1,000 US to spend

[JIP]

That lens is just a waste of money. I really cannot figure out why anyone would go to the expense of buying a DSLR and then buy a trash lens just because it is small. If you want a compact camera buy one if you want an SLR deal with the weight and enhance it with the glass rather than bring it down with trash.

 

[JerryPH]

Message edited.

If you have to ask, you aren't ready to understand. I do not think I even want to waste much effort trying becuase you seem very set in your opinion and no one else's opinion could possibly have any value to you... lol

The fast answer is people buy the 18-200 for the same reason others buy the 18-70 kit lens. Some think that neither may be very good, but someone out there bought it anyways because they thought it was good, and liked it enough to pay for it and found a use for it.

For versatility, the 18-200 is unbeatable.

 

[sabbath999]

I don't like the idea of it either. There is no way an 18-200 of any kind could have IQ THAT good. Everyone who says the quality seems fine seems to only own that lens or a kit lens. They have nothing to compare it to!

I have a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR, and in some cases the 18-200 has at least equal image quality.

How's that for something to compare it to?

I guess I am just going to have to go out and do a "real world lens test" on this thing and post the full sized images somewhere so people can see I am not all full of beans.

 

[JerryPH]

I don't like the idea of it either. There is no way an 18-200 of any kind could have IQ THAT good. Everyone who says the quality seems fine seems to only own that lens or a kit lens. They have nothing to compare it to!

I own that lens, but refused the kit lens. My lens collection is not what I would call "bad quality" either. Until you have tried it yourself, you are guessing and voicing an opinion based on what someone else has said.

I am not trying to make this into a flame war, but what I see is people who do not have this lens (or worse, never even had it on their cameras)... trying to tell someone who is asking for an opinion, that its not very good. And now you have 2 people with this lens... and better ones in their arsenal, saying otherwise. All the reviews also state that its a very good lens.

You also cannot compare a "kit lens" to the 18-200, it is not even in the same ball park.

One also cannot even compare "apples to apples" with this lens... its all by itself in this league in terms of versatility.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I have a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR, and in some cases the 18-200 has at least equal image quality.

How's that for something to compare it to?

I guess I am just going to have to go out and do a "real world lens test" on this thing and post the full sized images somewhere so people can see I am not all full of beans.

That would be nice! but it MUST be shot in RAW!

actually, that would be awesome.

 

[Rhubarb]

If it was my $1000 and I liked shooting landscapes (which I love) I would be going for the Nikon 12-24mm F4.

Have fun!

Oh and the 18-200mm VR is a great lens for its purpose.

 

[Don Simon]

OOO I was figurin I'd stir somethin up with that one. Listen all I have against that lens is that it is a shameful waste of $750. When I was coming up I could only WISH I could afford $750 for a lens and the last thing I would buy was that one. I just cant imagine wasting money on a gimmick rather than a quality lens that's all that is really a gimmick lens.

I was just messing around, but you sure have stirred something up here. Personally I tend to agree. I see the same arguments on other forums where lots of people get very excited about an 18-250mm. They talk about the image quality. Well I know superzooms have improved in resolving power but I want more from a lens than just resolution.
I've used superzooms, and I do understand the appeal, but it's not like I'm a lens snob with too much money. The opposite is true; like you I think $750 is a lot of money and I think it's a lot to spend on a slow zoom, VR or no VR. And I'm not even saying you should only buy f/2.8 primes or something. Even if your priority is to cover a long range, for $50-100 more you could get both a 17-50mm f/2.8 (will it be a Nikkor? No but it'll still be better), and the 70-300mm VR (if you really really want VR for a slow tele, plus now you have an extra 100mm). The 18-200mm just doesn't seem like good value to me.

But that's just me. If other people really want to buy it, I can live with it... if they like it they can keep it, if they don't they can sell it, and if it's being bought then the company is making money some of which hopefully gets invested in the system again. So even though I don't want it myself and wouldn't advise anyone to buy it, I can see a positive side.

 

[WolfSpring]

Her main thing is everywhere she goes to shoot she has a kid with her, she doesn't like carying around a lot of stuff and hates changing lenses. She only goes out on days with great lighting and she is a beginer, she is using my old D40(old meaning I use dit 6 months first) she doesn't want to carry much more then the camera with her. She is a begginer yet pretty good. We already know we will be putting more money into this stuff later, but thus far she has put nothing into the camera. As we grow we will be buying other lenses, every year at tax time we get at least 2500-4000 back and we don't really have many bills cept a car payment and the utilities(insurance, cable/phone/internet) so we can go about any time and put some money into some stuff. That I have a raise coming up in January, will probably get promoted next year, extra 350 a month there and my bonds(200 a month) get paid off in april. So we are sitting pretty we can "afford" right now to put down that kind of money on a lens that she will actually use, we are not looking for print quality. As far as me on the other hand, I will be getting the 50mm 1.8 and a 2X tele, is there any reason I'd want the 1.7 or 1.4 instead? I'm going to get the little powerpack that goes on the bottom of the D80 a better backpack and a book on lighting technicques. And if theres stuff left I will consider an external card to DVD burner.

 

[JIP]

Her main thing is everywhere she goes to shoot she has a kid with her, she doesn't like carying around a lot of stuff and hates changing lenses. She only goes out on days with great lighting and she is a beginer, she is using my old D40(old meaning I use dit 6 months first) she doesn't want to carry much more then the camera with her. She is a begginer yet pretty good. We already know we will be putting more money into this stuff later, but thus far she has put nothing into the camera. As we grow we will be buying other lenses, every year at tax time we get at least 2500-4000 back and we don't really have many bills cept a car payment and the utilities(insurance, cable/phone/internet) so we can go about any time and put some money into some stuff. That I have a raise coming up in January, will probably get promoted next year, extra 350 a month there and my bonds(200 a month) get paid off in april. So we are sitting pretty we can "afford" right now to put down that kind of money on a lens that she will actually use, we are not looking for print quality. As far as me on the other hand, I will be getting the 50mm 1.8 and a 2X tele, is there any reason I'd want the 1.7 or 1.4 instead? I'm going to get the little powerpack that goes on the bottom of the D80 a better backpack and a book on lighting technicques. And if theres stuff left I will consider an external card to DVD burner.

Well in that case if you can afford to waste $750 why not send me a few bucks too????. Look you buy whatever you want I could care less I am just giving you my input. Hey if you got all that money to burn why not for a few bucks more get a real lens for her and she reall doesn't have to change it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html