Why has the Nikkor 18-200 got such a bad reputation here

[In2daBlue]

That was done on purpose, trust me.

As far as low light performance, I think that anyone that looks at the specifications (F/3.5-F/5.6) will know that this lens is not a night photographer's favorite. It is slow, indeed, and as I mentioned, I have fast glass and a very clean high ISO camera to fall on when needed (the Nikkor 70-200 and the D700).

I think my exact words were "no, it is nowhere near as bad as people want you to think and no, it is not the best lens out there". When ultimate quality is a concern for me, nothing but the best professional level glass goes on my cameras, however, keeping the context in line, I doubt many professional level photographers will use the 18-200s lens. This far from invalidates it from being a very good and usable vacation or walk-around lens.

Using the right tool for the right job is always something I strive for... and carrying around the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 on my D700 with battery grip at Disney would give me better pictures, but I'm not there as a photographer, I'm there to have a different kind of fun and a D200 with grip and the 18-200 are perfect for me in that sense.

Agreed Jerry. I also thought the commenter who said it's hard to compare lenses because of the apples to oranges comparison was on the mark.

 

[JerryPH]

Huh? Talk about comparing apples to elephants!! (sound familiar, Chris? )

 

[Steph]

Just compared the Nikkor 18-200 at 18mm with the Sigma 10-20 at 20mm. ... I've
got my hands on a Nikkor 10.5mm/f2.8 fisheye to compare it to the ... In
addition to the visible softness on one side, my Sigma has a focussing .... the
Nikon 12-24 here in Australia and the 12-24 having a bad reputation

Spam?

 

[JerryPH]

Spam. And now deleted spam... lol