Nikon 18-200mm VR IF lens

[forzaF1]

Do you guys think it's worth it to pay the eBay premium to get it now?

 

[MommyOf4Boys]

I have been doing a lot of research on the 18-200mm VR lens. Honestly, it is not worth the money! It is good for an all around lens because you have pretty much every range you need, but as far as optics, I do not think it is what it is cracked up to be if you are wanting a professional quality image. You can do searches on Nikonians.com and Flickr and look at photos people have done with it and it is not really that impressive. Of course Ken Rockwell gives it high ratings, but that is ONE person and sometimes I have noticed he gives good lenses a bad rating and bad lenses a good rating. If you are willing to spend that much on a lens go for it..all you have to do if you do not like it is return it. You can find it around $750 - $800 if you look at the bottom of Ken Rockwell's page for this lens - he has links to sites selling it.

 

[newrmdmike]

i know i won't buy one, even though it would be real nice at weddings to have that kind of convienence with almost no lens changing, its not that sharp, and i would not be happy with it. if you feel like you might stick to the 200mm end of things hold out for the 200m f/2. the quality of an 18-200 can't compare to that of any of nikons prime lenses can it?

 

[Tiberius]

I have been doing a lot of research on the 18-200mm VR lens. Honestly, it is not worth the money! It is good for an all around lens because you have pretty much every range you need, but as far as optics, I do not think it is what it is cracked up to be if you are wanting a professional quality image. You can do searches on Nikonians.com and Flickr and look at photos people have done with it and it is not really that impressive. Of course Ken Rockwell gives it high ratings, but that is ONE person and sometimes I have noticed he gives good lenses a bad rating and bad lenses a good rating. If you are willing to spend that much on a lens go for it..all you have to do if you do not like it is return it. You can find it around $750 - $800 if you look at the bottom of Ken Rockwell's page for this lens - he has links to sites selling it.

It costs less than the 17-55, 28-70, the 17-35, the 70-200, or ANY of the Pro glass for that matter. Why in the world would you expect comparable quality?

 

[Hair Bear]

At those prices it looks better to buy it as a kit with the body.

Sell the body or use as spare?

Can you explain a little more about what makes a lens Pro and why. Keep in mind I have no idea about any of this!

 

[MommyOf4Boys]

It costs less than the 17-55, 28-70, the 17-35, the 70-200, or ANY of the Pro glass for that matter. Why in the world would you expect comparable quality?

For one thing, i never said I expected it to compare to any of those lenses...BUT i would expect an $800 lens to perform better than say a $150 lens!!!

 

[Tiberius]

And it certainly does. Unless you've got a bad sample, the optics are superior to the 18-70 in most people's reviews. Looking at "Photos people have taken with the lens" is bull****. 99% of a Photo is technique and composition, not equipment. The 18-200 is ESPECIALLY popular with first-time DSLR users and other amatures. As such looking at random photos taken with the lens is a bad idea.

I'm also confused as to what you mean by "Professional Grade Photos". I've SEEN pro-grade photos taken with $150 lenses like the Nikon 18-55. So I assumed that you must be talking about pro-grade glass, which is incredibly expensive.

 

[dsp921]

I thought the 18-70 was better in that range than the 18-200, the 18-200 also gets pretty soft at the long end. That's why it's not in my bag anymore.
It is what it is, a consumer level super zoom, and as such there are compromises. This is not some miracle lens, if you know it's drawbacks and can live with them, it's a fine lens, otherwise, look elsewhere.

 

[Nikolai]

I just bought the Sigma 18-125 because I couldn't afford the Nikon 18-200, let alone find one.

Guess we'll see how it does.

 

[Hair Bear]

I thought the 18-70 was better in that range than the 18-200, the 18-200 also gets pretty soft at the long end. That's why it's not in my bag anymore.
It is what it is, a consumer level super zoom, and as such there are compromises. This is not some miracle lens, if you know it's drawbacks and can live with them, it's a fine lens, otherwise, look elsewhere.

Do you carry all those lenses in your sig all the time?

 

[dsp921]

Do you carry all those lenses in your sig all the time?

No, I carry the 28-70, 70-200 and the 50. The 28-70 is on the camera most of the time. I haven't used the 70-300 since I got the 70-200 and I put away the 18-70 when I got the 28-70.

 

[forzaF1]

I just ordered one on Ebay from a trusted seller. It was definately over the list price, but I couldn't resist and it comes with the full USA warranty.

Thanks again for all you help!

-John

 

[forzaF1]

It came in today! I love this lens, mostly because its versatilty and features, but also because of its relatively small size. All your opinions were appreciated!

-John

 

[DepthAfield]

It came in today! I love this lens, mostly because its versatilty and features, but also because of its relatively small size. All your opinions were appreciated!

-John

Excellent! Glad to hear you are enjoying the lens!

I’m one of the lucky few that has a spouse that is also a photo bum. I think I might be putting one of those 18-200 VR lenses under the X-mas tree this year! For the wife of course!

 

[sylph]

I have one. I use it for snapshots. It's easy to carry with me everywhere when we are out hiking and whatnot. The quality sucks though... in comparison to my other lenses like the 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 There is no comparison in quality/sharpness, etc. but... it does make a good "walk about" lens for things that aren't business related for me.