Nikon 18-200mm VR IF lens

[JIP]

Just for the heck of it I just read a few more reviews and while they all say "wow" the bottom line is always Vignetting and distortion at wide an focus problems at long zooms I just don't see the point in spending this kind of money on a zoom this long but I'm probably just spoiled by my 70-200 2.8 v.r. lens

 

[dsp921]

Just for the heck of it I just read a few more reviews and while they all say "wow" the bottom line is always Vignetting and distortion at wide an focus problems at long zooms I just don't see the point in spending this kind of money on a zoom this long but I'm probably just spoiled by my 70-200 2.8 v.r. lens

I'd have to say that I'm with you on this one. While it might be a great all around lens for some, I'd rather carry a couple/three lenses to cover that range. The 70-200 f/2.8 ruined me for consumer glass, too. You should dump your 18-70 and get a 28-70 f2.8 instead, it's awesome. I don't miss the 18-28 range at all, and if I do I'll add the 17-35 to my bag.

 

[JIP]

Well being brand new to pro digital (shooting medium format weddings for 6 years) I had to start somewhere. The 18-70 was a kit lens and I am just now realizing that if I want to shoot quality that kit lens will not do I actually went against my better judgement in buying it. My next investment will probably be the D200, 17-35 2.8, and possibly to round things out the or 35-70 2.8 I just have to pay off my other items. But that 70-200 2.8 is a beautiful lens.

 

[PNA]

You guys are telling me something I need to look at more closely. I’m thinking the 18-200 would solve the problem of too many lenses to carry, but y’all are saying to sacrifice quality is not worth it.

So, 28-70 @ $1335 and 70-200 @ $1615 for a total of about 3 grand……WOW. Ok, how do you convince the wife??? The biggest problem of all!

Talk to me guys……..

And a D2xs?????

 

[dsp921]

You guys are telling me something I need to look at more closely. I’m thinking the 18-200 would solve the problem of too many lenses to carry, but y’all are saying to sacrifice quality is not worth it.

So, 28-70 @ $1335 and 70-200 @ $1615 for a total of about 3 grand……WOW. Ok, how do you convince the wife??? The biggest problem of all!

Talk to me guys……..

And a D2xs?????

It being worth it or not is a matter of personal opinion. For me, the quality I get with the pro glass is worth the expense and the issue of having to carry more than one lens. Don't get me wrong, the 18-200 isn't junk by any means and for many many people it is exactly what they are looking for. You have to decide if the trade-offs for a single lens solution are OK with you. Borrow or rent a 18-200 and see, that may tell you immediately if the lens is for you or not.
I'm pretty lucky, I don't have to convince my wife, I just buy what I want, as long as my bills are paid it's not a problem.
I decided to spend my money on pro glass first and upgrade the body last, I can get better results with quality glass on a D70s than I could with cheap lenses on a D200 or D2Xs. The Xs is on my list, but it'll come after I'm happy with my lens collection.

 

[JIP]

My wife made me beg!!!!

 

[PNA]

My wife made me beg!!!!

What are we doing wrong????

 

[dsp921]

What are we doing wrong????

Don't know, guess you have to lay down the law early and often :mrgreen:

 

[PNA]

I read the review on the 18-200 by Bjørn Rørslett and am not completely convinced that it is just a so-so lens. Agreed that both the f2.8s are faster, but that's two lenses and of course the expense. And your point regarding lenses vs. camera bodies is well taken.

No question about it, if I were a pro making my living at the photo business, no expense would be too great. And maybe some day I'll upgrade to the pro level (not speaking of my skills) with lenses.

Great discussion, guys. :thumbup:

 

[PNA]

Hey...update!

The wife just came home and said, sure go ahead and buy what you want....!!!!





"Get a job first!"

 

[dsp921]

I read the review on the 18-200 by Bjørn Rørslettand am not completely convinced that it is just a so-so lens. Agreed that both the f2.8s are faster, but that's two lenses and of course the expense. And your point regarding lenses vs. camera bodies is well taken.

No question about it, if I were a pro making my living at the photo business, no expense would be too great. And maybe some day I'll upgrade to the pro level (not speaking of my skills) with lenses.

Great discussion, guys. :thumbup:

This is where the personal needs/wants come in. I want a lens that is fast and sharp at 200, so the 18-200 falls short. Not that it's a bad lens, it just doesn't work with what I want. I don't want to talk anyone out of the 18-200, just be aware that the huge zoom range and small package doesn't come without compromise. For some the compromises don't matter and they end up with a lens they love. That has to be decided on an individual basis. My mistake was shooting with a pro lens, and now I'm hooked.
go to pbase.com and search on 18-200 Nikkor and there should be a bunch of images taken with the lens.

 

[Tiberius]

It's all a matter of tradeoff. One has to remember, though: Not only does the 18-200 have a wider focal range and VR, but its SIZE and WEIGHT are what make it so attractive. I've used a 70-200VR. Optically, it's stunning, but it's huge and it's heavy. Add a 17-55 and you're talking three grand in lenses and a substantial weight, not to mention the bother of cleaning your sensor from all the dust that inevitably gets on it while changing lenses. The 18-200 isn't much bigger than the 18-70, is rather light compared to the f/2.8 lenses, and makes hiking and such much more of a pleasure.

 

[dsp921]

This shows that it is very much an individual choice. I buy lenses to shoot pictures, so image quality is top priority. The fact that good lenses are bigger and heavier doesn't matter to me. Sensor cleaning is simple and doesn't need to be done often, I wouldn't sacrifice quality to avoid cleaning the sensor 4 or 5 times a year. The 70-200VR isn't really all that huge or heavy, especially after using it for a short time, you quickly get used to it.
It comes down to a choice: Top quality images or ease of use. One will be more important than the other to you and that's what lens purchases should be based on.

 

[IllinoisGirl]

John,
This is my first visit to the photo forum. I am usually reading Nikonians or photo.net and am looking forward to adding this site to my reads!! It seems as if the 18-200 posts are always the same at all of the forums: Those who have it love it, those who don't have it put it down as an amatures camera. I have got a D200 in June and ordered a 18-200 at the same time. I just received it a few weeks ago and all I can say is WOW! I love it. I love my camera and was using it with some very basic lenses - 50mm 1.8, 28-70 3.5 and a 70-300G - all of my lenses were used and around $100 each. So this sparkly NEW lens has just astonished me. Now I know that the people with the really really good lenses will just say that it is just because I don't know any better, but I love the combination!!! I have uploaded several of the photographs I have taken since I have had the lens -and compared to what I had on the site from before - there is most definitely a before 18-200/after 18-200 difference! Here is my Flickr link, please let me know what you think! I just learned a new photoshop technique called the Orton effect - so of course I have been using it ALOT. You'll see that I am most definitely from Illinois - lots of corn and beans - gotta find some ways to make them interesting!!! Anyway good luck! ~Val

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vals_photo1class

 

[D-50]

From everything I read and hear the 18-200 is a great lens, yeah the 2.8s are very nice but the cost may outweigh the benefit. If your a professional photog of course your going to want 2.8 lenses but for your average amerature it may be overkill. I know a couple wedding photogs that use lenses like the 18-200 or even the 18-70 with cameras from the d-50 to the d200 and there photos look great. The images these lenses produce are of high enough quality to sell. I would say go for the 18-200 and save your sensor form the dust. Go to Kenrockwell.com he says he shoots a lot of his photos with the 18-200 and they look great.