Nikon 18-200mm VR - Are you happy with its results?

[elliot1]

<p><em>"But somehow started to feel that may be I am not getting that output from this lens."</em> What is making you feel this way? Frankly, unless you are printing huge posters, I doubt you would see any image quality differences in standard sized prints as large as 8 x 10 or possibly even bigger.</p>

<p>As a former owner of the lens, my copy was sharp at all focal lengths, even at 200mm. Many other owners of the lens report the same high image quality so I am not alone with this experience. I tested mine against my 70-200mm (at 200mm) and found the IQ comparable out of the camera and with PP, they could easily be made to appear identical. For those that feel your IQ isn't satisfactory above 130mm,, I suggest send your lens in to Nikon to have it serviced (hopefully under warranty) as it should be sharp throughout its zoom range.</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>I think the answer is in your first response: you love the lens and the flexibility it offers. Keep it.<br>

As for whether and what else to get in addition to that lens, it depends what you want and how and what you shoot. If you want cheap and some extra sharpness for comparison, almost any fixed length will be good and the 50mm f1.8 is hard to beat. If you need extra-sharp long lengths, that's what you need, get one of those. If all you shoot with long length is on a tripod of static subjects, you could get by without autofocus or even metering.<br>

Don't worry about the equipment. Shoot more. But if that lens works for you most/much of the time, don't get rid of it. It's not the perfect lens, but no lens is.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>The 18-200 VR is a good lens.</p>

<p>If you want to improve...<br>

(1) Take a class<br>

(2) Read books<br>

(3) Take pictures as often as you can</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>In addition to taking some photography class and shooting more, you need to be willing to get critiques on your images so that you know how you can get better as a photographer. I don't mean to post to those threads where pretty much every image is praised, regardless of whether that is deserved or not. Intead, get some real feedback on your images.</p>

<p>In the Nature Forum, there is a current thread on some basics. You might want to take a look at it: <a href="../nature-photography-forum/00Tr3y">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00Tr3y</a><br>

The 18-200mm AF-S VR is a fairly decent lens; I have used a friend's briefly. While it certainly has quite a few limitations and compromises, to a point that I don't bother to buy one myself, I think it is sufficient for the OP at this point. I would add more lenses only when you have clearly outgrown that lens.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>I have D90 with 18-200mm VR lens. The reason for writing this post is after learning and looking at pictures post here, I do now understand now to take a really good picture it is also important to have good lens too.<</p>

<p>The reason for writing this post, Rohit, is that you think your 18-200mm lens can't give you "a really good picture." I think you're wrong. Great photograph can be made with any lens. </p>

<p>I have one complaint about my 18-200mm lens. It's too sharp; specifically, when I focus on my subject, it's difficult to throw the background (or foreground) out of focus - when I want to - because of the relatively small maximum f/stop. It's not impossible, but it's not always as easy as I would like.</p>

<p>If your own photographs with your 18-200mm lens are not as sharp as you want them to be, then you need to improve your technique.</p>

<p>If you want a good, or even a great photograph, forget about the quality - or lack of quality - of a lens. </p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>Beautiful captures my friend. Must be 7/7 for both.<br>

My friend Ken has an 18-200 and he says it is very good. Is yours made in Japan. They are the best.<br>

Anyway best of luck.</p>

[rohitn]

<p>Hello all,<br>

First of all thank you so much for sharing your views/ideas. Richard Atmstrong great pictures. As I said above still learning, trying, failing and again learning from my mistakes. As a person i am really creative, and as they say you need to visualise the photograph before taking pictures, I really can do that belive me. But not perfect with the techniques which can be improve over the time.<br>

But sometimes you think that where am I going wrong? is it with the technique or is it with equipment and that where anyone can get flustered.<br>

While reading the review about 18-200mm before buying it i do know about its limitations. But i decided to go with it because of flexibility. Because this is my first SLR camera/lens and trying to learn/fail and again learn.<br>

No one is perfect and thats what i believe in cause there will be always room for improvement/learning.<br>

Once again everyone really thankfull for your feedbacks.<br>

To conclude this thread i would like to put my best picture. You are welcome to give feedback on that too. Posting image in original size.<br>

Rohit</p>

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

[greg_alton]

<p>If you're going to be taking pictures of sand dunes, I doubt any minor distortion will be too noticeable!<br>

Seriously, a decent shot. I can see some minor colour fringing, but only if I pixel peep; would not be noticeable at most reasonable sizes. Possibly some edge/corner sharpness but again, nothing overly offensive (may be other factors at play here, there is some flare going on). So again, comes down to what you plan to do with it first and foremost.<br>

For carrying around, it's still an absurdly flexible lens. I use this and while I like other lenses quite a lot, I can't see getting rid of it; too useful for general use. My main complaint (okay, my wife's, which makes it mine) is that it's a bit too big.</p>

[eghamlin]

<p>Well, I am going to add my two cents in this, I have read quite a few opinions and I have to say the the combination to use fo rthe average person is the 18-55 and 55-200 vr lenses. Albeit they are DX lenses the perform quite well even for the professional. There are some minor limitations but aver all speed, clarity and image quality are right on the mark, combined with the higher mp of the D90 you should get some great images. Some Pros like the 18-200 since they don't have to carry mulitple lenses in their light kits. The cost of the two aforemetnioned lenses are affordable so... hang onto the 18-200 and add to your selection of lenses. You will find eventually the desire to add to the collection to broaden the types of pictures you can shoot. Have fun....</p>

[robert_k1]

<p>According to this page, this lens is produced in both Japan and Thailand, with three different groupings of serial numbers.<br>

<a href="http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html">http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html</a><br>

I recall a reviewer (sorry, can't remember the source) claiming that some version of this lens (production locations and/or dates?) is sharper than other versions. Not sure if this is true, and certainly don't want to start another urban legend here. But if there is some truth to it, can the quality of this lens be identified by their serial numbers?</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I recall a reviewer (sorry, can't remember the source) claiming that some version of this lens (production locations and/or dates?) is sharper than other versions. Not sure if this is true,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am sure that is not true, but unfortunately there are those so called "reviews" that spread this kind of nonsense.</p>

<p>A few years ago I talked to my local Nikon rep and I noticed that he had both Japan and Thailand made 18-200 lenses with him. He told me that the ones you can buy new are all made in Thailand. However, there were some early samples made in Japan, and those are mainly used for demo purposes. Apparently a few of those have leaked into the general market.</p>

 

[robert_hooper1]

<p>What Shun says is true. First production of this lens was in Japan. Those who purchased early, as I did, have samples that were made in Japan. </p>

<p>I have never compared the cosmetics of an early Japan made sample to the later Thailand production model, so I don't know if there is a physical difference between them or not. </p>

<p>Does anyone know if they are any obviously differences between these lenses other than the stamped country of origin?</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>Does anyone know if they are any obviously differences between these lenses<br />other than the stamped country of origin?<</p>

<p>Having used and photographed with both versions, I can attest that they are identical in appearance and, in my case, quality. </p>

[robert_k1]

<p>After some research, I have found several unhappy owners of this lens:</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SPgH">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SPgH</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Se09">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Se09</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TuJN">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TuJN</a><br>

Since the owners provided no information about their copies' versions or serial numbers, it is inconclusive whether the quality problems can be easily identified. But the number of unhappy (and relatively experienced) owners suggest that there is a significant variance in this lens' quality.</p>

[rohitn]

<p>Hi there,<br>

Last few responses are really interesting. However I purchased mine in Australia somewhere in January this year. I will check my lense today will post details tomorrow for sure. However whatever finding is there regarding 18-200 (if it is true) its really make me agitated.<br>

Rohit</p>

<p> </p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>the number of unhappy (and relatively experienced) owners suggest that there is a significant variance in this lens' quality.<</p>

<p>To me, it suggests nothing of the kind. There is no way to know the number of "unhappy" people, experienced or otherwise, who have this lens, compared to the number of people who have it and are happy, nor is there a definition of what "significant" means.</p>

<p>Certainly it's expected that people w/ complaints about lenses would gravitate to forums like this one, while those happy with their purchases will visit less often. </p>

<p>Below are some threads about oil and the 35mm f/2 Nikon lens. Does this suggest a significant variance in the build quality? There's no way to know. (Do a google search and find the same complaint about the "dreaded" oil on the aperture blades of the famed 55mm f/2.8 macro lens.)</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TDbd</p>

<p>http://ixiyizi.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-nikon-35mm-afs.html</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/52907025@N00/discuss/72157604403475629/</p>

 

[eghamlin]

<p>I was just thinking back to my film days and trying out different lenses to see which really met my needs and how they performed when it came to speed and sharpness/clarity wichever term you would like to use. I never found the perfect lens, as a matter of fact I found my self packing my bag with the lenses for the type of outing I had planned. A combination of wide and long lenses for when I went to shoot planes at the Reno Air races, wide angle and fast fixed focal length when I was shooting pictures in the Sierra Neveda mountians. <br>

Based of what I have heard and seen in the performance of the lens it has its limitations, yet is has sweet spots and you need to take advantage of what you have. So, not matter what you read and hear you have to use what you have to it's fullest potental.<br>

I was reading a review, I am not sure when, but I do remember the author cited a freind using a fanny pack to carry an extra lens when he was out and about in what he considered a light kit. My light kit consists of three lenses, a 18-55, 55-200, and 70-300. I have some other lenses to use, which are fixed focal lenghts that I will swap out every once in awhile since I have specif objectives. 35mm, 50mm and a 105mm. each lens has it's purpose. My point I guess is that you will find out that you are going to want more than one lens.<br>

Figure out what you want to do and then find what is going to work for you or make what you have work for you, find the focal length and f value that gets you the best image possible. Hey it si digital, shoot a couple of frames at different values. If offer all of this humbly as I still learn every day how to use what I have better than the day before.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Unhappy users?</p>

<p>For the first two years it was produced, Nikon couldn't keep up with the demand. I submit to you that there are hundred of thousands (perhaps) of people who find this lens just peachy. A handful of people (often the kind who complain about everything I suspect) who complain on forums like this is just a blip.</p>

<p>It's a great lens for what it's made for. If you print up to 8 x 10 or the occasional 11 x 14, it'll give you the same pictures, properly used, as any pro glass in nearly all situations. Period.</p>

<p>Bottom line: If you get this lens and your pictures stink, it's not the lens.</p>