problems.

<br><br>

But more to the point: I like this lens because it's reasonably useful in a wide range of decidedly <i>un-</i>reasonable (read: unpredictable) situations.<div></div>

[Mary Doo]

Again, well said, Matt! :)

 

Mary

[martin_aspeli]

Hi Matt,

 

Thanks so much for that insightful response! You're definitely right that this won't be my

last (or only) lens. I plan to keep the 30mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.8 at hand for low-light,

portrait and high-quality pictures.

 

In any case, I think I'm down to one of three choices:

 

- Get the Nikon 18-200 VR and return the 55-200 VR. Total cost = $660

 

- Get the Nikon 18-70 and keep the 55-200 VR. Total cost = $560

 

- Get the Sigma 18-200 VR and return the 55-200 VR. Total cost = $440

 

Ah choices. Do any of those stand out as a particularly good or bad idea, anyone?

 

Cheers,

Martin

[martin_aspeli]

So... in my reading of the reviews at photozone.de (<a

href="http://photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/242-nikkor-

af-s-18-200mm-f35-56-g-if-ed-vr-ii-dx-review--test-report?start=1">Nikon</a>, <a

href="http://photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/321-sigma-af-18-

200mm-f35-63-dc-os-canon-test-report--review?start=1">Sigma</a>), the Sigma is

actually looking a little bit better on distrotion, about equal on vignetting and CA and equal-

ish on sharpness. Am I looking at the charts wrong? For two-thirds the price, it seems like a

good deal...

[Matt Laur]

Martin: I was sort of hoping that someone else would chime in at this point, especially those that have handled/shot with the Sigma 18-200. It's just not something I've personally used, so it's very hard to be at all authoritative on that.

[martin_aspeli]

Matt - I couldn't find many reviews either, but some searches on flickr corroborated the

photozone.de review - the bokeh is pretty bad, which put me off it.

 

In the end, I decided to save some money and buy an 18-70 (which is supposedly sharper

and less distorting too) with a view to buying a 70-300 VR later when my bank account goes

into the black again.

[al_peterson1]

Well, I'm also in the market for a walk around lens such as the 18-200. I have a Nikon 70

-300 VR but always miss the wide angle feature of the 18-55 when it's mounted on my

D40. Since I also shoot a lot of nature/wildlife at full focal length, I would feel

compromised with anything less than a 200 at the far end. After two days of reading old

posts re. Sigma and Nikorr 18-200 lenses, I'm still unsure which to buy.

 

Matt, your "evening in Piazza" photo with the 18-200 Nikon looks suitable to me, as well

as the dogs and quail flushing. That was an excellent catch !

 

Now it appears there is a new 18-200 VR ll lens ? Does anyone have usage comments or

any reviews of this lens ?

 

Thanks.