# Nikon 18-200mm VR IF lens



## forzaF1 (Aug 27, 2006)

Does anyone have one of these yet? Wolf Camera has been telling me that there is a REALLY long waiting list for them. This would be the perfect take-everywhere lens for me when I don't need a whole lot of zoom. I would probably be using it with a D200(will buy in the near future).

Thanks for the input

-John


----------



## Tiberius (Aug 27, 2006)

When you don't need a lot of zoom, the 18-55 or 18-70 is a perfect take-everywhere lens.  The appeal of the 18-200 is that it has rather good optics (not as good as the 17-55 or 70-200 f/2.8, but at least as good as the 18-70), an insane amount of zoom (11x), and VR.  Which is, of course, why everyone wants one.  And since Nikon has to plan stocks 2-3 years in advance (how long they claim Optical Glass takes to cool), it would have been difficult for them to predict just how crazy the demand for the lens would be.

And, of course, the fact that whenever any online store gets them in stock the eBay sellers grab them all doesn't help.


----------



## PNA (Aug 27, 2006)

Have you considered the 28-105???


----------



## forzaF1 (Aug 27, 2006)

I have considered the 18-70mm, 18-55, and even the 28-105mm, but the 18-200mm would really suit me best. The VR would be great, too. Do you think the mad rush for these lens will be a little calmer by November/December?


----------



## Tiberius (Aug 27, 2006)

I don't think the rush will calm down until every Nikon owner gets one.  It's literally the greatest walk-around lens of all time for any mount yet created.  There's nothing quite like it.  Decent optics, reach from wide to long telephoto, all under $1000..... this lens will be a hot topic for quite a long time.  When finances allow I'd like to pick one up myself.


----------



## dsp921 (Aug 28, 2006)

I wouldn't recommend putting an 18-55 on the D200, probably not even the 18-70.  Since you are getting a higher end camera don't skimp on the glass.  Look at the 17-55 or the 28-70.  The 18-200 would also be OK.


----------



## forzaF1 (Aug 28, 2006)

Does anyone have any photos that they took with that lens?


----------



## JIP (Aug 29, 2006)

"Don't skimp on the glass" should mean 2.8 or better especially for a D-200.  IMHO 18-200 is too wide a range for a quality lens if you want a small camera why are you buying a D-200 (great choice of body by the way) .


----------



## forzaF1 (Aug 29, 2006)

JIP said:
			
		

> "Don't skimp on the glass" should mean 2.8 or better especially for a D-200.  IMHO 18-200 is too wide a range for a quality lens if you want a small camera why are you buying a D-200 (great choice of body by the way) .


When did I say I wanted a small camera?


----------



## JIP (Aug 30, 2006)

In my years of selling cameras when people want "take anywhere" they mean small and light sorry if I missinterpreted what you meant I still stand by 18-200 being too wide a range for a zoom.  Popular doesn't always translate into better.


----------



## JIP (Aug 30, 2006)

In my years of selling cameras when people say "take anywhere" camers they mean small and light.  I apologose for misinterpreting wat you meant.  I still stand by my belief that 18-200 is too wide a range for a quality zoom.  I have found out that exteremly popular doesn't neccesarily translate to better.


----------



## PNA (Aug 30, 2006)

JIP....

I'm planning to purchase the 18-200 exactly for that reason..."smallability".

Reading most of the reviews seems to point to outstanding performance and quality.

Help me understand you position when you say "too wide a range for a quality zoom".

I now have 28-105 and 70-210 both Nikon lenses. They're not the best, but are more than adequate for amateur plus photos. I would not think the 18-200 would be any less coming from Nikon.


----------



## Tiberius (Aug 30, 2006)

JIP said:
			
		

> In my years of selling cameras when people say "take anywhere" camers they mean small and light.  I apologose for misinterpreting wat you meant.  I still stand by my belief that 18-200 is too wide a range for a quality zoom.  I have found out that exteremly popular doesn't neccesarily translate to better.


Look into the reviews.  I challenge you to find a negative one.  Even Rockwell, who could manage to find problems with a 50mm prime if he wanted, loves it to death.


----------



## dsp921 (Aug 30, 2006)

With this lens it depends on the user how satisfied they will be with it.  Image quality is good for a zoom of this range and price point.  You need to understand and accept the trade-offs necessary for a large zoom range.
Bjorn Rorslett covers a lot of the Nikkor glass on his site.  His reviews are very accurate from what I've seen.  And he actually uses the lenses he is reviewing.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AFS18-200VR


----------



## JIP (Aug 30, 2006)

Aquote from the previous link

"Image quality is remarkably good at the wide end and declines toward the telephoto end.  This is the opposite behavior compared to mostmodern zoom Nikkors.  A fair amount of light fall off into the corners of the image is seen towards the long end too"

Now I'm not one to read alot of reviews I just known this has been the case with the few reviews of any zoom with this range that I have read.  I have also used these lenses (28-200etc.) while working to test the quality and I'm not a big fan.   Personally it seems to me for that kind of money ($700-$800) you could get a much better piece of glass.


----------



## JIP (Aug 30, 2006)

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 (Aug 30, 2006)

JIP said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 30, 2006)

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 (Aug 30, 2006)

You guys are telling me something I need to look at more closely. I&#8217;m thinking the 18-200 would solve the problem of too many lenses to carry, but y&#8217;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&#8230;&#8230;WOW. Ok, how do you convince the wife??? The biggest problem of all!

Talk to me guys&#8230;&#8230;..

And a D2xs?????


----------



## dsp921 (Aug 30, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> 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!
> 
> ...


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 (Aug 30, 2006)

My wife made me beg!!!!


----------



## PNA (Aug 30, 2006)

JIPI'm pretty lucky said:
			
		

> JIP said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dsp921 (Aug 30, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> What are we doing wrong????



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


----------



## PNA (Aug 30, 2006)

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 (Aug 30, 2006)

Hey...update!

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





"Get a job first!"


----------



## dsp921 (Aug 30, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> 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:


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 (Aug 31, 2006)

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 (Aug 31, 2006)

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 (Sep 15, 2006)

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 (Sep 17, 2006)

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.


----------



## forzaF1 (Sep 27, 2006)

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


----------



## MommyOf4Boys (Sep 27, 2006)

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 (Sep 27, 2006)

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 (Sep 27, 2006)

MommyOf4Boys said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 28, 2006)

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 (Sep 28, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 28, 2006)

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 (Sep 28, 2006)

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 (Sep 28, 2006)

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 (Sep 29, 2006)

dsp921 said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 29, 2006)

Hair Bear said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 11, 2006)

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 (Oct 16, 2006)

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 (Oct 19, 2006)

forzaF1 said:
			
		

> 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 (Oct 23, 2006)

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.


----------



## forzaF1 (Oct 23, 2006)

Here are the first serious pic I took with it. We (Nashville Ferrari Club) had a meet at a really cool restaurant on Sunday to watch the Brazilian Grand Prix on TV. Here they are... http://johnburrowphotography.fotki.com/brazilian-gp-watchi/

Thanks, John


----------



## dsp921 (Oct 23, 2006)

Some nice cars, which one is yours?


----------



## forzaF1 (Oct 23, 2006)

dsp921 said:
			
		

> Some nice cars, which one is yours?



None. I'm getting there, though. I'm the photographer and enthusiast. You don't have to be an owner to go. You just have to be crazy about Ferraris.

-John


----------



## dsp921 (Oct 23, 2006)

forzaF1 said:
			
		

> You just have to be crazy about Ferraris.
> 
> -John



That should include just about everybody....


----------



## PNA (Oct 23, 2006)

dsp921 said:
			
		

> That should include just about everybody....


 
My favorite has always been the 246 Dino.......beautiful lines, a classic design for a sports car.


----------



## dsp921 (Oct 23, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> My favorite has always been the 246 Dino.......beautiful lines, a classic design for a sports car.



Kinda like this?:


----------



## PNA (Oct 23, 2006)

You got it!! Since you're buying, make it in red and a spyder, please.

Outstanding!


----------



## PNA (Oct 23, 2006)

Dug up and old shot of my '74 Pantera.






No comparison to the Dino, but lots of fun to drive.


----------



## dsp921 (Oct 23, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> You got it!! Since you're buying, make it in red and a spyder, please.
> 
> Outstanding!


I can help with the red....






Or maybe this GTS, not red though...







Sorry about hijacking your lens thread John, but at least the cars are cool....


----------



## dsp921 (Oct 23, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> Dug up and old shot of my '74 Pantera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pantera's are cool, too.


----------



## PNA (Oct 23, 2006)

dsp921 said:
			
		

> Sorry about hijacking your lens thread John, but at least the cars are cool....


 
Yes, me too, sorry.......


----------



## PNA (Oct 23, 2006)

Geeeee, I'm not sure about the burgandy,bbbbuuuutttt, oh hell, send it anyway.

Awsome cars!


----------



## forzaF1 (Oct 23, 2006)

acsonpg said:
			
		

> My favorite has always been the 246 Dino.......beautiful lines, a classic design for a sports car.


Oh yeah. Such a classic, but nothing beats driving a modern Ferrari. The day I drove a Ferrari, my life was changed forever. I found a new love. We are all on here: http://ferrarichat.com/forum/ . That's where all the meets are organized, too.

-John


----------

