Nikon 18-200 VR behaves like a Dead duck

[DarkShadow]

Why not just use manual focus for low light. AF assist light is effective more then 5 ft. I used it when I had my D90 to light up a skunk in the dark and it lite up my yard like a mini flash light.

 

[Tailgunner]

Why not just use manual focus for low light. AF assist light is effective more then 5 ft. I used it when I had my D90 to light up a skunk in the dark and it lite up my yard like a mini flash light.

Yup, I generally use manual focus when shooting night photos...even using my 2.8 glass.

 

[18.percent.gary]

Did you buy the lens new or used? It sounds like something it's working correctly. If it's used make sure you clean the electrical contacts on the lens.

I've had a couple 18-200's (new and used) as well as a 18-55, 18-105s and a 18-135. They all focused exactly the same in similar lighting situations, even in very low light. The 18-200 should NOT be slower or less accurate than the others in my experience. The AF-S systems in all these lenses are about the same speed, you shouldn't see any difference. All of them are f3.5-5.6 lenses so that shouldn't make a difference in low light, in fact the 18-200 would have an advantage on the long end since the max aperture of the 18-105 would be f5.6 at 105mm while the 18-200 would be ~f5.3 or so at 105mm.

Autofocus ACCURACY though is very dependent on the AF sensors inside the camera body. Make sure they aren't dirty. I would use a rocket blower to get any dust off of the sensors in the bottom of the mirror box and see if that fixes things.

 

[psran]

I would use a rocket blower to get any dust off of the sensors in the bottom of the mirror box and see if that fixes things.

Wow that was very helpful , i can feel a difference in AF speed now

 

[psran]

One small addition from my side. I was actually keeping Hood in reversed position on my lens all the time and what I noticed is that it was interfering in AF assist light, removing the hood has helped somewhat.


I also performed a test to speed of AF on my 18-200 and 50. What I did is that I kept the Cap on while pressing the Button halfway down. I noticed that 50 mm lens is very fast to focus between Infinity to nearest but 18-200 is a bit noisy and Difference is AF speed is clearly visible.

Now this test seems to be pointing towards some Autofocus motor problems or am I imagining things ?

 

[18.percent.gary]

I would assume the 50 should focus ALOT faster than the 18-200. Think about how much more mass the motor has to move in the the 18-200 when it goes through the full focus range. There's a lot more glass, metal tubes and stuff inside the 18-200 than the nice and simple little 50mm prime. Just a guess.

edit- how on earth could you manage to turn the zoom ring with the hood on reversed? I just tried and it's a challenge lol.

 

[goodguy]

Never owned this lens but I gotta admit I never heard very good things of it, when you want a do it all lens there are weak points that come with the lens.

Little story with a moral.
I am also a warist watch fan, there is a gorgeous watch I really wanted for a long time and after few years of dreaming I got the money and a good chance to buy a stunning example, not a long time after I got it I saw to my deep disapointment this was is really not what I want, I tried to like it but it just wasnt it so I had no choice, I put it on the net for sale and had to take a big loss on it just so I will not get stuck.

Moral of the story is that sometimes you made a choice and found it was the wrong one.
Its ok to try and make it work and if it does that thats great, keep trying to work with the lens and see if it will help but if not take the hit in the pocket put it on kijiji or ebay and get a better lens.

Trust me I am still kicking myself for getting that watch

 

[psran]

I don't know if it happens to others also but in my case when I am about to buy a Lens, I don't see any bad reviews about it but once I start using them and the problems start showing up, I see the same things someone had mentioned somewhere but I didn't see it before.

As a rule, I think, there are no very good cheap lenses. If its cheap its due to a reason. In my experience except for Nikon 35 or 50 there is no lens which can be called Poor man's Pro lens.

I never had an idea that photography kit could end up being so expensive. I have already spent around 1600 $ but my kit still qualifies as a Cheap, Amateur gear

 

[KmH]

Photography is a relatively inexpensive hobby.

A full set of amateur grade Taylor Made brand golf clubs runs about $1600 new.
Add a golf bag, golf shoes, greens fees, golf gloves, a pull cart for the golf bag, golf balls, a shag bag to keep practice golf balls in, extra golf balls to put in the shag bag, and more