18-200 or 18-70 and 55-200?

[D-50]

I currently have a 18-70mm as well as a 55-200mm the 18-70 is alright and the 55-200 is subpar in my opinion Iam looking onto replacing both with Nikon's 18-200 VR. I know this huge range with not be as good as say a fixed 200mm but is the quality on this lens going to be much better than the nikons I already own. I like the idea of this lens though because I will not have to carry as many lenese ( I also have a 10-20mm) and I will not have to change lenses and miss shots. Anyone have the 18-200? if so whatdo you think. I read Ken Rockwell's review and he speaks of it like its the second coming of god but I wouldlike to hear fromanyone on this forum as well.

 

[cameramike]

i do not have the lens but like i have heard many complaints an "all in one" lens isn't the best. what type of photographing are you doing that you'd have to go from 18mm to 200mm in the amount of time that changing lenses would make you miss the shot?

Hope someone up here can give ya some advice man

 

[D-50]

Event photography, I find when shooting an event I typically stay with my 18-70 because I dont want to bother changing lenses in such a large crowd also its a pain to change my lens only for one shot and then have to rush to change back. I do a lot of landscape photography as well. You may think that this is a slow moving situation and it is but if Im shooting a landscape and notice an animal that will make for a good shot often times by the time I change lenses it has moved. The third thing is the less I change my lense the less dust is going to get on my sensor.

 

[SpeedTrap]

OK, I have the 18-200 VR Lens, I would reat it as "good", Keep in mind it is not the best at 18mm and not the best at 200mm, but if you want a lens that you can take on vacation or just a general walk around lens I think it will do very well for you.

Now that I have said that, I would not use it much for my studio work as it does have some limitations, but overall I am impressed with it. The VR system works well and has helped a few times.

But you do have an 18-70 already why dont you take the money you would spend on this lens and get a bit better 70-200mm lens. You may have to change lenses, but I think the better lens would be worth it in the long run, but I do not see many people selling used 18-200 VR lenses so that has to say something.

Just my 2 cents

 

[D-50]

I was just looking at the 80-200 Nikon seems like a decent lens, I would love the 70-200 2.8 but I dont feell like dropping that kind of money right now. I guess myquestion boils down to how does the picture quality on the 18-200 compare to that on the 18-70 and 55-200. Im positive that it is better than the 55-200 but how about the 18-70?

The majority of my shots are taken from 10 to 70mm but I do go longer on occassion, thats why something that can go from 18 to 200 is attractive.

Any reccomendations on sub $1000 lenses in the 18-70 range? I've looked around and know of certain lenses out there but I would like to hear what regular users say.

 

[sabbath999]

I don't think I have ever read about anybody who actually owns the 18-200 VR say they regret their purchase of it.

People (who do not own it) blast it for not being sharp at 200, for having a lot of distortion at the 18 end, for being too slow and too expensive.

I own one (actually it is my wife's lens), and have seen nearly 20,000 pictures taken with one, so I think I have a good idea of how it works in the real world.

Bottom line: if you want to take pictures of brick walls or test charts and compare them with primes, well this isn't the lens for you.

If you want to use it as a walk around lens for good, everyday type shooting, and you don't mind paying way too much money for it, then go right ahead and get one.

It is slow, and it is way too expensive, but it does take good, clear pictures... and the VR on it is spooky good. I mean, REALLY good... far better than the VR on the 55-200, the 105 VR, the 70-300 VR and the 70-200 2.8 VR, all of which I either own or have shot with extensively.

People also complain about lens creep on it. I don't know, ours doesn't do that, but lots of folks say that theirs do. It may be a lens-by-lens thing.

In bright daylight, in the 70-160ish range it is absolutely, positively every bit as sharp as my 70-200 f/2.8 VR... if not more so... when both are stopped down to f/11.

Seriously.

I have shot them side by side, and compared the results at 100-200 percent.

It just is. The VR is a full stop (or more) better as well.

However... when you get it out of daylight, open them both up to 5.6 or wider, then the 70-200 beats it. At 200mm, f/11 the 70-200 has the edge, but only slightly, in real world picture taking. I would hope so, since the 70-200 costs more than twice as much!

Again, I own them both and tested them myself.

All superzoom lenses are compromises, you won't get prime lens quality out of them (or even close)... but you won't have to carry around 8 lenses either.

My advice is to find somebody who has an 18-200 VR and see how it performs in person.

Most people who absolutely bash the lens don't own it and have never shot it... they just look at the numbers, the range and the cost and say "it has to be a pile of overpriced junk".

I am not a 18-200 fanboy. Just because I own something doesn't mean I am going to rant and rave about how great it is, just read some of my past posts.

Example: I don't rant and rave about the 70-200 VR, even though it is the most expensive lens I own. I find it quite overrated.

I have just seen, literally, nearly 20,000 images taken by this lens, and have shot quite a few frames myself. It is what it is, you can take good pictures with it.

It is too expensive, and it is slow. But, it does take good pictures if you know what you are doing.

Are there better out there that cover this range?

In one lens, no.

In more than one lens, yes.

That's my take on it. Your milage may vary.

 

[Garbz]

Yeah it's a drop in quality over the 18-70mm and 55-200mm but a big stepup in convenience. The VR is a bonus too.

Check the reviews of all 3 at www.photozone.de where they have sharpness and CA graphs of each lens.

 

[PushingTin]

I have mixed feelings about the 18-200.
Depends on your needs, as a travel lens its great cause its compact and light enough with a big zoom 18-200 plus added benefit of VR.
However, the image quality is no where near that of the more professional (and of course costly) lenses. For image quality I will only use my 70-200 VR (awesome lens) or one of my primes.
However if I go on holiday and am forced to only take one lens, it will be the 18-200 purely because of its versatility even though I will be giving up on image quality.
I would never use this lens if you going to charge people for taking any event photography.
I am not sure about the image quality of the 18-135 but its alot cheaper and if the VR and the extra 65mm isnt a huge issue, maybe thats another lens to look into?