Nikon 180-200 VR

[apn]

Hi

Just wondered if anyone has a Nikon 18-200 VR, and if you have any opinions....

I've been offered one, that I'm considering.

Thanks
Adrian

Edited by apn on Sunday 8th June 18:52

[GetCarter]

80-200 I think.

It's extreemy well regarded. Probably a review on www.dpreview.com

[apn]

Oops, 18-200

[CarMac]

I have it attached to my D300. I've had it a few months and like it, so far. It gives good clear pictures. The range was the thing that sold me on it as I wanted a lens which covered most bases without having to carry loads of kit and keep swapping lenses. It's not THE fastest lens on the market at 3.5 but, I've not come across any issues to date. It focuses really quickly and accurately.

[toohuge]

CarMac said:

It's not THE fastest lens on the market at 3.5

My Nikon lens bottoms out at 3.5 too but i have never had a problem with this and it doesn't have VR. With VR (and a steady hand!) you should be fine.

[Bob_Defly]

Yep, I got one recently and love it. Bit of distortion but nothing major.

[RobDickinson]

Soft at 200 and has some odd wavey distortion thing going on at 120-130mm.

apart from that not bad for a 10* zoom do it all lens.

[VxDuncan]

Friend a work has one (he's paranoid about dust and doesn't want to change lenses - ever!). Borrowed it a couple of times, but not really used it "in anger". Seems okay when stopped down to about f8 or so. Fully open it's pretty soft, esp. at the edges. Build quality's also okay, though not pro standard by any means. His seems to suck a load of dust in (due to the extreme trombone effect and lack of weather sealing), but then this is only his reports and as I said, he is paranoid!

I'd say if you think of it as a pro lens that does everything you need you'll be disappointed, but as a consumer lens it doesn't do an awful lot pretty well.

As I said, this is based only on a loan for a couple of evenings, so check out a proper review (like the photozone.de one, not Ken Rockwells!).

[Simpo Two]

VxDuncan said:

Friend a work has one (he's paranoid about dust and doesn't want to change lenses - ever!)... His seems to suck a load of dust in

Now that's irony! I change lenses dozens of times at every wedding and have no visble dust after two years (although I rarely use small apertures).

[SGirl]

I've got one of these lenses on my D300. I'm not a pro photographer by a long way, and it's perfectly adequate for what I need. I bought it so that I could avoid swapping lenses every five minutes, now I use it pretty much all the time. Prefer it over my 24-120.

[Elderly]

When the camera is pointing downwards, you might find the lens barrel 'creep' rather irritating.

[NiceCupOfTea]

I have a 55-200 which I have been knocked out with for the price. My brother bought an 18-200vr whilst in the states as a catch-all lens for his D2X as he was impressed with the VR on mine, and he really rates although of course it is a compromise. You have to weigh that up against having to juggle lenses all the time.

Part of me thinks I should have splashed the extra cash as I was juggling a 55-200, 18-70, and a cheapo 70-300 yesterday at Biggin Hill...

[Felters]

Have had one for about 9 months on my D80. If there was only one lens you could take then I guess this would be it - but it does struggle in low light and some images seem a bit soft. By low light I mean that an overcast winters day will cause a problem with it struggling to focus quickly (or even at all) at 200mm.

But if you're out and about at this time of the year then it's a reasonable quality and versatile thing. My young sons sports day yesterday - "she who must be obeyed" took it and came back with some cracking shots.

Edited by Felters on Wednesday 11th June 06:36

[Don]

Wife has got one of these recently. Brilliant. I will be getting one. AT the moment I have the 18-70mm and the 80-400mm VR lens. Really miss the VR and the range on the 18-70. The 18-200 would suit me loads better.