Anyone have the Nikon18-200 VR ?

[jonny_bravo]

Toying with the idea of getting one,. anyone here have one?

[DanH]

Yeah. About to return it to the shop as its making a high pitched noise when focussing at the moment grrrr.

Very handy lens when you don't want to be switching or lugging around lots of glass. Obviously some compromises to have that zoom range at that price and size though.

[Elderly]

Yes, I have one.

I don't have any time to post more at the moment but ask some specific questions and I will try and think about it,and answer later.

[stuthemong]

I love mine, shame its not faster, but it is very versatile.

at 18mm I can easy shoot 1/4 and even up to 1 second exposures handheld (if I fire off a volley and keep the best), which is insane.

I need to buy some primes for out+out quality, but the 18-200 does an admirable job light/dark/near/far. Jack of all triats, master of none.

and the VR is really good for tracking moving cars and stuff

[jonny_bravo]

Thanks chaps,. I already have the range covered with my 18-55 and 55-200, just wondering whether the 400 odd quid is worth it for VR and not having to change lenses as much.

[DanH]

jonny_bravo said:

Thanks chaps,. I already have the range covered with my 18-55 and 55-200, just wondering whether the 400 odd quid is worth it for VR and not having to change lenses as much.

Probably if those aren't pro-spec lenses and you think you will enjoy the practicality. Having the luxury of picking all my kit in one go I went with one of these as the do it all lens, and have got a few more specifics to fill in the gaps :

- 70-200 afs VR (lovely but pricey)
- 2x tele to go with this (people say this is not great, but I prefered it to the 80-400 I tested, especially as without the adaptor the 70-200 kills the 80-400 on performance!)
- Sigma 10-20 (great wide angle on dx sensor).
- Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (low light/indoor candids without flash).

Tonnes of reviews of the 18-200 online if you want to justify it to yourself www.bythom.com and of course www.kenrockwell.com are examples.

[Elderly]

You may miss less shots by having just this one lens on your camera
as you will not be changing to the 'other' lens for that vital moment.

The VR is VERY useful at the longer end.

Also, less lens changing means that there will be less detritus in your body caused by
lens/body flange wear; but you will still may get some dust drawn in due to the
long drawing in and out action of this lens.

I too wish it was faster but then it would be much heavier.
For a travel lens it's great but as already has been said in this thread,
it is a compromise (optically).

[CivicMan]

DanH said:

Yeah. About to return it to the shop as its making a high pitched noise when focussing at the moment grrrr.

I thought the noise was the VR in action, therefore normal? Correct me if I am wrong!

[DanH]

CivicMan said:

DanH said:

Yeah. About to return it to the shop as its making a high pitched noise when focussing at the moment grrrr.

I thought the noise was the VR in action, therefore normal? Correct me if I am wrong!

I don't think so in this case, as it started recently (although I've only had lense 1 month), and happens when its focussing near infinity regardless of whether VR is on.

[CivicMan]

Yeah, that doesn't sound right. Hope they can sort it.

[_dobbo_]

Elderly said:

You may miss less shots by having just this one lens on your camera
as you will not be changing to the 'other' lens for that vital moment.

Maybe it's just me, but I've never missed a shot changing lenses. I've often thought, "oh crap, I wish I had my camera with me", but that's a different issue.

I considered the 18-200 and rejected it as being too much of a compromise optically, since I already had an 18-70 that I didn't get on with.

My personal opinion is that I would much rather spend a bit more on a faster lens than have a slower, lower quality lens with VR added. It's probably mostly due to the type of photography I do that I can take this attitude.

I can certainly see the appeal in the 18-200 but it's not for me. I've never since thought, "if only I had a lighter lens with lower optical quality but VR added."

[beano500]

_dobbo_ said:

I can certainly see the appeal in the 18-200 but it's not for me.

"Nail", "head", "hit"!

I've just been away for three months and my hand luggage has included:

A camera body, spare battery, battery charger and related gubbins
A fisheye lens
A speedlight
An extension tube that I never used - Doh!

And the following focal lengths which might be covered by the 18-200:

20mm
45mm
55mm
85mm
180mm

"Take five lenses in the shower, when ONE would do?"



It's horses for courses, isn't it? (And without considering all the other attributes of the different lenses other than focal length.) But next time I'd be mighty tempted to save my aching shoulder/back/arms.....

....and thinking about it, the quality of my camera body is such that, in theory, it should be able to show up the inadequacy of all the prime lenses I have anyway!

[DanH]

_dobbo_ said:

Elderly said:

You may miss less shots by having just this one lens on your camera
as you will not be changing to the 'other' lens for that vital moment.

Maybe it's just me, but I've never missed a shot changing lenses. I've often thought, "oh crap, I wish I had my camera with me", but that's a different issue.

I considered the 18-200 and rejected it as being too much of a compromise optically, since I already had an 18-70 that I didn't get on with.

My personal opinion is that I would much rather spend a bit more on a faster lens than have a slower, lower quality lens with VR added. It's probably mostly due to the type of photography I do that I can take this attitude.

I can certainly see the appeal in the 18-200 but it's not for me. I've never since thought, "if only I had a lighter lens with lower optical quality but VR added."

Ok but most of the really good Nikon lenses have VR now anyway, so not sure what that has to do with the question in hand as its more about the practicalities of compromising on optical quality in return for fantastic flexibility? That's obviously a personal decision.

FWIW I've found VR to be amazing, and have got away with some ridiculously slow hand held shots at night thanks to it. What's the advantage of having extra resolving power if you can't get the shot sharp?

[Simpo Two]

DanH said:

FWIW I've found VR to be amazing, and have got away with some ridiculously slow hand held shots at night thanks to it. What's the advantage of having extra resolving power if you can't get the shot sharp?

Depends what you want to do - VR and big aperture give different results. I've never felt the need for VR and none of my lenses has it. But amazingly, I can still get sharp photos.

[Elderly]

Simpo Two said:

said:

I've never felt the need for VR and none of my lenses has it.

Have you actually compared handheld shots at usual shutter speeds on somebody else's long lens, with and without VR switched on?

[DanH]

Simpo Two said:

DanH said:

FWIW I've found VR to be amazing, and have got away with some ridiculously slow hand held shots at night thanks to it. What's the advantage of having extra resolving power if you can't get the shot sharp?

Depends what you want to do - VR and big aperture give different results. I've never felt the need for VR and none of my lenses has it. But amazingly, I can still get sharp photos.

Just imagine what you could achieve with a stop or more extra to play with! These are complementary techs, but VR is cheaper and lighter than fast aperture and seldom is it an either or choice unless buying vintage lenses.

Of course if you are always on a tripod I see your point.

p.s. Jessops switched out my 18-200 for a brand new one no problems. Glad I didn't order it from the US now. My 70-200 is US though so fingers crossed that doesn't go wrong.

[Simpo Two]

Elderly said:

Have you actually compared handheld shots at usual shutter speeds on somebody else's long lens, with and without VR switched on?

Nope, but I don't go much into long lens territory - my longest 'work' lens is a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. If the shutter speed drops too low I can either open it up or increase ISO - the D200 is OK up to ISO800. If light is still insufficient then I've got a 50mm f1.4 up my sleeve (for available light) or an SB-800 if not.

Most of my work is reportage - people are moving - so a minimum useable shutter speed is important. VR won't give me a faster shutter speed and it won't stop motion blur. Fast glass and good technique are the key. I've built up my kit carefully to deal with limitations one by one as I meet them, not to collect 'stuff'. So far, I've not met a problem for which 'VR' is the answer.

On a secondary level, I'd far rather be in charge of my camera and know what it's doing and what's going on underneath, than have a load of electronics 'helping' me. I suppose that's why I have a TVR and not a BMW M5!

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 8th January 19:25

[Eifel_Yeti]

jonny_bravo said:

Thanks chaps,. I already have the range covered with my 18-55 and 55-200, just wondering whether the 400 odd quid is worth it for VR and not having to change lenses as much.

Personally I dont think Nikons VR is that good compared to the canon IS so I wouldnt do it just for that.
Nikon VR 70-200 owner speaking.

[DanH]

Simpo Two said:

Elderly said:

Have you actually compared handheld shots at usual shutter speeds on somebody else's long lens, with and without VR switched on?

Nope, but I don't go much into long lens territory - my longest 'work' lens is a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. If the shutter speed drops too low I can either open it up or increase ISO - the D200 is OK up to ISO800. If light is still insufficient then I've got a 50mm f1.4 up my sleeve (for available light) or an SB-800 if not.

Most of my work is reportage - people are moving - so a minimum useable shutter speed is important. VR won't give me a faster shutter speed and it won't stop motion blur. Fast glass and good technique are the key. I've built up my kit carefully to deal with limitations one by one as I meet them, not to collect 'stuff'. So far, I've not met a problem for which 'VR' is the answer.

On a secondary level, I'd far rather be in charge of my camera and know what it's doing and what's going on underneath, than have a load of electronics 'helping' me. I suppose that's why I have a TVR and not a BMW M5!

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 8th January 19:25

I hope you do all your own manual metering and only use film too? Curse those devil electronics

Anyway I hear what you are saying, it depends what you are shooting + what length of lens as to how much it helps. I wouldn't write the tech off though, its not like the d300 autofocus which completely baffles me at times and can be unpredictable!

Edited by DanH on Tuesday 8th January 20:56

[DanH]

Eifel_Yeti said:

jonny_bravo said:

Thanks chaps,. I already have the range covered with my 18-55 and 55-200, just wondering whether the 400 odd quid is worth it for VR and not having to change lenses as much.

Personally I dont think Nikons VR is that good compared to the canon IS so I wouldnt do it just for that.
Nikon VR 70-200 owner speaking.

I've never seen that opinion expressed before*. What do you perceive as the difference?

• except by rabid Canon fanboys trying to justify their purchase

Edited by DanH on Tuesday 8th January 20:47