the amazing 18-200 VR
Discussion
Is this lens all that Ken Rockwell makes it out to be? I am considering getting it, so was looking for reviews. Does anyone have any experience using it? I realise that if I want ultimate sharpness then I should go for a less compromised lens (in terms of zoom), but for an all-round general-purpose walk-about effort, this seems like the ideal toy!
The Ken Rockwell review method:
1.) Purchase item.
2.) Read other reviews of item.
3.) Make a list of all the negative features in other reviews.
4.) Dismiss all negative features as irrelevant.
5.) Declare item best thing ever.
That being said, I'm sure the 18-200 is a very capable lens if you need a single one that covers those focal lengths. Swapping lenses isn't really a hardship so I don't see the appeal of a one lens fits all solution, if you already have an 18-70mm perhaps consider the sigma 70-200 to cover that zoom range?
1.) Purchase item.
2.) Read other reviews of item.
3.) Make a list of all the negative features in other reviews.
4.) Dismiss all negative features as irrelevant.
5.) Declare item best thing ever.
That being said, I'm sure the 18-200 is a very capable lens if you need a single one that covers those focal lengths. Swapping lenses isn't really a hardship so I don't see the appeal of a one lens fits all solution, if you already have an 18-70mm perhaps consider the sigma 70-200 to cover that zoom range?
bd02 said:
Ken Rockwell gets on my tits though. And he's an ugly bugger. Kid looks just like him.
You've got a kid that looks like him! This lens has "cropped up" [groan] a few times in threads recently. It does appeal as a possible travel lens (instead of 6 I could carry!). But we need to know more about what it's like in practice!
Also has anyone found any half-informative reviews? (Other than The Rock-makes-me-feel-un-well....)
try photozone.de for reviews. Seems more scienfitic than Rockwells nikon biased drivel. Guy I work with has one. Very cheap and plasticy. Mega zooms are a waster of time if you ask me. You'd be better with a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 and S/H Nikon 80-200mm F2.8. If you get the older one touch 80-200, you'd save a bit of money too.
Thom Hogan has reviewed as well.
www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm
I picked one up about a month ago as a replacement for the 18-70. I'm not sure about it yet. I think it all depends (as usual) on what you want.
I wanted the extra focal length so I could occasionally take pics of things further away (SSSTBO), but have found it most useful so far for easier framing opportunities when walking about.
The downside is that it is a slow lens and even on dull days that means it can be struggle (but maybe I just needed to start drinking again to stop the shakes
).
I haven't had a chance to evaluate sharpness yet. The reviews seem to rate it if used sensibly, but an 18-70 plus a 70-300 will apparently be sharper. I'm thinking maybe I should have gone for this. We'll have to see.
Ken Rockwell seems to do a lot of photography whilst on trips and he seems to value the ability to easily carry a kit around highly. It will probably suit you if you're the same - I think it's a great holiday lens.
Finding one is not easy. I waited over a year and availability didn't get any better. I eventually bought one off a guy who had bought a few in the UK. You probably won't find one immeidately but I would recommend getting your name down at a few shops/web-sites and I think you'll see one after a short wait.
Stuart
www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm
I picked one up about a month ago as a replacement for the 18-70. I'm not sure about it yet. I think it all depends (as usual) on what you want.
I wanted the extra focal length so I could occasionally take pics of things further away (SSSTBO), but have found it most useful so far for easier framing opportunities when walking about.
The downside is that it is a slow lens and even on dull days that means it can be struggle (but maybe I just needed to start drinking again to stop the shakes
). I haven't had a chance to evaluate sharpness yet. The reviews seem to rate it if used sensibly, but an 18-70 plus a 70-300 will apparently be sharper. I'm thinking maybe I should have gone for this. We'll have to see.
Ken Rockwell seems to do a lot of photography whilst on trips and he seems to value the ability to easily carry a kit around highly. It will probably suit you if you're the same - I think it's a great holiday lens.
Finding one is not easy. I waited over a year and availability didn't get any better. I eventually bought one off a guy who had bought a few in the UK. You probably won't find one immeidately but I would recommend getting your name down at a few shops/web-sites and I think you'll see one after a short wait.
Stuart
poah said:
would you buy it if it did not have VR?
Good question! I must admit the VR is the big draw. But after reading the reviews linked to above, the answer to your question would probably be no. Build quality isn't rated very highly, neither is the performance.
I guess the other comparable lens would be the 18-70. Comparable in as much as it will replace my 18-55. Is there anything else that I should be considering?
job38 said:
Who has them in stock at sensible prices?
Just bought one recently for my D80, from AJ Purdy. I think Pixmania also have them. Couldn't tell you what it's like optically because I've not used another lens yet on my camera to compare it against. The pictures I've had have been great though. VR does seem useful (even shots taking riding a mountain bike seem OK) and I doubt I'd have bought it without the VR.
Nelly
I have been very tempted in the past to buy a dslr, however, my compact (Nikon Coolpix5700) has been a trusty companion and has always done its job. If I went for a dslr I would like a big zoom (5700 is 8x) but as I can't afford the big Nikon lenses I thought the 18-200 would be a great all purpose lens, until I read this,
My biggest problem with the 5700 is shutter lag, click the button on the image you want and a second or 2 later the camera might decide to capture an image (not what I want). Does the above mean that I would experience the same problem?
_dobbo_ said:
Personally I don't like the idea of the 18-200. VR is great but it can't help you with moving subjects in low light, which at f/5.6 you will struggle with. I guess it depends what you are shooting most of the time.
My biggest problem with the 5700 is shutter lag, click the button on the image you want and a second or 2 later the camera might decide to capture an image (not what I want). Does the above mean that I would experience the same problem?
zetec said:
I have been very tempted in the past to buy a dslr, however, my compact (Nikon Coolpix5700) has been a trusty companion and has always done its job. If I went for a dslr I would like a big zoom (5700 is 8x) but as I can't afford the big Nikon lenses I thought the 18-200 would be a great all purpose lens, until I read this...
I think you'd find an 18-200 mated to a reasonable body (maybe stretch to the D80?) a step up even from Nikon's very good bridge cameras. But the real reason for going for a dslr is that you get a range of lenses - I've no doubt you'll hanker after a couple of other lenses once you start on the slippery slope. You have to ask yourself what you're going to photograph, which would determine the lens(es) you might like to use, which then determines the body(ies) that will be appropriate.
zetec said:
My biggest problem with the 5700 is shutter lag, click the button on the image you want and a second or 2 later the camera might decide to capture an image (not what I want). Does the above mean that I would experience the same problem?
My DSLR does 6 frames a second - there's a Canon out there that does 8 I think. No lag at all.
One Old Lag said:
No lag at all.
No "noticeable" lag - it still takes great skill in many circumstances to know when to press the shutter mind! And that's independent of how long the shutter takes to creak into action. The Carter-Craftsman is a case in point
Anyways! Shirley a video can do even better! 6-8fps pah!
zetec said:
I have been very tempted in the past to buy a dslr, however, my compact (Nikon Coolpix5700) has been a trusty companion and has always done its job. If I went for a dslr I would like a big zoom (5700 is 8x) but as I can't afford the big Nikon lenses I thought the 18-200 would be a great all purpose lens, until I read this,
I've just sold my 5700 for a D80 and 18-200 (I've also got an F80 and a couple of lenses). There's a massive difference between the cameras! D80+lens is twice the size and twice as good. Shutter lag (I know how you feel) is non-existent in real terms with the SLR.
Only issue I have is my SB28 / SB24 flashes don't function correctly (i.e. full TTL) with the D80.
Nelly
I have one. It is an epic lens. One of the very best Nikon have ever produced, or so they say anyway. It has actually gone up in price over the past couple of years.
The only negative point is the size, but this is a necessary evil for internal focusing and big aperture openings on telephoto lenses.
Fantastic lens for candid portraits. Bokeh and skin tones are stunning.
Absolutely no reduction in quality with a 1.4 teleonverter either.
Tip: buy high street, or at least UK. I got mine from Jessops thanks to a price match with an online retailer, and about 10 days later it stopped working. Took it back for an instant swap. Thank Lord I didn't get it from Hong Kong via eBay!
The only negative point is the size, but this is a necessary evil for internal focusing and big aperture openings on telephoto lenses.
Fantastic lens for candid portraits. Bokeh and skin tones are stunning.
Absolutely no reduction in quality with a 1.4 teleonverter either.
Tip: buy high street, or at least UK. I got mine from Jessops thanks to a price match with an online retailer, and about 10 days later it stopped working. Took it back for an instant swap. Thank Lord I didn't get it from Hong Kong via eBay!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff