Good day all... I am just wondering what all the camera people on her think about the 18-200mm Nikkor f/3.5-5.6G ED DX VR ?? It seems that there has been a lot of hype regarding this lense, and there is no doubt its a great all around zoom. Does anyone here own one ? I am thinking about replacing my 18-70 with this so i can get a little more reach..It is worth the $700 or so ? thanks regards tom
I own one. It's a good all-around lens, but it isn't perfect by any means. My complaints include: 1) Distortion at 18mm (expected from a lens with this much range) 2) Not as sharp as the 2.8 lenses (also expected) The VR is great (I also have it on my 70-200 2.8 lens and love it), it focuses quickly, and obviously has a great range. A friend of mine lent me his 17-55 2.8, and the picture quality is noticeably better. However, he took my 18-200 to Maui so he wouldn't have to worry about swapping lenses. Bottom line - great all-around lens, but don't expect pro-quality.
Good points: the more you ask a lens to do, the poorer job it will do at all of them. As you already have the 18-70, I'd be shopping for a 70-200 or even just a straight tele like a 300. It's been years since I kept up with the state of the art so someone elese will have to advise you on who's making the best glass these days.
i thought about getting it but since i already had an 18-55 and i didnt want to buy a lens that cost more than my camera I went with a 55-200 but i have heard great things about the 18-200
thanks Mark... that is a viable option since i am very happy with the PQ of my 18-70. I was just thinking about lens changing and all. Do you think the PQ is just as good, if not better with the 70-200 VR 2.8 ?? once again, thanks for the feedback tom
The 70-200 is a professional-quality lens. The photos it takes are amazingly sharp. The 18-200 is not a professional lens, and I can tell the difference. The glass is smaller, the lens is lighter, etc. I am very picky and notice things like this, but you might not. Again, like everything else in life, the pro lenses might cost 2x as much, and produce photos that are 10-20% better. Whether or not the cost is worth it is a decision only you can make. The 70-200 is my favorite lens, hands down. Edit: I realized you were asking about the 18-70 compared to the 70-200. The 18-70 is a $300 lens (if I remember correctly). The 70-200 is $1,500. The PQ is noticeably better, but it also serves a different purpose (zoom). The bokeh (background blur) is beautiful.
Once you get deeper into photography, you'll find that the camera body is the "cheap" part. My set of lenses cost a lot more than my camera body did, but I'll have them for years and have to upgrade the body every so often (D300, here I come).
thanks everyone for the input... i think i will stick with my 18-70 and 50mm 1.8 for now, and save up for a quality zoom lens like mchas stated. i am quickly learning that the lens is definitely more important than the body. i saw some pics over the weekend from a d50 with the 85mm 1.4 and the above stated 70-200 and i was blown away. again, thanks tom
My friend just bought the Nikon D80 with the 18-200. I don't think it's THAT great. I have a Canon 20D with a crummy Tamron 18-200. His pics are not THAT much better. I still would rather have a Canon with a much better lens selection for purchase and rental.
I hate to hijack but thought it would be better than starting a new thread, i am going to get a new lens for my Nikon D40 for christmas and i need some help, my requirements would be: AF-S Under $500ish Not a 55-200mm or 18-55mm Any good lens fit that criteria?
It depends on what you are shooting. As a walk around lens it is great from what I hear. Plus with pro lenses (which this is not) you can turn around sell it and maybe lose 10-15%
