18-200mm opinions please

[mark_beaumont]

<p>Hi, I've been asked to cover a festival next weekend, (which is not something I usually do, but it's a friend ....) I currently have the 24-70mm 2.8 pretty much glued to the body, but reckon I need to get closer up shots for this job. so I was toying with the idea of getting the 18-200mm lens, for my D300. Just wondered what the general consensus of opinion was on this lens?</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>There are tons of threads on the 18-200, but I wouldn't say there is any general consensus of opinion. Instead, there are many different opinions on it. If you do a search in this forum, you should find a lot of existing answers.</p>

<p>I would say if you are more a casual photographer and prefer convenience over quality, the 18-200 is for you.</p>

[jonathonswersey]

<p>Mark, I love the 18 - 200, <strong>but</strong> given you have the 24-70 2.8 - you may not be happy with the 18 - 200 - it's a great walk around lens - and is glued to my D300 - but I cant afford pro glass besides rentals. The natural pair to the 24-70 is the 70-200 2.8, or the less expensive used 80 - 200. If you want less expensive still, the 70 - 300 VR may work - its a bit slow, but if you'll be shooting at f/8 or f/11, you might find this lens is a good value at ~$460.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I see the 18-200mm VR as the perfect family snapshot lens or Disney trip lens. On something like the D60 or new D5000 it would be a killer for trips where you want something more than a point & shoot but don't want to haul bulky or heavy gear. It's strength is decent performance in a small package, and not having to change lenses. I have a D300 and wouldn't use that lens on it mainly because if I'm going for light & compact I bring my D80.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[keith_robinson1]

<p>I agree with Shun. Much depends on what you are looking for. I used to use a D70 bought with the 18-70mm. I was generally happy with that lens but wanted more reach and the convenience of only using a single lens - so I bought the 18-200mm VR.</p>

<p>Initially, I was very happy with it but increasingly realised that there are too many compromises and the quality of my pictures had suffered. The percentage that I was really happy with was significantly less. If you are already using the 24-70mm then you will be expecting a higher quality than I was used to and I suspect you would be even more disappointed.</p>

<p>While the 70-200mm is the natural companion to the 24-70mm, on a D300 you could also use the 70-300mm VR which is cheaper and with DX you would avoid the softer corners. It still however would leave you changing lenses.</p>

[mark_beaumont]

<p>Thanks folks. I think in view of the fact I'm not bothered by inconvenience, (I shoot 5x4 most of the time), but quality is a big factor, I think i'll hire the 70-200mm. Sounds like I may be disappointed with the 18-200mm.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Depends on the festival, but in general my answer is a clear no. you'll end up shooting with max aperture most of the time, quality is not that good and you can't get the extra stop of speed when you need it. Better to have a 24-70 + 70-200 or 24-70 + prime. In my event shooting switching lenses even when using an all primes setup loses less shots than the lack of large apertures. And I want my sharp to be sharp, period.</p>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>I would agree with Oskar, especially if quality is a big factor for you. While you can get decent results out of it when everything is just right and it is a nice walk-around-casual-shooting lens, the quality just might not be up to your standards if you are used to 24-70 f/2.8. I am actually getting rid of mine since, like Keith here, I think there are just too many compromises and the IQ is not where I want it to be and it just is way too slow at 200mm. Renting the 70-200mm sounds like far better idea.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i was at an outdoor street festival in berkeley, ca yesterday. i have a bunch of 2.8 lenses, but i decided to take the tokina 24-200 for walkaround use with my d300. i suspect the tokina's optical performance is very similar to the 18-200--its fairly sharp if you can shoot at f/9, but not very contrasty. it also seems to be fairly susceptible to flare. i did notice, however, that shooting with an sb-400 for fill flash worked out well.</p>

<p>i was able to coax decent results out of it, which only needed a little adjustment in PP, yet i suspect if you are used to the 24-70's sharpness, you may be disappinted with the 18-200 overall. the tradeoff, obviously, is not having to switch out lenses. rather than plunk down $700 USD on a so-so superzoom lens (i only paid $300 for the tokina, which has an all-metal build), the 70-300 VR or the sigma 50-150/2.8 might be better solutions. i dont think you can go wrong, though, with a 70-200 VR.</p><div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>An 18-200 is a wonderful walk-around snapshot lens. Maybe the best.</p>

<p>If you're printing under 11 x 14, you won't see many of the "flaws" of this lens most of the time.</p>

<p>That said, I think your level of photography is beyond this, and if you're willing to carry heavier, the 70-200 is going to make you way happier no doubt.</p>

[commtrd]

<p>What Peter said...don't get the 18-200. Money better spent on a 70-200 or perhaps a good fast prime like the 85 f1.4 or 50 1.4 if shooting on DX. I really did like the 85 1.4 on my D300 for shooting events. It seemed to work out to be very useable for that and the aperture capability helped overcome the poor iso capability of the D300 (well compared to the D700...don't want to get anyone wound up!). If able to shoot with flash (strobist style) the D300 works exceedingly well.</p>

[Two23]

<p>This is yet another thread where we see the need for Nikon to come out with a 70-200mm f4 VR. Where is it, Nikon?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I had the 18-200 as a kit lens when I bought my D200. I think it is a nice walk around lens or vacation lens, but I found myself not satisfied with the overall image quality. Given that you normally use a 24-70, you will definitely notice the difference.</p>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>ANY...ANY lens that has a large excursion in focal length (i.e) 18-200 is a compromise.<br>

Given what the Nikkor 18-200 is being asked to do, it is a excellent lens. It's all about the context of your question. To compare it to a prime is truly a apples to oranges discussion and quite unfair unless you feel as I do that primes are the benchmark.<br>

With the responses you are seeing in just this thread alone, I think you ARE seeing a concensus.</p>

<p>For a festival?...Not for publication or submission to a contest; sure; the 18-200 is fine for that.<br>

"Zooms" have their place AND are pretty darn handy. Not having to change lenses in the field is a big plus IMO.</p>

<p>Finally; a quote I live by.."No one buys a high performance sports car and installs cheap tires on it."<br>

The D-300 is worthy of good glass.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Mark, I use the 18-200 as a walk around lens on the D300 and it is great for being versatile. If that is what you need for this festival it may work out just fine. But...if you are looking for critical pro results YOU may be frustrated even if your friend is not. If you have a minute to look up some of Matt Laur's comments and shots with the 18-200 I think you'll see some of the best examples here of what it can accomplish. Like all of the gear we use...it has it's sweet spots and weaknesses. If you work with it, you can get some very nice results. And, not having to change lenses or carry a large heavy lens at a festival can be a plus.<br>

Dick</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Mark, I was thinking about this a bit. If you are going to be outdoors in good light the 18-200 should really work well for the festival. This is a shot from last Summer from a family reunion with the 18-200 on my D300 at f8, 1/640 sec, 90 mm, handheld. Notice the bee over his left shoulder...<br>

Hope that helps!<br>

Dick</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Richard, that photo is hilarious! You should tweak it slightly to boost the brightness just a wee bit. Might even be worth the effort to burn in or clone out the out-of-focus doodad in the background behind the bee, to make it stand out better.</p>

<p>That photo is one of the examples of why I've always loved the so-called "snapshot aesthetic", those times when serendipity and humor conspire to elevate the mundane into something wonderful.</p>

<p>BTW, if you do decide to tweak it a bit and add it to your photo.net portfolio, please let me know. I want to add it to <a href="../photodb/favorite-folder?user_id=172915">my list of photo.net "favorites"</a> , most of which show my apparent preference for photos of the human condition.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Thanks for the comment, Lex! This is my brother-in-law, who has a great sense of humor. He has a copy of this titled "Ray with bee". I just was walking around snapping shots for memories and I didn't see the bee until later when I reviewed them on the computer. I agree that it could be tweaked a bit, this is straight out of the camera with some slight cropping. I was also thinking that a bit of fill flash would have helped here. Anyway, this is one of the strengths of the 18-200 VR, and I thought it might help Mark decide. I'm glad you got a smile out of it! I'll do some work on this one.</p>

 

[milton]

<p>I like mine and think it is a great travel lens. you can check out my travel photos at <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/gongml">http://picasaweb.google.com/gongml</a>. Most photos in albums since 2006 are shot with 18-200.<br /> Cheers</p>