18-200 VR on the way

Wayne,

I think you'll be pleased. I shared your reservations, to the point that I always carried a selection of primes around with me. I reluctantly got the 18-200 at a great deal. Now, I find that I use it a lot!

I'm not selling my primes, especially since I may be into full frame again sometime soon, but this lens is a winner.

I haven't found the softness at the long end that I've heard about. Many of my (reed_flickr) shots in this series are from that lens (you can see which by looking at the image details):

http://www.flickr.com/groups/785508@N25/pool/

Enjoy!

Reed

I'm a fan of this lens. I have faster and sharper lenses, but this is on the camera more often than not. Enjoy!

"And on a D300 the 3.5-5.6 aperture should pose many problems when you combine the good high ISO performance and the stops gained with VR. "

Sure, but no VR or High ISO performance can substitute a fast lens. IMHO the lack of DOF is one of the most important composition tools. In many cases is what makes a picture to look more "pro" than P&S, where everything is in focus. And no VR or high ISO can give you that.

I don't meant to say that this is a bad lens, I just wanted to point that high ISO and VR doesn't give the same benefits of a fast lens.

Like Simon, I've got other tools at my disposal, and like Breogan, I know that there are some things, aesthetically, than only a wider aperture can accomplish. BUT: if I were to walk out of the house with only one lens mounted and no particular plans... the 18-200 is the one. It has treated me very well strolling about on travel. Beyond that? The tiny and priceless (but cheap!) 50/1.8, which can help with keeping the shutter speed up when you need it to freeze motion, can make for a nice pseudo-macro for some subjects, and is just far too useful a $120 lens not to own. Takes up virtually no extra space on your travels, but you'll be very glad to have it. That f/1.8 will do things for you that VR simply can't.

Just make really sure that the lens is in good working order when you get it. There is a bit of "sample variation" for this lens, as is well documented on this forum. Some folks have ended up with better copies than others. I wasn't lucky and gave up after the second copy was below expectations. Your milage may vary.

I have the 50mm 1.8 which I love from a size standpoint but for me it has to narrow a viewing angle to use except for specific situations. I'll probably take it along with the 18-200 and the 12-24. I've been shooting with an 18-70 Nikkor and the wide end covers 90 percent of my situations.

Well, then, Wayne, you're in business! Enjoy that 18-200. It's a very versatile lens. When you DO want to use it on the long end, and have a chance to stop it down a bit, you'll get very pleasing results. Have fun!

Congrats Wayne,

The Nikon 18-200mm is absolutely my favorite travel lens. I also carry around the Nikon 12-24mm and the combination of these two lenses makes for an outstanding travel kit.

Recently, I also added the latest iteration of the Nikon 50mm f1.8 to my lens collection. This lightweight plastic marvel will also become part of the kit for my next trip abroad.

Wayne, I use both those lenses on the D300 and I am quite pleased with both. As for the 18-200 performance, I think it's great as long as you stop it down a bit. OK, maybe it's not a wildlife lens at 200mm shooting f/8-11 but VR and the higher ISO capability of the D300 make up for some of that. Not the perfect lens for every situation but then, neither is any other lens out there.

Overall, a wonderful combination. Hope you enjoy yours as much as I do mine. Post some pix when you get a chance.

Wayne,

Enjoy your new 18-200 ! I also like it. After reading many good review about 16-85, I ordered it last week and made side-by-side comparation. The result? http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QIxk 16-85 went back to the store, 18-200 stayed with me, and may be very long. 16-85 is very nice, very sharp lens but it can not compensate me the loss of the 85-200. Also, it's over-priced! 18-200 is not a bad lens as some people who dislike it said.. It is under-valuated !! When I were holding the 16-85 as all-around in the park, I felt I miss 18-200 very much!!!!

"...some compromises in image at the high and low ends by, from what I've read, nothing that can't be fine tuned in a graphics program...."

Even with the best graphics program on the planet - you cannot make a soft picture sharp without distortion being added.

More specifically - almost no image from the 18-200 lens will ever be mistaken as an image taken with some high quality fast glass.

russ, shoot a 17-55, 18-55, 18-70, 18-135, and 18-200 at 50mm and f/9 and it will be hard to spot differences in optical quality except maybe at the pixel level. obviously, the 17-55 can't zoom 11x and the 18-200 cant shoot at 2.8. so there are compromises involved in any lens. i think matt's point is that the convenience factor is a big plus for the 18-200. i've thusfar resisted this lens, but if the price drops to $600, it might be hard to hold out. i have much faster glass, but for travel and walkaround stuff, i'm not sure you can beat the 18-200. sure if it was a constant f/4 it would be even better, but that may not be possible. the slowness of the 16-85 has kept that one off my wish list too; were that one a constant f/4 as well, it would be much more attractive in my book.

The problem is that you will be forced to use the 18-200 in situations that do require a more wide open aperture and that's where it shows it's mediocrity.

We owned one for over a year and yes - it was convenient - but we sold it because I got very tired of an image quality that could be obtained with almost any P&S camera body.

In fact - on the wide end, I get better image quality out of my new iphone than I ever did with the 18-200 lens.

Again - before anyone gets bent out of shape - all of the above is just my opinion.

You'll love it. I love mine.

Congrats on your new lens. It's a good all around lens. I have one, but only use it for specific things. Interestingly my most used lens is the 300-800mm Sigmonster - - but then, I shoot wildlife so I need it.

But for trips & visits, I do feel the 18-200VR is a good lens to have.

Enjoy.

Lil :-)

Wayne, any D700 on the horizon for you? :-) Enjoy the new lens.

When I got my 18 - 200mm I added to its flexibility by buying a step down ring and mounting my old 6T close-up lens. Yes you have to stop down to prevent vignetting but you want to stop down anyway to get some depth of field. Anyway for the cost of $10 for the step down ring and carrying a few extra ounces you not only cover a huge range but you can get acceptable (not great)) macro shots. Coupled with VR, high ISO and some decent daylight you can handhold some incredible macro shots.

"russ, shoot a 17-55, 18-55, 18-70, 18-135, and 18-200 at 50mm and f/9 and it will be hard to spot differences in optical quality except maybe at the pixel level."

I can easily tell the difference from my 50/1.8 or 35/2 from a 18-55 or a 18-70 shoot at f/9. To me, the biggest difference happens to be in color saturation. I can't speak for the 17-55 (haven't tried it) which is supposed to be a high quality zoom and people reports that has a much better color saturation that other zooms. But the consumer zooms have a softness in color that doesn't match my primes. This is specially true with the 18-55 which has quite lifeless colors compared to the 18-70, not to speak compared to primes at f/8 where colors seem to jump out the picture.

I have D300. Had 18-200 for 1 month and sold it. I have 16-85 VR now as my general lens. I am still deliberating on this choice!!! I will be on a trip to Australia and need convenient 1 GENERAL lens. I might have one or two additional but for different purposes, do not want to have 2 general lenses, i.e. 16-85 and 70-300, although I will need the 70-300.

Anyway, I sold 18-200 as I found it firstly, unsatisfying for a D300 both as build quality and image, seconldy, D300 is enough of a chalnege for my so constantly changin aperture for IQ reasons was very annoying. From 16-85 I am very happy for now as a genearl lens. It is much shorter, of course. If I would like to shoot some wildlife while in Australia I will be stuck with only 85 mm, This decision is really very hard for me and drained a lot of my energy during the last 2 months :(

As I said, I am still thinking on it and may very well end by selling the 16-85 and getting 18-200 only for convenience reasons. Though if I decide I will get 18-200 as my general lens I guess I will get D80 instead of D300. In my opinion this is a much more logical combination.

As you may see from my post I am confused enough :)))

I am a novice so this is an opinion of a novice. Still, I somehow feel I like 16-85 much better than 18-200, although I enjoy shooting details!

I know the thread is not to compare the 2 lensesso do not mind my expressed opinion and enjoy your new lens :))))

I have really enjoyed the versatility of the 18-200 VR and I'm sure you'll find that it is your best lens for travel and walking around. You can get some very sharp shots even wide open but as others have mentioned it softens up close to 200 but this improves if you stop down a bit. Have a great time with your new lens!

Shun:

Nope, no D700 lusting here. I love the D300. I have some Nikkor ai primes but sold my 20mm AFD to help finance the 18-200mm. I'm one who doesn't buy the "Hooray. the D3 and D700 are 'full frame' cameras" because who decides what is "full frame?" The old full frames was 35mm format which really has no meaning unless you are shooting film. If Nikon was going to eventually eliminate DX it shouldn't have create a camera as good as the D300.

"...because who decides what is "full frame?" The old full frames was 35mm format which really has no meaning unless you are shooting film...."

It has plenty of meaning if you use lenses that were designed for that size format - like the 50mm f/1.8. It becomes an almost totally different lense on a DX body compared to an FX (full-frame) body.

And Nikon's best glass is (and was) designed for full frame bodies

May I ask, how is the picture quality of the 18-200mm compared to the 28-200mm?

I have the 28-200 and was contemplating the 18-200 as an upgrade, The 28-200 has woeful distortions (pincushion) and all my seascapes from last weeks trip to the coast are pretty much bin fodder. Nikon viewfinders lie! What a waste of time.

Ian

Here http://gallery.photo.net/photo/7619803-lg.jpg is the 28-200mm at around 180mm. I do hope the 18-200mm is way better than this - otherwise how can they sell so well?

Ian,

18-200VR has no distortion at all. Just you have to set the lens at shoot at 24mm.

Does anybody have links to any really fantastic work done with this lens? I'm at a tossup as well.

nikon d300 & 18-200mmVR

photos by Shamsaldin .

nikon 18-200

Does anybody have links to any really fantastic work done with this lens? I'm at a tossup as well.

Well, Mark, you put folks in an awkward position, don't you? Let's just say that we can probably find some examples of the 18-200 producing work in which the lens doesn't get in your way, and makes very acceptable images. "Really fantastic" is troublesome because we don't want someone having to attach that phrase to their own work, at the risk of seeming an ass. I, however, already know that I'm something of an ass, so I'll take a humility-killing bullet for the team, here, and link to some shots I've put up here. These show the 18-200 put to good or interesting use in the arena for which it was intended (travel, walk-about, and "oops, I had no idea I'd need a kinda-wide, or kinda-long lens, but hey! I have the 18-200 with me, so let's give it a go..."). To wit, and apologies to those on whom these images have been previously inflicted, here are some, all shot with the D200 and the 18-200:

  ISO 400, 18mm, f/4.5, 1/80, Handheld with VR-Normal engaged.

  ISO 250, 112mm, f/5.3, handheld at 1/100.

  ISO 400, 200mm, f/9, handheld at 1/320.

  ISO 160, f/7.1, 1/180th, 80mm

  ISO100, 1/125, f4.5, 55mm

  About 80mm - woops, don't have the EXIF data handy on that one

  ISO 200, 120mm, f/8, handheld at 1/250

  ... even some close-to-macro type behavior ...

OK, enough torture. You get the idea. Versatile lens, very convenient, and it has sweet spots that you'll readily discover and learn to apply to all sorts of scenes.

You might also want to check out some of Tim Keller's stuff. He uses various lenses, but carries the 18-200 around on his D300 quite a lot. He's good about listing what was used on every shot, and you can dive into galleries of his like this one and see some lovely shots. Many of his in-the-street portraits are done with that lens, too.

Thanks, Matt.

I, too am an ass, and will take that bullet.

The photography at my Alaska portfolio was not intended to be professional, but merely to document my travels for loved ones. Some of the photos are, I think, pretty good, and virtually all of them were taken with the 18-200 (I think only the crappy northern lights photos were taken with the 50mm f1.8. Maybe the flower close-ups, too).

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=648132

I don't claim to be a pro, but that lens insured that I made some fantastic memories.

very nice job Matt .

anther D300 & 18-200

one more nikon D300 &18-200

I use this lens on a D200 and love it. I find I don't change lenses very often.

When I do change lenses, I usually put on a Nikon 12-24DX. I agree with you, those two sizes do most of what I want.

Enjoy your new lens!

Geez Mark! My assessment of you, based on your opening statement, is that you are anything but a lens snob. And you've been smart enough to research your options factoring in your needs, expectations, traveling light, budget, etc. and narrow it down to what matters most to you. But in the process you sure stirred up a hornet's nest of lens snobs the like of which I've never seen on PN before. These people almost immediately ignored everything you said, and started arguing among themselves. What you said was "walk around" lens, in combination with a wide angle lens. Unless I missed something, you never said you were traveling on a commission from National Geo. My advice - stick to your first instinct. I have more "good glass" than I need, at a heavy price. But for "walking around", and often for shoots where I never thought I'd prefer the 18-200 to my good glass, I've found this lens to be exactly what it was designed to be. And in many important ways, exceeded all the expectations I had for it. Enjoy it, you won't be sorry.

Sorry Wayne, I had you confused with someone else. Although after this thread you might want to change your name to Mark.

As Matt Laur has shown, the 18-200 can produce some very sharp images. Here is a simple shot of maple leaves after rain...

Lovely, Richard. And strolling about and bumping into such scenes - followed a moment later by something twenty yards off - that's what that lens is all about.

Good appraisal and ass-shots folks! LOL! LOL!

Usually I have the 18-200 "permanently glued" to the D200 backup camera body and kept in the car for "just in case" eclectic(?) scenarios. Other heavier metals with less focal ranges are used for more specific purposes.

Mary

"But in the process you sure stirred up a hornet's nest of lens snobs the like of which I've never seen on PN before. These people almost immediately ignored everything you said, and started arguing among themselves."

I find this type of comments completely useless. Each one has his/her own opinion which doesn't necessary have to be the same of yours.

I've had this lens for a couple of weeks now. Yesterday I was very glad it was on my camera. I was strolling down my driveway when I heard some rustling in the woods. I looked over and about 30 feet away was a large black bear. First one I've ever seen outside a zoo. I sprinted back to the house, grabbed my camera and got two shots off before he vanished in the woods. Awful picture with massively overexposed foreground, but there would have been no picture without the 18-200 on the camera.

We headed from Europe to Arizona and Kauai this spring. As a dork/anorak I loaded my bag with a 16mm, 70-200 2.8 vr, 35-70 2.8, 20-35 2.8 (all heavy Nikons) and a 180mm sigma macro plus some tele convertors - the pack was the weight of a medium size child.

While in Arizona I 'test drove' the18-200VR and immediately had to have it as my on camera drag around lens.

It's proven to be a great choice, good price, good pictures. (Never as perfect at the 2.8's but for 70% of the time just shooting it's great)

Had the lens four days now. Couldn't be more pleased--although I do find that the older I get the easier I am to please. :)

Another:

F6.3 1/40, VR on, ISO 1600 at 52mm

Gracie is all like... "Okay, take my stupid picture, I wanna go play in the mud in this new white dress..."

No, seriously... adorable photo!

Thanks, Peter

The white dress shot is what that lens is all about, Wayne... 1/40th shots that work instead of 1/40th shots that don't unless you mount a very big, heavy, or fixed-focal-length fast lens and give up depth of field when you might actually need it. Have fun with the new lens!