Nikkor 18-200 Decision

[dan_south]

<p>I've owned probably three dozen lenses over the years. There's only one that I absolutely HATED: Nikon's 18-200 mm VR (original version). The infamous lens creep drove me nuts. The complex distortion is difficult to repair in Photoshop. And although the lens is quite sharp, sharpness seemed to vary across the frame. The VR never impressed me either (The VR in the 70-200 mm f/2.8 G VR works much better).</p>

<p>Suggestion: Buy her a 16-85 VRII now and save up for a 70-300 VRII later on.</p>

[panorama333]

<p>My guess is that the OPs girlfriend will not be shooting line charts or be pixel peeping. The 18-200 lens is quite capable of producing awesome images. Ask Tom Mangelsen, who grosses millions of dollars a year and used this lens to win a photo of the year competition:<br>

http://californianewswire.com/2008/01/02/CNW841_235447.php<br>

I use the lens (and have sold many photos produced with it. albeit not for millions of dollars) and have yet to hear anyone say "geez, nice photo, but the distortion is horrendous" or "those chromatic aberrations would cause me to lose sleep at night." I think even the gear heads know that what's most important is who's behind the camera, not what's in front of it.</p>

[marian_deaconescu4]

<p>Go for the 18-200, it's plenty sharp for most uses outdoors and definitely the do it all for amateurs. Yes, you'll find bigger,better, sharper, faster, but no one will be as fast when needed to capture the right angle at the right moment - I'm assuming you don't want to use it for weddings indoors, though.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p><em>Ask Tom Mangelsen, who grosses millions of dollars a year and used this lens to win a photo of the year competition:</em></p>

<p>Is that for real or just hyperbole? Can a landscape/nature photographer really gross millions? If so, I'm going to take this photography stuff a little more seriously.</p>

[panorama333]

<p>Dave: Here's a financial report on Mangelsen, Inc.<br>

http://www.manta.com/c/mmf6wnj/thomas-d-mangelsen-inc<br>

His company does more than just his photography, but he is considered one of the best nature photographers around. I've been to his gallery in Jackson Hole, WY and his work is breath-taking. I believe he had one image there that noted he waited three weeks to capture it. Talk about the patience of a saint...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Regardless of which famous photographers use the 18-200, what type of award they win using this lens and how much money they make overall, it does not change the basic facts about this lens.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is an extremely convenient, one-size-fits-all lens. If convinence is what you value, it is hard to beat this lens. There are 3rd-party lenses that may even reach 300mm or so on the long end and perhaps at half the price, but once the maximum aperture drops below f5.6, Nikon's AF system works very poorly.</p>

<p>Personally I do not like f5.6 lenses. 200mm or 300mm @ f5.6 restricts your ability to shoot action because it limits the high shutter speeds you can use unless you are in "sunny 16" situations. Indoors it simply becomes very difficult to use.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is a fine lens on its wide end; I have captured some very good landscape images with it below 50mm. However, near 200mm it is so poor, even @f8, f11, that I would rather not use it. We expect even cheap "Coke bottle" lenses to perform ok @ f8. So when we pay a not-so-cheap $700, it should be at least ok in its entire zoom range @ f8. Keep in mind that the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR are about $400 together, so you are paying a major primium for convenience.</p>

<p>The 18-200 has slightly better construction than the plastic mount 18-55 and 55-200. At least you get a metal mount. But it extends out in two sections when you zoom to 200mm. The lens barrel is a bit vulnerable when extended, but it collapses to a reasonably small lens. Again, it is optimized for convenience.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Thanks, everybody. Your comments and opinions have been extremely helpful. I'm not sure I'll shell out the money for this lens right now, but, based on your inputs and her needs, it would be a good thing for her.</p>

<p>Re: Mangelsen - $20-50 million a year. Wow! Where's my camera? </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I don't know how much money Thomas Mangelsen makes; he is certainly an excellent wildlife photographer. I have been to three of his galleries: Hong Kong, Santa Barbara, and La Jolla (near San Diego, California). They were all in expensive tourist areas and he is clearly catering to high-end customers, buying those $2000, $5000 large prints. As far as I know, 2 of those 3 have closed down.</p>

<p>However, there are a lot of other excellent wildlife photographers, many here on photo.net. I think in that line of business, marketing and promotion are far more important than just technique and equipment.</p>

<p>But that is another topic, probably belongs to the Photo Business Forum.</p>

[fishit]

<p>Shun you summed it up well it is what it is as a lens goes. It has it's purpose. I enjoy mine but I also enjoy my others lens as well, they all have certain qualities based on what I want to use them for at the time. You make some very points in this thread.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p><em>I don't know how much money Thomas Mangelsen makes; he is certainly an excellent wildlife photographer. I have been to three of his galleries: Hong Kong, Santa Barbara, and La Jolla (near San Diego, California). They were all in expensive tourist areas and he is clearly catering to high-end customers, buying those $2000, $5000 large prints. As far as I know, 2 of those 3 have closed down.</em></p>

<p>I used to live in the ski resort of Park City, Utah and I believe he had a gallery there too for awhile.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I believe that since this is such a complicated lens design that there are a lot more sample variations than perhaps any other Nikon lens. It's an 11x zoom! Any tiny component the least bit off or out of alignment is going to effect performance. Reviews for this lens seem to be all over the place and anecdotal accounts vary like night and day.</p>

<p>The horrible results posted by some of the images taken at the telephoto end of this lens do not coincide with the results I get with my lens. Images taken at telephoto focal lengths of this lens are certainly not as great as the mid to wide angle focal lengths, but with my lens, I don't see the dramatic differences some people do. I think when you buy this lens, it's a toss of the dice as to whether you receive a good one or not.</p>

<p>Also, I suspect this lens is probably very susceptible to impact, whether surrounded by padding or not. If you order this lens online, I would pay for next day, or at least second day service to minimize time in the shipping tumbler. Furthermore, some notable online stores could also pack their items with a little more care, in my opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

[zaheer_b]

<p>Dave, this lens will save your friend the pain of having to change lenses. Yes it is more expensive than the two she has put together, and it's nowhere in the running when it comes to muscle-busting and pocket-busting professional lenses that serv their purpose for those who make millions (or dream of it) from their images. However, in the real world, for folks who want reasonably good images, you may want to look at what a professional who does make a lot of money through photography, has to say about it.<br>

Thom Hogan's views on this lens:<br>

<em>For US$750, Nikon DSLR users get a do-it-all lens. Everyone wants to know if it's worth the money. Short answer: it is...</em><br>

 

<h4 ><a name="autofocus"></a><em>Performance</em></h4>

<p ><em>I alluded to it earlier, so let's cut to the chase: on almost every performance parameter this is an excellent lens. Not perfect, but quite good at almost everything. </em><br>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm"><em>http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm</em></a></p>

 

 

<p><em> </em></p>

</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As I said, we have gone thru this discussion back in February: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VnWP">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VnWP</a></p>

<p>And Robert Hooper wrote there:</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=992102">Robert Hooper</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 23, 2010; 03:18 p.m.</p>

<p>Hi Shun,<br>

I have just read <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html" target="_blank">Bjorn Rorslett's review</a> and I totally agree with his assessment. I also stipulate that the 200mm end of my Nikon 18-200mm is the weakest part of the focal range, performance wise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can read Bjorn's comments here: <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html</a><br>

<P>

And this was what Thom Hogan wrote in his review:

<blockquote>

From 18-100mm my lens was everything most people would ever want in terms of sharp on the 6mp to 12mp DX DSLRs, so the way I look at it is that you get a decent mid-range zoom that can give you a usable long telephoto in a pinch.

</blockquote>

<P>

Unfortunately, Thom Hogan somewhat contraditcs himself in another part of his review, but all of our observation is quite consistent: the 18-200 is fine on the wide end and weak on the long end. And I have personally used three copies of this lens: one version 1 and two version 2; both versions are optically identical, of course.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Dave, this lens will save your friend the pain of having to change lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that is your attitude, the 18-200 is the perfect lens for you, but that is what I have already been saying all along in this thread: if you want convenience, it is hard to beat this lens. However, I thought most of us buy SLRs mainly because of the huge advantage of interchangeable lenses. I have been using SLRs since 1972 (gosh, that was 38 years ago) and haven't noticed that changing lenses is a pain, but that is just me.</p>