18-200mm VR Best all around lens?

[bc_steve]

Here's a couple with the Tokina 11-16


11mm f/8


14mm f/8 (lens flare isn't too bad for shooting into the sun, would be better if there wasn't any dust on my lens/sensor)


11mm f/2.8 , 13s at ISO6400. Pretty noisy because the ISO is so high but just to give you an idea of where the wide aperture comes in handy ...


It is sharpest at 16mm but I find myself using it most often at 11mm.

 

[jwbryson1]

Ken Rockwell is strange... Where do Babies Come From? or AnalProbe.org

:shock: Ick.

 

[KansanShooter]

Thanks for the input everyone.

 

[TheLost]

Ken Rockwell is strange... Where do Babies Come From? or AnalProbe.org

:shock: Ick.

To quote my teenage daughter... "I know... right?"

 

[TheLost]

Thanks for the input everyone.

Here is a better review of the Nikon 18-200mm
18-200mm AF-S DX VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Quote from the review:

Indeed, of all the so-called superzooms I've used and tested, this was the first one that I kept, at least until the 16mp DX DSLRs came along. I believe that the 18-105mm and 16-85mm both do better in the focal length ranges where they overlap the 18-200mm, so you don't buy the 18-200mm because it's the best of the consumer zooms, but because it is good enough while extending the focal range. Also, the 18-105mm and 16-85mm are clearly better on high megapixel count cameras (16mp+).

 

[greybeard]

Poor Ken Rockwell, gets no respect on this forum......lol. I've never used an 18-200 but Nikon sure sells a lot of them so there must be something to it.

 

[ATVrider43]

I had this same exact question about a week ago. I ended up ordering the 18-200 for $379.99 of adorama. Used of course, but I love it so far! Yes the Tokina and Sigma may be on my next to buy list, but for the range the 18-200 seems to do the job. I had a 70-300 and didn't like it much because passed like 230 it was very shaky and not good VR

 

[bc_steve]

I had this same exact question about a week ago. I ended up ordering the 18-200 for $379.99 of adorama. Used of course, but I love it so far! Yes the Tokina and Sigma may be on my next to buy list, but for the range the 18-200 seems to do the job. I had a 70-300 and didn't like it much because passed like 230 it was very shaky and not good VR

My tripod sucks (new one should arrive in the mail tomorrow!) so most of my shooting with it has been handheld. That eagle pic I posted that I took with it was handheld. The shutter speed needs to be pretty fast. I'd say the tripod is the better solution though and I plan on using one more often.

 

[ATVrider43]

Yeah its tough to lug around a tripod all over, thats why I love the 18-200, I don't really need one. But definitely with low shutter speed I do.

 

[otherprof]

Despite the usual Ken Rockwell (possibly deserved) bashing, don't write off the 18-200 VRII because he loved it I have been very pleased with mine, and find that the convenience/image quality balance is very nice. Sure, there are better lenses for this purpose or that purpose. And sure, you bought an interchangeable lens camera. But sometimes, say traveling, being a tourist, it is nice to know you can handle everything from wide to telephoto without changing lenses, or carrying extra lenses with you. In a dusty environment, as when I walked on Masada, I was not about to change lenses and subject my camera (d5100) to that abuse. So, I guess everyone is right, somewhat, but don't reject a suggestion simply because of the source. We called that an ad hominem arguement back when I was teaching about informal fallacies of reasoning.

 

[TheLost]

I had a 70-300 and didn't like it much because passed like 230 it was very shaky and not good VR

Huh? The VR system in the 18-200 is the same system in the 70-300 VR (Nikons VRII). The 70-300 VR also kills the super zoom every time in image quality (from 70mm to 300mm the 70-300 VR will be sharper).

I also have the Nikon 18-200 and i've owned the 70-300VR... You may want to have your 70-300 VR checked.

 

[ATVrider43]

It was a tamron, I got it free with a kit, didn't like it sold it..

 

[jrizal]

Poor Ken Rockwell, gets no respect on this forum......lol. I've never used an 18-200 but Nikon sure sells a lot of them so there must be something to it.

It serves a specific market mostly casual users who value convenience more than tack sharpness. No actual data here though. But this lens doesn't get much respect here also.

 

[djacobox372]

Can anybody recommend me a automobile that can fit a family of five, tow a 25' trailer, with a convertible top, excellent gas mileage, and is fun/fast enough to take to the track on weekends?

I didn't think so

 

[Boney]

I own all three of the Nikon lenses discussed here. The 70-300 VR is nice but the 70 is just not wide enough for me. I have used the 18-200, VR II for a year or more and really like it. When Nikon announced the 18-300 I jumped and am very glad. I think it is a little sharper than the 18-200. The only negative comment I have is that the VR seems to take just a few milliseconds longer to settle down. The fact that it is sharper, at least to me, is probably some indication of why Nikon is discontinuing the 18-200 version. So there should be some good used deals. I got my 18-200 used, only it really wasn't. Bought it from a guy that shot weddings and decided to sell it before he even opened the box. So it was untouched by human hands when I bought it from him.