Nikon 18-200mm VR lens query

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Greenbrightly, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. By this logic, everybody should be driving a Ferrari or Rolls Royce, and all
    Fords, Chevs, Volkswagens, Toyota, Hondas etc are "junk".
    Not everybody needs the tools to drive 150 MPH, or the means to do so.

    I have a D40 with the kit 18-55, the 55-200 VR, and the 18-200 VR, and can
    say that the 55-200 hasn't been on the camera since I got the 18-200. I have
    no aspirations of working for National Geographic, but my results have been
    quite satisfying. I love it.

    I would consider disposing of the 55-200, but would probably keep the 18-55
    because its so small and light, and there are occasions where I won't want
    to tote the 18-200 (social functions, etc)

    /M
     
    Moro Grubb of Little Delving, Jan 25, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Greenbrightly

    Tony Polson Guest


    I'm not surprised. The 18-55mm is one of the worst lenses that has
    ever been offered under the Nikon brand. The 55-200mm is so variable
    that you never know what results you will get from one. The 18-200mm
    is just as bad as the other two combined, so you might as well leave
    it on the camera and forget about the others.

    Have you ever used any good lenses? I don't mean Leica, Zeiss or
    anything exotic. There are plenty of good Nikkors. It's just that
    they don't include any of the three consumer lenses that you have,
    which are basically junk lenses built down to a consumer-grade price.

    Try a 50mm f/1.8 and you will see results that are much, much sharper
    than any of your three lenses can produce. But stick to
    consumer-grade zooms and you will get only consumer-grade results.
     
    Tony Polson, Jan 25, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. That's utter nonsense. The 18-55 is a great little lens, very sharp, very
    light and handy, and unusually close focusing for that kind of a lens.

    You may be thinking of the Canon 18-55, which is so notorious for its poor
    quality that even Canon enthusiasts call it trash.

    There's bound to be *some* variability in any lenses and especially zooms,
    but I'm sure you grossly exaggerate the case of the 55-200 VR -- which has
    gotten excellent reviews in published lens tests as well as from
    enthusiastic owners. And I'm very happy with mine.

    Nonsense repeated several times is still nonsense. It never improves with
    repetition.
    Indeed, I have a 50/1.8 Nikkor in addition to the others mentioned here and
    it's great. I have an 85/1.8 also and that's great too. However, I seldom
    carry either of these truly great lenses around on the camera because they
    have one very serious drawback -- they're stuck at those respective focal
    lengths, and therefore lack the flexibility, versatility and convenience of
    the zooms. And for most ordinary purposes -- viewing on a computer screen or
    reasonably sized prints -- you can't see the difference anyway. So for me
    the 50 and 85 primarily serve as available-light lenses.

    Better those than vacuous snobbishness any day of the week.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2008
    #23
  4. Greenbrightly

    Sosumi Guest

    I totally agree with you. I've had the 18-55, 18-70 and 55-200 VR. Now I
    have only the 50 1.8 and the 18-135.
    The 18-55 is quite good. I got some very good pictures with it. Only
    drawback is the lack of zoom length. I traded all for what I have now and
    hope to get a 70-300 VR in the near future.
    Funny enough people are so happy with the 18-200 VR, like it's a miracle. It
    isn't. If something moves, you still need more speeds ;-) I just think it's
    way too heavy, expensive and doesn't perform as well for it's price as the
    135.
     
    Sosumi, Jan 25, 2008
    #24
  5. I have both but haven't really compared them side by side. I love the 18-135
    myself. It's about as long a non-stabilized lens as I can comfortably hand
    hold on a DX camera without bracing against something solid. The 18-200 VR
    cost so much I worry about traveling with it, which takes some of the fun
    out of owning it. I don't like to carry real expensive stuff in airline
    terminals. I suppose that's silly, but . . .

    I'll be going to Florida in a couple of weeks, and haven't made my mind up
    between taking either the 18-135, or the 18-55 and 55-200 VR.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2008
    #25
  6. Greenbrightly

    Jay Guest

    Or instead of the 18-135, the 18-55, the 55-200 you could just bring the
    single 18-200.

    Lighter, cheaper if you loose all your equipment vs loosing three lenses,
    not to mention you won't have to change a lens.

    J
     
    Jay, Jan 26, 2008
    #26
  7. Greenbrightly

    Tony Polson Guest


    And what's the reason you buy a DSLR?

    So you don't ever have to change lenses?
     
    Tony Polson, Jan 26, 2008
    #27
  8. Greenbrightly

    Wilba Guest

    You sound like you're picking a fight, Tony. :) 'Cos I'm certain you well
    know that lens interchangability isn't the only reason for chosing a DSLR.
     
    Wilba, Jan 26, 2008
    #28
  9. Greenbrightly

    Jay Guest

    Nope!
    But it is the reason we buy an 18-200 lens.

    J
     
    Jay, Jan 27, 2008
    #29
  10. Well, I wouldn't take all three. It would be the 18-135 *or* the 18-55 and
    55-200 VR. In either case that would be losing less money than if I lost the
    18-200 VR. And the 18-200 VR is substantially heavier than any of the
    others.

    Yes, that'd be really the one big plus over the two lighter lenses. Of
    course with the 18-135 alone I wouldn't have to change lenses either, but
    that would put me at more of a disadvantage when shooting gliding pelicans.
    Oh well, I still have almost two weeks to decide.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 27, 2008
    #30
  11. Greenbrightly

    Tony Polson Guest


    So the fact that the lens is junk, optically, doesn't come into it.
     
    Tony Polson, Jan 27, 2008
    #31
  12. It isn't "junk, optically." That's simply absurd.

    The 18-200 VR has been by far the most sought-after Nikon lens in recent
    memory, selling at well over its list price for more than a year after its
    introduction. The reason for this is that it's an enormously useful tool for
    photographers, including many of those who make their living with a camera.
    The fact that you personally object to its impressive 11x zoom range does
    not make it "junk."

    When you see a $750 list price lens selling for over $1,000 month after
    month after month, that should suggest to you that there's something mighty
    special about it that makes it so popular.

    Obviously, any superzoom must make some compromises for the sake of zoom
    range. But after testing the Nikon 18-200 VR thoroughly Pop Photo says,
    "Optically, this is the best superzoom we've seen."
    http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2763/lens-test-nikon-18-200mm-f35-56g-dx-vr-af-s.html
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 27, 2008
    #32
  13. Greenbrightly

    wally Guest

    I this review from popphoto it says this lens is not compatible with Nikon
    teleconverters, extension rings etc.

    Could someone tell me why?

    thanks
     
    wally, Jan 27, 2008
    #33
  14. It's f/5.6 at the long end, so even a 1.4x tele converter would make it f/8
    wide open which is probably not a large enough relative aperture for
    autofocus to work reliably. Not owning either, I don't know whether tele
    converters and/or extension tubes send the necessary lens information to the
    camera body, but if they don't that would be another reason.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 27, 2008
    #34
  15. Greenbrightly

    Guest Guest

    nikon teleconverters have a protruding element that can hit the rear
    element of the 18-200. teleconverters from third parties don't have
    this issue and generally work.

    another issue is that the lens is already f/5.6 at the long end and
    that's the official limit of the autofocus sytem. any teleconverter
    will add at least one stop, bringing it past the official limit and
    potentially affecting focusing. however, in reality, it's not a
    problem except in very dim light.

    as for extension rings, the design of the lens is such that adding one
    prevents the lens from focusing on anything. that's not unusual with
    very sophisticated lens designs. close-up lenses work fine, but a real
    macro lens is ideal.
     
    Guest, Jan 27, 2008
    #35
  16. Greenbrightly

    ASAAR Guest

    You, more than most others here are likely to have more than one
    DSLR body. If so, why not take one with the 18-135 mounted on it
    and the 55-200VR on the other? Dust during lens changes won't be a
    problem unless one of the bodies fails, and then you'll have a
    backup body to save the day! :)
     
    ASAAR, Jan 31, 2008
    #36
  17. That's true, but I'm seriously trying to keep size and weight down. And I'll
    be taking a Coolpix along with the DSLR, mostly for shooting out the
    airplane window. (I want to try some aerial stereo photography, using the
    distance the plane flies between shots as the stereo base, and I think a
    small camera is better suited to that.)

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 31, 2008
    #37
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.