Opinions on Nikon 18-200mm.

[Nikon_Dude]

I'm entertaining the idea of getting this lens. When using the kit lens I often find myself wishing for more zoom, and my 55-200 is not wide enough to even keep on the camera while I'm in the house, so I'm always swapping lenses.

There's a guy selling one on craigslist for $600, or $520 plus 18-55, or $400 plus 18-55 and 55-200. I paid $200 for the 55-200 alone, so I'd only wanna give him $350 max plus the two lenses. On the other hand I can order a brand new 18-200 for $663.

My question is am I going to lose anything by having the one lens vs. the two covering the same focal range. I've never had the chance to try one out, but on paper it looks like it should do the trick.

I eventually do want a 70-200 f2.8 but that'll be a ways down the road.

 

[KmH]

From DP Review.com Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX Lens Review: 4. Conclusion & samples: Digital Photography Review

...with the 18-200mm VR the phrase 'jack of all trades, master of none' springs immediately to mind. It's a lens which delivers somewhat flawed results over its entire zoom range; where it's sharp, it has heavy distortion, and when that distortion comes under control at the long end, it loses sharpness.

Distortion is a problem at almost all focal lengths. The 18mm setting displays an extremely high level of barrel distortion (2.8%), which changes rapidly to pincushion by 24mm, and becomes extreme from 35mm to 70mm (peaking at 50mm and 2.3%), before diminishing again towards the telephoto end.

...So when all is said and done, we have to understand that superzooms are essentially about making some optical compromises to provide the broadest possible range in a single lens, and it's up to each individual to decide whether those compromises are acceptable...

• Pronounced distortion across much of the range
• Extremely soft at 135mm
• Rather average close-up performance
• Zoom creep

 

[djacobox372]

First $400 would be a good price for this lens used, NOT $600.

You will be losing some image quality by using one lens, but not much seeing that you're other lenses are consumer level.

Another solution would be to add a nikon 24-120mm VR to your kit. These sell used for around $350. You could probably get rid of your 18-55mm if you go this route--replacing it with an ultra-wide later.

 

[orb9220]

Yep hope it works for you. I just find the slower jack of all lenses not well suited for much of my lower light and indoor work. And that's the catch. You may not like to swap lenses. But any of the kit lenses and the All-in-one zooms will not be ideal for using in lower light and indoors without also using flash or tripod.

My main walkaround is a faster Tamron 17-50 f2.8 gives most what is needed in lower light and indoors. But to cover the range I also need to have a longer zoom.

I really don't get the I'll sacrifice speed and Image IQ for convenience of an all in one lens crowd. If I wanted to do that I would just settle for a P&S bridge type camera with built in 18x optical zoom.

I found my 55-200VR sharper and lighter compared to the 18-200. And for the high monies would rather get the new Sigma 17-70 or my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and then maybe a Nikon 70-300vr or the new 55-300vr as my second lens.
.

 

[Nikon_Dude]

Definitely some food for thought. I already have a 35mm 1.8 I use indoors and in low light and I love it. Really makes you appreciate a fast lens.

That sigma 17-70 is worth considering as well.

You will be losing some image quality by using one lens, but not much seeing that you're other lenses are consumer level.

That's my dilemma. I know the two lenses this would be replacing are nothing special, so if I don't see a noticeable drop in image quality, I would rather have the one lens.

One incident that made me start considering this lens happened last summer. I was in yosemite, using the kit lens to take some pictures of scenery, when a bear showed up. It was too far away to reach with the kit lens, but I would have been able to get some awesome shots at 200mm. So I sprinted back to the car, changed lenses, ran back, and by now he had moved even farther away, so I just got some crappy shots of the bear's ass.

 

[KmH]

Definitely some food for thought. I already have a 35mm 1.8 I use indoors and in low light and I love it. Really makes you appreciate a fast lens.

That sigma 17-70 is worth considering as well.

You will be losing some image quality by using one lens, but not much seeing that you're other lenses are consumer level.

That's my dilemma. I know the two lenses this would be replacing are nothing special, so if I don't see a noticeable drop in image quality, I would rather have the one lens.

One incident that made me start considering this lens happened last summer. I was in yosemite, using the kit lens to take some pictures of scenery, when a bear showed up. It was too far away to reach with the kit lens, but I would have been able to get some awesome shots at 200mm. So I sprinted back to the car, changed lenses, ran back, and by now he had moved even farther away, so I just got some crappy shots of the bear's ass.

Why was the longer lens in the car?

 

[Nikon_Dude]

Why was the longer lens in the car?

Hahaha that would have solved my problem, but because I didn't think I'd need it as I had just pulled over to take pics of scenery and ended up wandering down the road.

 

[sobolik]

I have the 18-200 and the 18-105. I bought it with filters bag etc for $550 on eBay.

I am going to do a shoot off again one of these days because I sense there is an inferiority to the 18-105 but can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps there is a color rendering difference. For now the 18-200 stays on all the time. Since I PP every photo no matter what, any variation from the 18-105 is not that big of a deal.

I too sought more zoom and hate changing lenses. The moment is frequently gone before the lens change happens.

The 18-200 and my Tokina 12-24 are a killer tandem that takes care of my very need. I particularly love the 12-24. I did one wedding almost exclusively with the 12-24. Some 2500 shots.

Forget the Craigslist wheeler and dealer unless you also get the box and paperwork, a bag, UV filter, polarizer filter for the $600 (for the $50 more I'd expect the box and paper work that I did not get with my $550 purchase)

 

[Light Artisan]

I've had 3 Nikon 18-200's over the years and personally prefer the Sigma 18-250. It's a hair slower on the long end but with this type of lens you're typically going to want to shoot in decent light anyway.

Something to consider.

In the end I went with the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 though. There are times I miss not having to change lenses, but it's worth the 'sacrifice'.