Nikon 18-200mm rate ?

[jessyd]

Hey i saw lots of review about the 18-200 but i still have some question about it for people that own it

How much on 10 would you rate is quality image ? ( 1 the worst, 10 the best)

How much on 10 would you rate is overall performance ? ( 1 the worst, 10 the best)

Thanks in advance!

 

[tirediron]

You need to qualify the question. At 100mm at f8, it's pretty darn decent. At 18 or 200mm, wide-open, in the "corners" it's gawd-awful (-5). At the end of the day, it is what it is... that is, a consumer-grade zoom lens with a huge range, and mediocre build quality. It's a good lens for someone who wants to take snapshots in the backyard, and the odd family vacation. For serious photography? It's NOT a lens I would spend money on.

 

[analog.universe]

I'm not going to rate it with numbers, because that will vary depending on what you shoot...

It's strongest feature is the wide zoom range, and when you can stop down it's decently sharp at some focal lengths. It's also decently contrasty and flare-resistant. 100% designed to be convenient and inexpensive, and not designed for great rendering.

It is useless in low light, has heavy barrel distortion at the wide end, and pincushion distortion throughout most of the rest of the range. The lens also suffers from field curvature and spherical aberration, which explains the well described "gawd-awful" corner performance. The bokeh is quite poor as well, so shallow DoF shots (to the extent you can get them with a 3.5-5.6) don't look that great.

What kind of stuff do you shoot? Maybe we can suggest something with decent performance that better suits your needs....

 

[matthewo]

Just spend that $500-$600 on a decent-good 3rd party f2.8
midrange zoom

 

[Derrel]

Nikon 18-200mm VR II

Nikon 18-200mm

Read these and you will understand a lot about the original version of this lens, and the VR-II model.

 

[jessyd]

Thank you everyone!!

I plan to make one of those 2 my travel lens...

Travel bring you to shoot everything, wildlife, landscape, sport etc...

 

[KmH]

The Nikon 18-200 mm is likely their worst lens value from a performance to cost basis, but ironically, because of it's convenient superzoom range it's one of their best sellers.

When I travel I just carry multiple lenses with me so I can shoot whatever I encounter with as little image quality compromise as possible.

In other words, image quality is much more important to me than convenience.

 

[IgsEMT]

Its a lens with many quality limitations when shooting at its extremes. It isn't a bad lens, especially for what you need it (traveling) but it isn't a lens that you should expect super high results. By the same token, few of my colleagues use it on theirs crop-frame and swear by versatility not needing to switch lenses.

Good Luck

 

[adichiru]

I own the original version of this lens and used it on 3 different bodies for the last 3 years: D5000, D300 and now D7000.

I have no idea what some of the above users are talking about saying it is Nikon's worst lens in any way.
It is convenient and it does have distortions at 18mm and it is a little soft at 200mm.

It is a GREAT travel lens and, even for a professional (in the sens of very demanding in quality) travel photographer, this can be a very good lens if used correctly.
I use it between 35mm and 180mm, usually at F8 as it give very good contrast and sharpness. Of course, I also apply lens correction in Lightroom (something that I do not have to do for my 105 mm f/2.8 for example, but that's a prime, full frame lens which is a total different story).

I bought the 18-200 as a replacement for the set 18-55 + 55 -200mm and I never regret it.
Who compares this lens with any f/2.8 models or with a lens designed for full frame is just wrong!
Oh, and of course it's almost useless in low-light! It IS a 3.5-5.6 lens! Why would you expect something else?

There are 2 things that I don't like too much: "zoom creep" which can be solved easily and the relative cheap construction (the rubber band used for zoom came loose after 3 years while using the lens in Mexico in extreme heat for 6 days in a row!) - none of these has impact on image quality anyway.

These are some of the photographs I like best, taken by me, with my 18-200mm:

Adi Chiru - Portfolio, Fine Art Photography, Nature and Wildlife Photography, Travel Photography, Family portraiture | Nature | Green (I think it's quite sharp here! the image was not cropped)

Adi Chiru - Portfolio, Fine Art Photography, Nature and Wildlife Photography, Travel Photography, Family portraiture | Nature | Green (what is so bad about this bokeh example?!)

Adi Chiru - Portfolio, Fine Art Photography, Nature and Wildlife Photography, Travel Photography, Family portraiture | People | Photo 1 (this was at 5.6 at 200mm - maybe I am biased but there is very good skin tone here, very good texture in the hair and it was shot hand-held while the subjects were in motion)

Adi Chiru - Portfolio, Fine Art Photography, Nature and Wildlife Photography, Travel Photography, Family portraiture | People | Photo 1 (again, good colors, very good detail, very nice DoF...)

As many reviewers already stated many times, it a the best lens in its category. The links posted above by Derrel will indeed help you figure this out. Of course, Ken Rockwell is who he is but in lenses, for me, he never went wrong yet...

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I own the original version of this lens and used it on 3 different bodies for the last 3 years: D5000, D300 and now D7000.

I have no idea what some of the above users are talking about saying it is Nikon's worst lens in any way.
It is convenient and it does have distortions at 18mm and it is a little soft at 200mm.

It is a GREAT travel lens and, even for a professional (in the sens of very demanding in quality) travel photographer, this can be a very good lens if used correctly.
I use it between 35mm and 180mm, usually at F8 as it give very good contrast and sharpness. Of course, I also apply lens correction in Lightroom (something that I do not have to do for my 105 mm f/2.8 for example, but that's a prime, full frame lens which is a total different story).

I bought the 18-200 as a replacement for the set 18-55 + 55 -200mm and I never regret it.
Who compares this lens with any f/2.8 models or with a lens designed for full frame is just wrong!
Oh, and of course it's almost useless in low-light! It IS a 3.5-5.6 lens! Why would you expect something else?

There 2 things that I don't like too much: "zoom creep" which can be solved easily and the relative cheap construction (the rubber band used for zoom came loose after 3 years while using the lens in Mexico in extreme heat for 6 days in a row!) - none of these has impact on image quality anyway.

These are some of the photographs I like best, taken by me with my the 18-200mm:

Adi Chiru - Portfolio, Fine Art Photography, Nature and Wildlife Photography, Travel Photography, Family portraiture | Nature | Green (I think it's quite sharp here! the image was not cropped)

Adi Chiru - Portfolio, Fine Art Photography, Nature and Wildlife Photography, Travel Photography, Family portraiture | Nature | Green (what is so bad about this bokeh example?!)

Adi Chiru - Portfolio, Fine Art Photography, Nature and Wildlife Photography, Travel Photography, Family portraiture | People | Photo 1 (this was at 5.6 at 200mm - maybe I am biased but there is very good skin tone here, very good texture in the hair and it was shot hand-held while the subjects were in motion)

Adi Chiru - Portfolio, Fine Art Photography, Nature and Wildlife Photography, Travel Photography, Family portraiture | People | Photo 1 (again, good colors, very good detail, very nice DoF...)

As many reviewers already stated many times, it a the best lens in its category. The links posted above by Derrel will indeed help you figure this out. Of course, Ken Rockwell is who he is but in lenses, for me, he never went wrong yet...

Here here Sir! I couldn't agree more.

I hear constant bashing of this lens in forums across the net, but for a lens that does so so much it does pretty damn well considering. It is sometimes made out that this lens is a piece of trash when it is actually a great effort on Nikon's part, it is a super convenience lens and you can get decent IQ with this lens. Certainly optical performance far superior to a compact camera.

I own the 10-20, 18-55 and 70-300 and I am very happy with this combo as a walkround as it gives me really really good and sharp IQ in a fairly compact manner, but sometimes a part of me feels like saying forget the lens changes and buy and carry round a 18-200 all day and not worry about lens changing. OK, the 18-200 wouldn't be anywhere near as good as the three lenses I have. But it takes away the concern of lens changes when things are changing fast!

Bob Krist is NOT a photographer who only takes family vacation photos and he uses a 18-200 VR. There are a couple of other PRO's I have seen using a 18-200 VR, admittedly this lens will always be inferior to most other lenses in the Nikon range. But in terms of convenience it wins hands down and allows the photographer to solely focus on taking photos and little else in fast moving situations, meaning less missed photos.