Just how bad is 18-200?

Syndac · Nov 12, 2007

I understand that a lens with a large zoom ratio is considered to be of lower quality than a prime or lower zoom ratio. I've been considering a sigma 18-200mm OS lens which I've seen decent reviews for, but I'm wondering just how much of a difference it would make in terms of quality. I generally like landscape and wildlife, which requires both extremes and would rather not change lenses for every shot. I currently have the nikon 18-70mm which I'm quite happy with, but was wondering if anyone had pictures taken with a 18-200mm lens which would show a noticible difference in image quality.

Thanks.

Sideburns · Nov 12, 2007

I'm pretty sure my photography teacher has one... He was the spokesperson for Black's photography and is now a manager for Henry's...he shoots weddings and travel photography...teaches courses...

Now I'm not sure if it's the Nikon or the Sigma one...but I know it has VR...so...

It can sometimes be worth the tradeoff in sharpness to get a huge range if it'll let you get that shot you would have missed otherwise. Think of how useful it would be to YOUR photography.

sabbath999 · Nov 12, 2007

I don't know about the Sigma one. I own a 18-200 VR Nikon one.

If I get a chance in the next day or so I will post some pictures and you can see for yourself...

If you are going to be taking pictures of test charts, this is not the lens for you. If you are going to be taking pictures of non-moving subjects in low light handheld, and need a large range, it may be.

I have generally found that people who hate this lens (the 18-200 VR) have never actually shot with it, other than perhaps the odd occasional snap in a camera store.

JIP · Nov 12, 2007

I am one of those people never used it and have no interest in using it. I have waay better uses for $700+ than blowing it on a marginally sharp slow lens. I understand the size issue but personally I think image quality is way more important than convenience.

SpeedTrap · Nov 12, 2007

I own one, I use it and I like it.
I have the Nikon 18-200 VR and when I go travelling I love it, it is light, compact and fast enough for most situations. Go to the store and test one out, Rent one if you can and try it out. I do not know anyone who owns one who does not like it.

Patrice · Nov 12, 2007

I had one, used it for a couple of weeks and brought it back. As a convenient point and shoot apparatus it works very well. The lens is nice and sharp in mid apertures and the VR really does work. I did not like the lens creep and I found it very slow in the long focal lenghts. I got an 18-70 for a general purpose light zoom that my wife likes on a d70. It's a little sharper in wider apertures, does not creep and distortions are a little less noticeable.

lordson · Nov 13, 2007

all my pictures are taken with my Sigma 18-200mm DC 3.5-5.6

and i'm very new to photography and i think the lens is great

big distortions at 18-35 mm ish though, can't even think about taking portraits with that

sabbath999 · Nov 13, 2007

Hrmmm... could have sworn I posted some pictures last night... did they get pulled?

Garbz · Nov 13, 2007

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18200_3556vr/index.htm That bad! Now compare to say the 18-135 which is cheaper but yet has better image quality http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18135_3556/index.htm. But no VR.

What's this mean? If you don't need the extra versatility then buy a different lens and get better value from it, if not go for the 18-200. It's the prefect lens for those people who only ever intend to own one lens.

Sideburns · Nov 13, 2007

checked last night...my teacher's is the Nikon one...
hope that helps.

Alpha · Nov 13, 2007

Hmm..

16 elements in 12 groups.

...that's a recipe for sharpness.

It's okay, though, because three of them are aspherical, which you'll need to stem the distortion from the other 13.

lordson · Nov 14, 2007

MaxBloom said:
Hmm..

16 elements in 12 groups.

...that's a recipe for sharpness.

It's okay, though, because three of them are aspherical, which you'll need to stem the distortion from the other 13.

could you eleborate on that? i have no idea what that means

Garbz · Nov 14, 2007

Less elements the less complicated the lens the less chance to screw up something that can affect the sharpness. Putting 16 elements in a lens worth less than $1000 should ring alarm bells for anyone wanting top quality sharp CA and vignetting free lenses.

JodieO · Nov 14, 2007

I have the 18-200 Nikon VR.

I'm glad I bought it - it is great when I am traveling with my family and doing snapshots.

That said, that entire range is covered by my other more expensive lenses (17-55/2.9, 28-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8), so when I am shooting professionally, I would never use the 18-200 but when I want something lightweight to hang on my back inside of a small case for our family stuff, I will use it instead of breaking my back carrying multiple lenses (this gets old QUICK)...

Bevel Heaven · Nov 14, 2007

JodieO said:
I have the 18-200 Nikon VR.

I'm glad I bought it - it is great when I am traveling with my family and doing snapshots.

That said, that entire range is covered by my other more expensive lenses (17-55/2.9, 28-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8), so when I am shooting professionally, I would never use the 18-200 but when I want something lightweight to hang on my back inside of a small case for our family stuff, I will use it instead of breaking my back carrying multiple lenses (this gets old QUICK)...

I agree 100%. I have a deposite on an 17-55 f2.8 so that + my 70-200 f2.8 will do it for me, but my 18-200 is the 1 lens wonderdawg for when I just want to have fun and not lug around a bunch of gear.

I also get the idea that the nay sayers out there don;t own one of these, and have never tried one of these so what the hell do they know? I gues they fallinto the LENS SNOB category and have endless budgets and/or never travel - poor souls. :lol: