nikkor 18-200 ???

[pcnilssen]

<p>I don't have this lens myself, but have read many posts form folks that are quite satisfied. <br>

Many consider this a good holiday lens, when you do not want to carry heavy, or empty your familys good-will by changing lenses all the time.</p>

[Not Here]

<p>Just $.02 worth here from an amateur, but when I judge a lens I look at what it can achieve when used correctly. A tour through Matt Laur's portfolio tells me I have a benchmark of ability, not lens quality. For the money, which is a huge factor, I personally love the lens, even with the lens creep (I corrected that myself - so not an issue anymore).<br>

So, for the thread question - I give a thumbs up!</p>

 

[john_rupley]

<p>Dan<br>

I don't shoot weddings or portraits, so I cannot speak to that. However, I have an array of pro lenses including a 70-200 F2.8 and a 28-70 f2.8. I also have an 18-200 that I bought prior to a trip to Italy last year. I am attaching four photos that were taken with that lens. All shots were blown up to 11.5 x 17 and were just as sharp as at 5x7. I shot low light without flash, bright light and night shots and all were very good with only a little pp for noise (Shot alot of 1600 ISO inside of museums and churches with a D200). I have not tried the 16-85, but from experience in Italy, that would not have been a long enough lens for many shots. It is a great travel lens. Yes, the 28-70 or the 70-200 were faster and better glass, but I did not feel like carrying those two beasts around for two weeks. I attach four images and you can be the judge. I highly recommend it for travel and as a walk around lens. All four were hand-held with VR on. For the money, it is a great lens. Hope this helps.<br>

John<br>

<img src="http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/9045/medium/Venice-Grand-Canal.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="268" /><br>

<img src="http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/9045/medium/Florence-Ponte-Vecchio-Daytime.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="268" /><a href="http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/9045/medium/Florence-Ponte-Vecchio-Daytime.jpg"></a><br>

<img src="http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/9045/medium/Florence-Ponte-Vecchio-at-Night.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="268" /><br>

<img src="http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/9045/medium/Rome-St-Peters-Basilica-Night.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="268" /><br>

<a href="http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showphoto.php/photo/125903"></a></p>

[billfoster]

<p>I had this lens on my lost D300 and I LOVED it. For what it is, a great single lens for walking around taking pictures of anything you see, it's tough to beat. I have the D700 now and I wish so much there was a comparable lens I could use on it. I have the 17-55 and the 70-200, but try lugging those two cannons (no pun intended) around India for 8 hours when it's 104 outside. It's not the sharpest but for my uses, it was fantastic.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Looking at Matt and John's pictures should give you the naswer you need. They are beautiful and very sharp. I have to shudder whenever people ask about the "sharpness" of a lens. The real answer is will this lens create beautiful picures at all of it zoom range and the answer is yes. Thom Hogan (who is hard to please) said "Superzooms shouldn't be this good". </p>

<p>IMO the only time you will not care for this lens is when you need a faster apature to control depth of field or when you need a pure macro. </p>

<p>Is it a one-lens wedding solution? These days there is no one-lens wedding solution unless you are looking for "good enough" pictures rather than really well thought out and professionally shot pictures. I am old enough to remember shooting weddings with wierd old cameras. I once shot boxing with a speed graphic. Doctors used to bleed people too but we seem to have moved on, haven't we? </p>

<p>You say you have 32 Nikkor lenses. Unless you are collecting obsolete paperweights you already have the lenses you need to shoot about anything. So this lens is a special purpose lens. It is the one you take when you want to leave the others at home. There is no better walking around lens at all. The 16-85 might be a quibble but it is short on the long end and not wider enough to make much difference. Some say it is sharper but that too is a quibble. Not enough for humans to see...</p>

<p>If you are a pixel peeper you will find fault with any lens. And even if you test this lens against the stupid sharp 50mm f1.8 there will be far more difference in how you hold the camera, breathe, press the trigger and select focus than there will be in the difference in glass. If you consider a tripod an essential part of "walking around" (I don't) the VR will help sharpness more than most any glass differences. </p>

<p>This is not a disposable lens. But if you own 32 Nikkors I am willing to bet some of them are.</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>All lenses require compromising somehow, somewhere. Apart from DX format, this lens is a damn fair deal with not much compromising. It is not supersmall or light; it is not superfast; it is not superquality. But it has more than acceptable performance in most circumstances. And VR really is a killer app - it really allows this lens to outperform handheld with the right body and decent ISO.<br>

You referred to weddings specifically: is this the only body/lens you will be working with? It really depends on how you work. If you're the type to work with two bodies, for example, this plus a fast 50 or moderate wide/normal (on DX body or equivalent on FX) would be a great combination. This one will also work and balance well on a smallish body like the D5000. Possibly a medium format or film camera for the critical quality shots. In other words, this lens for just about everything, and a separate body for the uber quality shots you may want. (Not many wedding photographers I know want to change lenses frequently, they'd prefer to have an extra body).<br>

But really the best way to see is to try one. In terms of handling it with a camera, it balances and focusses quite well - I'd have no concerns about using it in a wedding environment. It is my go-to lens for most shooting or when you're leaving the house and know you have to take a lot of pictures, and you don't know exactly what conditions.<br>

That said, you specificaly excluded comparisons to other lenses. I've no doubt that there are other lenses, quite possibly in your (very large) extant kit that would also fit the bill. But VR is huge.</p>