18-200 VR

[bill04]

Does anyone else feel this is the cheapiest $750 lens ever made? I feels like a toy. It is also extremely loose when changing focal length. My sigma feels much more solid.

 

[Garbz]

Errr it has a huge focal range, and VR. For that price were you expecting much more? It also has a wobbly front element, and the focus creeps.

Still a good all around lens for those who don't want to buy multiple better lenses.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I think you're expecting too much out of it. For what it provides, you can't do better.

 

[kundalini]

I was wanting that range, but not with one lens. For me it was a good choice to bypass this one. This might help you, from Photozone. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18200_3556vr/index.htm

 

[Snyder]

I have taken many sharp good images with this lense, those Alaskan Range get Aggressive photos I took in the photo journalism section was taken with this lense. Its a great lense to use if you have only one camera body or if you need a wide variety of focal length at a moments notice.

 

[sabbath999]

We have one, and have taken more than 15,000 pictures with it.

It works and looks like new it is brand new out of the box. Others say this lens creeps badly, and while I don't doubt their words, ours doesn't.

At the $749 we paid for it, that works out to be about 5 cents per picture... and counting.

Is it as well made as a 70-200 2.8 VR? Is it as fast?

No. It is a consumer grade lens.

I think it takes pretty good pictures. If after years of use it falls apart, I will simply throw it away and buy another one.

If I go home for lunch, I can find out exactly how many pictures it has taken (we can track this since it was placed on a D80 when the camera was brand new, and which has never had another lens on it... both were bought at the same time).

 

[johnmh]

My wife loves this as her "all-the-time" lens on vacations and we do some pretty heavy intense use at these times. (I get to use the FAR heavier 70-200, swapping it out as necessary - so I get to carry a LOT more than she does). It's also been a great lens for things like kid's sports. Not a pro lens but more than up to heavy amateur use - with more than acceptable results over a wide range. Many users will never have a need for anything else - and to get the same coverage, you'd spend about the same amount for 2 or 3 lenses - with all the hassles accompanying lens changes (like missing the shot you want as the bear runs off).

 

[JCPics]

I've been very happy with mine. It's got a good solid feel and it focuses fairly quickly.

 

[JIP]

Honestly I think there is soooo much better glass out there you can plunk over $700 on. You would have to be (I am sorry if this offends you but it is true) a fool to plunk down over $700 on a slow, cheaply constructed and, marginally sharp lens just for the convenience of having a long focal length range. If you want a small package why bother with an SLR just get a point and shoot and you have a real small package there. I think this fits in real well to the new thread http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=999548&posted=1#post999548 .