18-200 bidding madness on ebay?

RaidenCraig

Senior Member
Messages
1,692
Reaction score
1
Location
albany, GA, US
Recently, the 18-200 has been fetching $900+ previously loved on ebay, viz.:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-18-200mm-f-3-5-5-6-G-ED-IF-AF-S-VR-DX-Nikkor-Lens_W0QQitemZ140004639335QQihZ004QQcategoryZ106862QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

That is > $150 above list price. The buyers cannot inherit Nikon warranties, and no assumable Mack Warranty was included. In the example above, all sales are final-- no right to return if not satisfied with the copy (as when buying new from a reputable vendor).

In contrast, two reputedly mint 17-55's went for about $850 each. Hmmm...

My sense is that the 18-200 is a very nice improvement on an 11x zoom, benefiting from the latest technology. It makes a commendable all-in-one lens for some people, probably sufficient for quite a lot of casual, record shot family picture shooters. It would seem to be particularly well-suited as a travel lens. The VR unquestionably is a nice plus some of the time, albeit not for subject motion, such as kids' games.

Notwithstanding those CERTAIN positives, it would seem intuitively and inferentially that at a list price of $750 it is surely fully priced. No other vari-ap lens that slow is at that price point. To fetch more than $900 and more than the 17-55 previously loved surely seems to be LLD overzealousness for the new "latest and greatest" must have wunderkind nostrum/panacea lens, which at the end of the day is no better optically or faster than the 18-70 over the congruent range, then gets weaker> 100.

Food for thought... value is in the eye of the beholder-- perhaps. For the same $900 or so, we got a 35/2, a 35-70 2.8, and a 180 2.8, all previously loved mint-- the latter two indubitably pro glass. Different strokes for different folks... to each her own.

--craig
--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.
 
The only published USA list price I've seen on this lens from Nikon is $899.
--
Cheers,
Joe
 
He does have two negatives for Non-Payment.

Things that make you go Humm......

I hope the seller actually gets that and does not have to go through re-listing.

RD
 
value is in the eye of the beholder-- perhaps. For the same $900 or so, we got a 35/2, a 35-70 2.8, and a 180 2.8, all previously loved mint-- the latter two indubitably pro glass.
Changing lenses can be a drag, and many photographers prefer/require small f/stops. To these photographers, the 18-200mm lens is a lot more valuable than a clutch of primes.
The buyers cannot inherit Nikon warranties, and no assumable Mack Warranty was included.
Did you inherit Nikon warranties with your primes?

Here are a couple of links to stories about pros - one a travel photographer, the other a photojournalist - who don't bother with DSLRs:

http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=1750

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
 
value is in the eye of the beholder-- perhaps. For the same $900 or so, we got a 35/2, a 35-70 2.8, and a 180 2.8, all previously loved mint-- the latter two indubitably pro glass.
Changing lenses can be a drag, and many photographers
prefer/require small f/stops. To these photographers, the 18-200mm
lens is a lot more valuable than a clutch of primes.
The point of the OP was NOT whether the 18-200 (or ANY zoom for that matter) is more convenient than "a clutch of primes"... I also got the 35-70 2.8 previously loved for about $350-- it would eat the dinner optically of the 18-200 and is faster. If you want to stop lenses down to shoot, you need not spend $900+ on a slow vari-ap lens to get that.
The buyers cannot inherit Nikon warranties, and no assumable Mack Warranty was included.
Did you inherit Nikon warranties with your primes?
No, but the primes do not have AF-S and VRII which can break down and be expensive to repair... on the contrary, they are tried and true pro build performers which will last indefinitely, and all will ALSO work on a FF DSLR, unlike the 18-200DX... I also paid well less than list for those primes (and the 35-70 2.8 as well), which again gets to the KEY POINT of the OP-- people are paying $300 OVER RETAIL at reputable vendors, YET not getting 5-year warranties they would get otherwise to purchase the nostrum wunderkind 18-200 on ebay ... Las Vegas loves people who throw money around like that... others who bought the thing at $699 or even less are openly speaking here of selling it for a profit because the feeding frenzy is so acute because of unbridled LLD.
Here are a couple of links to stories about pros - one a travel
photographer, the other a photojournalist - who don't bother with
DSLRs:

http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=1750

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
That is a TANGENTIALLY off-topic point (?)... this whole forum is titled "Nikon SLR Lens Talk"!!! How is it germane/relevant/apropos what the heck a couple of pros choose to shoot with in a different photographic medium?!

--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.
 
It's nuts. I just bought one from Best Buy $809 w/free shipping. Had it here in 4 days.

--

...but then again, fish do tend to eat one another. I often wonder ... do fish get awfully tired of seafood? What are your thoughts, Hobson?
 
It's nuts. I just bought one from Best Buy $809 w/free shipping.
Had it here in 4 days.

--
...but then again, fish do tend to eat one another. I often wonder
... do fish get awfully tired of seafood? What are your thoughts,
Hobson?
A fool and his money are soon parted.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR
 
The point of the OP was NOT whether the 18-200 (or ANY zoom for that matter) is more convenient than "a clutch of primes"
Sorry, Craig, I didn't mean to imply the point of your post was that zooms were more convenient than primes - only that for some people, convenience IS what creates value!
the primes do not have AF-S and VRII which can break down and be expensive to repair... on the contrary, they are tried and true pro build performers which will last indefinitely
You're right.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
That is a TANGENTIALLY off-topic point (?)... this whole forum is titled "Nikon SLR Lens Talk"!!! How is it germane/relevant/apropos what the heck a couple of pros choose to shoot with in a different photographic medium?!
The links show that some photographers don't even bother with interchangeable lenses, and that the idea of "value" is not the same for everyone.

You've explained what your idea of what "value" is - prime lenses over non-pro zooms, sturdy lenses that can be used on FF cameras, and whose > value is in the eye of the beholder-- perhaps.

I think the viewpoints of people who make money with what most of us consider to be unconventional or even inferior equipment make for interesting reading, and help define what "value" means for different photographers.
 
I agree with you wholeheartly! Althoough a decent lens, you can get so much more for a few hundred extra, and that is what I did with the 17-55. It took a month or two to convince myself after testing two 18-200vr lens that it was no better than the 18-70, and maybe slightly better than the 24-120vr that I have.

Not withstanding, I believe it would be a great all-around lens, and may pick one up someday--but not for $900.
jk
 
I'm not sure if you have used the 18-200 VR or not. I ordered mine 2 months before it came out, and I got it before right before Christmas. It has been on my S3 most of the time as a walkaround lense ever since.

I have to say I love it so much that even if you offer to trade it with a 17-55/2.8 ED, I would reject your offer without a doubt.

Like you said, it does get weaker above 100mm. But the feature that got me hooked is the VR II. It does genuinely offer the equivalent of using a shutter speed 4 stops faster. Instead of calling it VR, Nikon might as well advertise it as "electronic monopod", LOL.

You may argue that a 1.4 prime is much better than a 5.6 VR. However, the depth of field can become extremely narrow at 1.4. Meaning my subject could easily be off focus.

---------
Fujifilm S3 Pro
Tokina 12-24 F/4
Nikon 18-200 F/3.5-5.6 VR
Tamron 28-75 F/2.8
Canon 500D Close Up Lense
Sekonic L-358 Light Meter
Nikon SB-600 with Sto-Fen Cap
Nikon SC-29 Speedlight Cable
Custom Brackets Digital Pro-M
Manfrotto 190 Pro Tripod
Manfrotto 486 RC2 Ballhead
 
Just curious. Where did you see this price. I don't see any list price on the Nikon USA site.

Thanks
--
Mike

I never have taken a picture I've intended. They're always better or worse. - Diane Arbus
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top