18-200mm VR, anyone like as much as Ken Rockwell

Genix said:

The key is two fold A) Proper exposure and B) Post Processing. If you have a bad work flow, you will have a bad print.

Click to expand...

This is very true. I've got some huge pictures taken with a 3MP Fuji. Sure, they aren't as sharp as images taken with my 70-200, but a good picture is still a good picture. There's noise in the shots and some obvious distortion, but that would only bother me if my goal were absolute accuracy instead of something that looks good.

All lenses force you to make some kind of consessions, whether it be limiting focal lengths or absolute sharpness, or distortions. Almost any other late model lens probably outperforms the 18-200 at least a little, but the tradeoff is utility, weight, cost, etc.

--
Jon

If you shoot mostly sport and wildlife, why not start with only the 70-300, and see how you get on. I can absolutely guarantee you that the 300mm focal length will be invaluable for your preferred shooting style. Later on, down the track, you may then decide on a wide-angle zoom or a standard zoom to complete your kit.

That said, I have tried both the 18-200 & 16-85, and I can say pretty conclusively that for me I could not justify the spend (AUD$1000) on the 18-200 because of lack of comparitave sharpness.
Cheers,
Gazza.

Thanks,

I'm actually considering getting a D90 + 16-85mm now and then adding the 70-300mm to my christmas wish list. My big shooting events are over for the year (They are in April and May) so anything between now and then I can use the old 70-300mm non VR version.

this is all too hard.

Have you thought about the Tamron 18-270? It gets closer to 300 and from what I have seen in tests is better optically than the Nikkor where it matters and has a wider maximum aperture at 50mm. At 200mm it's apprently still a 5.6 despite the dpreview test results so to my eyes it's the equal of the Nikkor out to 200 and then adds 70mm more. I have had and sold an 18-200 but do occasionally get tempted by the 18-270.

I would agree with Vince on this one.

Vince P said:

Have you thought about the Tamron 18-270? It gets closer to 300 and
from what I have seen in tests is better optically than the Nikkor
where it matters and has a wider maximum aperture at 50mm. At 200mm
it's apprently still a 5.6 despite the dpreview test results so to my
eyes it's the equal of the Nikkor out to 200 and then adds 70mm more.
I have had and sold an 18-200 but do occasionally get tempted by the
18-270.

Click to expand...

I have used both the 18-200 and the Tamron 18-270. I actually like the Tamron a bit better at the extremes, particularly at the wide end. They seem a push from about 28mm to 150mm. There are three things you give up with the Tamron.
First, cost, it is a lot less expensive.

Second, weight, it is a lot lighter than the Nikon... some would say it's build quality is lower. However, I have owned my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for quite awhile and it has never failed me. Tamron really knows how to build a fine lens in a lightweight package.

Third, focus speed. AFS is faster than Tamron. The Tamron is OK focusing, but don't expect it to focus like the Nikon.

I own lenses by Nikon, Tokina, Tamron and Sigma. At the consumer level, where you seem to be looking, you should be able to find what you want regardless of brand. To me, you have to get into the pricey lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 before you will see a real difference. At that pricepoint, Nikon kicks everyone off their camera.

Bottom line, I am putting the Tamron 18-270 on my wife's camera and buying her a used Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for around what a Nikon 18-200 goes for new.
Good luck, enjoy the new toys!

--
Roger M
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogerrog/ or
http://[email protected]

I had the Tamron 18-270 and now I have the Nikon 18-200. The Tamron was horrible. I wouldn't recommend it to my enemy. It is that bad.
--
D300, D200, D90
Zooms: Nikon 70-200VR, 28-70, 18-200VR
Primes: Nikon 85 1.4, 50 1.4, 35 f/2, 135 2.8 AI

Obviously, only you can judge what focal length range you need. I've got all three (the 18-200, the 16-85 and 70-300).

The 18-200 is pretty good as a universal one-lens-for-all-purposes and the quality is good enough for many purposes. The quality of the other two is undoubtedly better (although even these obviously aren't super-pro lenses). A bit sharper than the 18-200 (though you see that only on large prints or 100% zoom) and a bit less distortion.

If you haven't done so, see the reviews at http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests and http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/13 . All 3 lenses (and many others) are reviewed on both sites.

The other thing you might worry about: the 18-200 is decidedly less rugged than the other two. Almost all copies of the 18-200 suffer "zoom creep": if you point the lens down (as it naturally hangs on the camera) then it will slowly creep out to 200mm, especially if you're moving. And if it doesn't when you buy it, it probably will after a few thousand shots. There's a bit of wobble on the front element at full zoom.

Mine went back to Nikon 4 times for repairs related to mechanical wear - and I'm not hard on cameras. Never had any problems on a dozen or more other lenses. (Mind you: 2 of the 4 returns were because Nikon didn't fix it properly.)

The bottom line for me (may not be for you, of course): I carry the 16-85 and the 70-300 if I can cope with the weight of two lenses, or the 18-200 if I need to travel light.

(PS - why have I got all 3? I got the 18-200 originally, then got the other two during the 4 months that Nikon UK kept trying to fix the 18-200. I wouldn't normally suggest buying all 3.)

Aussie Shooter said:

... seems to be the only reviewer I can find that raves about the 18-200mm VR ...

Click to expand...

Yesterday's news.

KR's ben using the Nikon 35mm f1.8 fast prime (anti-super-zoom) since it became available.

If someone wants a "super-zoom" - they're available as a whole camera system for far less than the dSLR lens alone - do that & save ...

--
Vaya con Dios
imo
(c) 2009 fastglass

The 70-300 nor the 16-85 are better built than the 18-200. They are basically the same. Also it is BS to say almost all 18-200 have creeping. I have had mine for 2 years and no creeping and I treat it rough at times. I have 4 friends with it and no creeping either. Some do but to say almost all is a lie.
--
D300, D200, D90
Zooms: Nikon 70-200VR, 28-70, 18-200VR
Primes: Nikon 85 1.4, 50 1.4, 35 f/2, 135 2.8 AI

In fact, mine second copy does not creep.
Regards
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries

D300:50::ZEISS25/2.8::N24-70::N18-200VR::N35/1.8::S10-20::S150Macro::N50/1.8::SB600::sb400

I like it. Honestly, in my opinion, one of Nikon's best made lenses ever. Not the sharpest, not the fastest, not the best IQ. For nature and sports, I wouldn't even worry about the distortion. I love it. Others hate it. It's all opinion.

http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye

chrisnjenn said:

The 70-300 nor the 16-85 are better built than the 18-200. They are
basically the same.

Click to expand...

Mine are better built than my 18-200. The 70-300 is certainly (in my opinion) sturdier than the 18-200. To quote from Photozone:

16-85: "The build quality is on a good level but don't expect professional grade quality here."

70-300: "The build quality is pretty decent and about in line this Nikon's recent medium grade zoom lenses."

18-200: "The build quality is a little soso for a lens in this price class and probably the biggest disappointment. "

chrisnjenn said:

Also it is BS to say almost all 18-200 have creeping.
I have had mine for 2 years and no creeping and I treat it
rough at times. I have 4 friends with it and no creeping either.

Click to expand...

I can't claim to have made a scientific survey, but my observation of people posting here, and of reviews I've read, is that most 18-200s exhibit some degree of zoom creep after a few thousand shots.

chrisnjenn said:

Some do but to say almost all is a lie.

Click to expand...

From Chamber's dictionary:
lie: a false statement made with the intention of deceiving.

Rather uncalled for, don't you think?

The dpreview article on this lens ( http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/ ) also said "Zoom creep is a common user criticism of this model."

Are they lying too?

chrisnjenn said:

--
D300, D200, D90
Zooms: Nikon 70-200VR, 28-70, 18-200VR
Primes: Nikon 85 1.4, 50 1.4, 35 f/2, 135 2.8 AI

Click to expand...

They didn't say almost all. You did. That is a lie. Uncalled for? Nope.

Well what is funny, you got so offended you took all that time to paste/copy/link, to try (key word try) you are right. I can post links, reviews, etc.. Those are all over the internet. Proves nothing. Opinions are like aholes. Everyone has one.

Simon Garrett said:

chrisnjenn said:

The 70-300 nor the 16-85 are better built than the 18-200. They are
basically the same.

Click to expand...

Mine are better built than my 18-200. The 70-300 is certainly (in my
opinion) sturdier than the 18-200. To quote from Photozone:
16-85: "The build quality is on a good level but don't expect
professional grade quality here."
70-300: "The build quality is pretty decent and about in line this
Nikon's recent medium grade zoom lenses."
18-200: "The build quality is a little soso for a lens in this price
class and probably the biggest disappointment. "

Simon Garrett said:

Also it is BS to say almost all 18-200 have creeping.
I have had mine for 2 years and no creeping and I treat it
rough at times. I have 4 friends with it and no creeping either.

Click to expand...

I can't claim to have made a scientific survey, but my observation of
people posting here, and of reviews I've read, is that most 18-200s
exhibit some degree of zoom creep after a few thousand shots.

Simon Garrett said:

Some do but to say almost all is a lie.

Click to expand...

From Chamber's dictionary:
lie: a false statement made with the intention of deceiving.

Rather uncalled for, don't you think?

The dpreview article on this lens

( http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/ ) also said "Zoom creep is a common user criticism of this model."

Are they lying too?

Simon Garrett said:

--
D300, D200, D90
Zooms: Nikon 70-200VR, 28-70, 18-200VR
Primes: Nikon 85 1.4, 50 1.4, 35 f/2, 135 2.8 AI

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--
D300, D200, D90
Zooms: Nikon 70-200VR, 28-70, 18-200VR
Primes: Nikon 85 1.4, 50 1.4, 35 f/2, 135 2.8 AI

Personally I am willing to listen to someone who owns all three or has used all three, I'm with Simon on this one, why? Guess....

--

• David

chrisnjenn said:

I have had mine for 2 years and no creeping and I treat it
rough at times. I have 4 friends with it and no creeping either.

Click to expand...

Are you sure it was the 18-270 you had before it then because that's only been out a few months.

chrisnjenn said:

They didn't say almost all. You did. That is a lie. Uncalled for?
Nope.

Click to expand...

A lie is "a false statement made with the intention of deceiving". I'm sorry you think my intention was to deceive, but I can assure you it wasn't.

You're quite right that I don't have the evidence to say "almost all" (18-200s get zoom creep). Thanks for correcting me. From observation of posts on dpreview, and from reviews, I suspect that most do.

chrisnjenn said:

Well what is funny,

Click to expand...

Glad to amuse you.

chrisnjenn said:

you got so offended

Click to expand...

No offence taken.

chrisnjenn said:

you took all that time to
paste/copy/link, to try (key word try) you are right. I can post
links, reviews, etc.. Those are all over the internet. Proves
nothing.

Click to expand...

The more evidence that is cited to back up opinions, the more weight one can give them.

chrisnjenn said:

Opinions are like aholes. Everyone has one.

Click to expand...

Quite. But some opinions are worth more than others. The point of giving evidence to back up opinions is that it helps others decide whether the opinion is worth anything. I don't claim mine is worth more than yours, or anyone else's, but I quoted 3 sources that generally can be relied upon. I think that is more helpful than simply to flame others.

LOL OK

Simon Garrett said:

chrisnjenn said:

They didn't say almost all. You did. That is a lie. Uncalled for?
Nope.

Click to expand...

A lie is "a false statement made with the intention of deceiving".
I'm sorry you think my intention was to deceive, but I can assure you
it wasn't.

You're quite right that I don't have the evidence to say "almost all"
(18-200s get zoom creep). Thanks for correcting me. From
observation of posts on dpreview, and from reviews, I suspect that
most do.

Simon Garrett said:

Well what is funny,

Click to expand...

Glad to amuse you.

Simon Garrett said:

you got so offended

Click to expand...

No offence taken.

Simon Garrett said:

you took all that time to
paste/copy/link, to try (key word try) you are right. I can post
links, reviews, etc.. Those are all over the internet. Proves
nothing.

Click to expand...

The more evidence that is cited to back up opinions, the more weight
one can give them.

Simon Garrett said:

Opinions are like aholes. Everyone has one.

Click to expand...

Quite. But some opinions are worth more than others. The point of
giving evidence to back up opinions is that it helps others decide
whether the opinion is worth anything. I don't claim mine is worth
more than yours, or anyone else's, but I quoted 3 sources that
generally can be relied upon. I think that is more helpful than
simply to flame others.
--

Click to expand...

--
D300, D200, D90
Zooms: Nikon 70-200VR, 28-70, 18-200VR
Primes: Nikon 85 1.4, 50 1.4, 35 f/2, 135 2.8 AI

--

I have both the 18-200 and the 70-200 2.8 VR G. I bought the latter for night-time field sports (big boy club soccer primarily). So I have a top-notch IQ to compare to. So..... OK... the 70-200 is sharper, no question about it. But... I have to compare side by side of the same subject, same light, to see the difference (which of course I can only do when I'm being a geek and testing lenses). And it probably focuses a little bit faster. But... if it's not at night under the lights... I'm taking the 18-200 every time. It's just soooo much easier to handle, and when the action comes to where I am, I miss shots with the 70-200 because the 70mm isn't wide enough.

Here is a sequence of 6 shots I got of a U12 girls game that I would have completely missed with the 70-200. http://akch.smugmug.com/gallery/8637758_j2FaL/1/569929354_rM7iJ . (There are full size images on the site as well as the exif data). I was walking behind the goal headed to the other side when this happened. The first shot is at 90mm, the last at 35mm, all in the space of about 1.2 seconds (I never took my finger off the D90 shutter). The only thing that would made it better would be a faster shutter sequence than the 4.5fps of my D90. If I had 8fps, I would have gotten the strike also. I was shooting at ISO 800 and 1/1000 sec, so there is a little noise from the D90 and therefore a little loss of detail from the NR, but if you look at the images at 100%, the IQ is pretty darn good.

Regarding the distortion, any 18-200 will have more barrel distortion at the extreme ends that a lens with a narrower range. Very occasionally it matters... on those shots where the background is a brick wall and I forget to shoot at a slight angle to the wall so you don't notice the distortion. Net... it's a very small price to pay for NEVER having to change the lens (unless I want to go play with the 11-16 Tokina.)

The 18-200mm is an excellent lens, I had to go thru 2 samples to find a great copy, but once I did it's very good. Of course there are other more expensive lenses that will yeild better images but overall it's very solid and deliveries clear sharp images in most cases. If you are shooting semi-pro (i.e. weddings/events) you'll want faster & higher quallity lenses. If you are the type who is super picky/critical about your images you'll want a better lens, but if you are a casual shooter taking family/vacation images it is the perfect lens and I wouldn't hesistate to recommend it to anyone.

I just sold my 70-200mm VR and next will be my 17-55mm, I just can't be bothered to lug them around any more. I just got a new 18-200 VR yesterday and I'm off to London in the morning for a few days so I'll be giving it a test run. I'll let you know how it fairs, having been used to the quality of my other two lenses.

--



Website
http://www.pixelled.co.uk
Blog
http://pixel-fixer.blogspot.com