Nikon 18-200: Consolidating lenses

[JohnS.]

I've been thinking about consolidating my lenses for a single lens. I have a 55-200 and 18-55 as far as zoom lenses go. I've read a few sites on the 18-200 and it seems like a very good investment for a walk-around lens.

The price is pretty steep for me but I would definitely consider getting rid of both of my zooms and maybe even my 50mm AF for this single lens. I have an AF-S 35mm 1.8 that I absolutely love and wouldn't ever dream of selling. I might keep my AF 50mm 1.8 but I'm still not really a fan of manual focus (since I have a D40) and because of this, I don't use it much and it's not really getting put to use.

What do you guys think? Consolidate? I've been to a couple sporting events and 200mm isn't quite as far as I'd like to reach (I know it's equivalent to a longer zoom on an FX) so I would probably buy a 2nd super zoom that reaches further.

 

[Big Mike]

For the most part, you have to sacrifice quality for convenience when it comes to lenses. Many photographers will avoid zoom lenses that have a greater than 3x or 4x zoom range. So 17-55mm is good, 24-70mm is good, 70-200mm is good....18-200 is more than 10x, so they probably had to compromise the design, and you usually end up with poor performance at either end of the zoom.

I have heard that the Nikon 18-200mm is one of the best 'super zoom' lenses, and it might even be as good or better than the cheap zoom lenses you have now. But if your goal is better quality, you might want to rethink. But if the convenience is worth it for you, then it might be a good option.

What do you guys think? Consolidate? I've been to a couple sporting events and 200mm isn't quite as far as I'd like to reach (I know it's equivalent to a longer zoom on an FX).

It's only 'equivalent' to a longer zoom when you are comparing the field of view to a lens on a camera with a bigger sensor (or 35mm film). If you don't have or use a full frame/film SLR, then you shouldn't think that you get 'longer zoom' on your FX camera.

 

[jjparson]

I owned the 18-200 once upon a time and while it was great as an all in one solution. It really lacked in IQ and it is pretty slow as well. As you mentioned it is a fairly pricey piece of glass. I would go with something like a Sigma 24-70 instead and then cover the top end later or vice versa. I realize it is probably more than you want to spend, but consider an investment. I look at the 18-200 and think it is ok at everything, but not great at anything.

Just my .02$.

 

[Ken Rockwell Fan]

I'd keep the 18-55 and 55-200. The 18-200 has too much distortion for my tastes.

 

[KmH]

Many believe Nikon's 18-200 mm superzoom lens is one of their worst lens values.

As mentioned many design compromises have to be made to accomodated the 11x+ zoom range. That happens with any brand of superzoom.

At 18 mm the barrel distortion is very complex and virtually unfixable in post processing. The barrel distortion improves and changes to pincushion distortion at about 35 mm. Focus is soft at both ends of the focal range.

For many hobby photographers, the convenience of not carrying and changing an assormtne of lenses, trumps the image quality issues. Otherwise Nikon, Sigma, and other lens makers wouldn't offer superzooms.

 

[JohnS.]

Ah, learn new things every day! I guess I won't be consolidating lol. So an ideal situation would be owning multiple DSLR's, each with different lenses for different situations and just switching between the camera's huh?

Thanks for the input guys!

 

[orb9220]

Well like mentioned the if needing lower light and max Image IQ then convenience of a all-in-one would fail for me.

My first consideration was replacing the slower kit lenses. So replaced my 18-55 with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. And my usability in lower light & indoors went up quite a bit. Also Image IQ took the next step up. And I'll take that any day over convenience with less usability in more situations and hits in Image IQ.

And just never understood the need to have an all-in-one. It would be like saying hey I want to craft wooden model ships but want to replace my dremel & attachments and scalpels with a all-in-one leatherman.
.

 

[Big Mike]

And just never understood the need to have an all-in-one. It would be like saying hey I want to craft wooden model ships but want to replace my dremel & attachments and scalpels with a all-in-one leatherman.

Really? The 'All-in-one' is probably one of the most successful marketing strategies. You have to remember that with most 'hobbyist tools', the 'general public' is a bigger market share than the dedicated end user. For example, Canon & Nikon sell many, many more point & shoot cameras than DSLR cameras. And for the DSLR cameras they do sell, the vast majority are the cheap 'entry level' models. Those are the type of consumers who love the idea of an all-in-one solution for their lens (or their kitchen appliances etc.)

Of course, there are those who favor quality over convenience, and internet forums are where you find those types of people...but we certainly don't make up the majority of the market share.

Ah, learn new things every day! I guess I won't be consolidating lol. So an ideal situation would be owning multiple DSLR's, each with different lenses for different situations and just switching between the camera's huh?

Well, you could just change the lens...it only take a couple seconds.
Actually, when I shoot a wedding, I usually have two cameras on the go, so that I don't have to switch lenses as often.

 

[JohnS.]

Well like mentioned the if needing lower light and max Image IQ then convenience of a all-in-one would fail for me.

My first consideration was replacing the slower kit lenses. So replaced my 18-55 with the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. And my usability in lower light & indoors went up quite a bit. Also Image IQ took the next step up. And I'll take that any day over convenience with less usability in more situations and hits in Image IQ.

And just never understood the need to have an all-in-one. It would be like saying hey I want to craft wooden model ships but want to replace my dremel & attachments and scalpels with a all-in-one leatherman.
.

Ouch.. Even the Tamron 17-50 is expensive for me.

Really? The 'All-in-one' is probably one of the most successful marketing strategies. You have to remember that with most 'hobbyist tools', the 'general public' is a bigger market share than the dedicated end user. For example, Canon & Nikon sell many, many more point & shoot cameras than DSLR cameras. And for the DSLR cameras they do sell, the vast majority are the cheap 'entry level' models. Those are the type of consumers who love the idea of an all-in-one solution for their lens (or their kitchen appliances etc.)

Of course, there are those who favor quality over convenience, and internet forums are where you find those types of people...but we certainly don't make up the majority of the market share.

That makes perfect sense. A lot of local people I see that do photography as a hobby are all using entry level DSLR's. Nothing higher than a D5000. Most of them are the older models (D40/x, D60, D70, etc.). And I guess I fell for that market strategy .

It makes sense to me that an all-in-one lens wouldn't perform quite as good as dedicated (right word?) lenses. I just thought that it wouldn't be a bad idea to consolidate my zoom's. But if the image quality is going to go down that much, I'd rather not. I'd rather spend the money for quality glass. But I did not know it wasn't THAT great of a lens until now.

Well, you could just change the lens...it only take a couple seconds.
Actually, when I shoot a wedding, I usually have two cameras on the go, so that I don't have to switch lenses as often.

lol yeah I was just kidding :mrgreen:. I meant for convenience sake and if I needed to switch to a different lens really quickly, having multiple DSLR's would be "ideal".

 

[william542]

Unless your a pro, I think a 18-200mm VR works fine.

 

[jack58]

Boy, a lot of put-down on that 18-200mm VR! I consider myself a pretty good photographer, (see sig - majority shot with zoom lenses) and I really liked that 18-200mm VR when I had it for two years. When your walking around, hiking or whatever, it is nice to not have to pack a bunch of lenses. The only ones that can beat out a 18-200mm are the very EXPENSIVE and HEAVY prime lenses. I guess it takes all kinds, but my vote goes to the 18-200mm VR.

 

[KmH]

So an ideal situation would be owning multiple DSLR's, each with different lenses for different situations and just switching between the camera's huh?

Thanks for the input guys!

Actually, yes

For shooting field sports I usually have lenses mounted on 3 camera bodies.

A gripped D300 with a Nikon 200-400 mm f/4 zoom, and that combo is on a monopod.
On my right hip on a Black Rapid sling is another gripped D300 with an 80-200 mm f/2.8 mounted.
On my left hip on a Black Rapid sling is a D3 with a 24-85 mm f/2.8-4 mounted. All together, $16,000 worth of camera gear. AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED

 

[pdq5oh]

I think the 18-200 is a very good lens when compared to others in that class. The pin cushion can be minimized by watching what u photograph with it. It's a very sharp lens when used properly. For a walk around lens I think it's a very good one.

 

[IgsEMT]

Despite all the criticism on 18-200, it isn't as bad as many claim if you know its limitations and work around them.
There are jobs where all I used is that lens. There are other jobs where I flop lenses/bodies.

 

[waynegz1]

I had the version II of this lens, got it for $300. IMO it is the worst lens I have ever used. It is an "all in one" solution but you are indeed sacrificing quality.

DONT DO IT.