Nikon lens

bb40

bb40

Suspended / Banned
Messages
598
Name
will
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys, I'm looking for a bit of advice on nikons 18-200mm vr11. Is it any good and is it much better than than vr1 version. Also is the 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 a decent lens. I'm between the 2 of these so any advice pro & neg would be appreciated.

Thanks.
 
I had an 18-200 vr1. Didn't really like it, found it soft, very soft at the long end. The vr2 didn't change anything optically afaik, but did add a lock to stop the lens extending when pointing downwards.

Of the 18 to something, the 18-70 i have used i would consider the best.

I went to the tamron 17-50. Much sharper, 2.8, but may not have the range you need....
 
There isn't anything optically between the version 1 and version 2 18-200. They added a zoom lock onto the v2 to stop the lens creeping (which could be a problem on certain v1 examples where the zoom on the lens would just slide open of its own accord)

Love him or loathe him, Uncle Ken discusses both versions here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

I have a v1 and yes, it does have a little zoom creep, but its a great lens on days out where I can't bothered changing lens. Yes, its easily the un-sharpest lens I own, but for pure convenience you can't beat it.

Depends what you want..... pure sharpness or getting the shots at all focal lengths? If its the former, then this lens isn't for you. :)
 
What lens or lenses do you have now and what are looking to achieve with your new purchase?
 
Zarch said:
What lens or lenses do you have now and what are looking to achieve with your new purchase?
Click to expand...

Thanks for reply mick. I only have 18-70 3.5 -5.6 and 70-300 but that's the now vr one. Looking to upgrade that as well. Looking for more sharpness than convenience. I've got 2 bodies so not changing lenses to often. The 18-70 is a good lens and I get good results from that. The 70-300 is a bit of s clunker tho but pics are pretty good from that to. I was looking for something good in midrange but can't afford to go to 2.8 just yet. Wife says no chance. 😩
 
Rapscallion said:
I had an 18-200 vr1. Didn't really like it, found it soft, very soft at the long end. The vr2 didn't change anything optically afaik, but did add a lock to stop the lens extending when pointing downwards.

Of the 18 to something, the 18-70 i have used i would consider the best.

I went to the tamron 17-50. Much sharper, 2.8, but may not have the range you need....
Click to expand...

Thanks for reply Phil. I did hear that the 18-200 was a bit soft. I have the 18-70 which is very good.
 
Only difference between mk2 and mk1 is the zoom creep lock and from red VR writing to dirty yellow.

The zoom creep doesn't happen at widest. so it is not an issue when transporting the lens. Here's an video I've done while trying to sell 18-200mm VR mk1
[youtube]kBTJM4sO_LE[/youtube]

only reason for my sell was that I've moved to Canon full frame. that fantastic lens is now in Phil Young's possession. Wish I can say the same about the zoom creep on my 24-105 f4L.
 
Phil Young said:
You heard wrong.

Doesn't take much searching online to conclude it is in fact, stupidly sharp.

What will you be using it for mainly?
Click to expand...

General walkabout lens really. The 70-300 is a bit on the slow side. So only difference in vr1&vr11 Is zoom lock.?
 
Phil Young said:
Nonono.

Of course that's not the ONLY difference!!

...The second version has a gold ring :)
Click to expand...

Don't forget the gold VR logo as well. All very important factors when investing in a lens.

I have used the vr1 and found the creeping really annoying. I've taken a fair few shots pointing downwards and always got caught out.
 
bb40 said:
Thanks for reply mick. I only have 18-70 3.5 -5.6 and 70-300 but that's the now vr one. Looking to upgrade that as well. Looking for more sharpness than convenience. I've got 2 bodies so not changing lenses to often. The 18-70 is a good lens and I get good results from that. The 70-300 is a bit of s clunker tho but pics are pretty good from that to. I was looking for something good in midrange but can't afford to go to 2.8 just yet. Wife says no chance. 😩
Click to expand...

Your going to be very disappointed going to an 18-200 from those.
 
Soda Farl said:
Your going to be very disappointed going to an 18-200 from those.
Click to expand...

My post should have read NON VR VERSION on the 70-300 I think it would be an improvement on that one.
 
bb40 said:
My post should have read NON VR VERSION on the 70-300 I think it would be an improvement on that one.
Click to expand...

Aggh yes that would be a totally different matter. The 7-300vr is a super lens why not get it and keep the 18-70.
 
Just to give the 18-200 a fair chance because I think people that haven't owned it will assume is is a compromise in IQ...

Here is my 105mm wide open (crop).
577295_10152658293800305_1853381813_n.jpg


Here is the 18-200mm at close focus of 50cm and at 200mm wide open (this would be the worst it will perform in theory)
601077_10152658282130305_1601681507_n.jpg


Taken from:
75575_10152658282035305_1389438502_n.jpg


Distortion at 18mm wide open f3.5:
67017_10152658281960305_1641119939_n.jpg


399518_10152658281985305_365528697_n.jpg


Completely goes away when stopped down to F8 (as seen below) and is easily fixable in PP.

481843_10152658329085305_558929186_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Just to give the 18-200 a fair chance because I think people that haven't owned it will assume is is a compromise in IQ...

Here is my 105mm wide open (crop).

Here is the 18-200mm at close focus of 50cm and at 200mm wide open (this would be the worst it will perform in theory)

Taken from:

Distortion at 18mm wide open f3.5:

Completely goes away when stopped down to F8 (as seen below) and is easily fixable in PP.
Click to expand...

Impressed Phil. Thanks for that. Do you have or used the 70-300vr and if so how would the 2 compare excluding extra reach obviously.
 
:bang: the 18-200 is most definitely not stupidly sharp. :bang:
 
The 70-300 vr is an excellent lens much better I.Q than the 18-200. Sharpness drops of slightly at around 280mm or did on my copy.

The Tamron 70-300 vc is also well worth a look if your gonna keep your 18-70.
 
Last edited:
bb40 said:
Impressed Phil. Thanks for that. Do you have or used the 70-300vr and if so how would the 2 compare excluding extra reach obviously.
Click to expand...

I borrowed it from my brother once.

It's got faster AF albeit not too noticeable in good light...

They are about the same for sharpness.

They both have VR and manual overide.

They both have good build quality.

I wouldn't trade the 100mm which isn't much, for the extra 52mm you get on the wider end.

The 70-300 is not a walkabout lens. It's a telephoto lens. When I have the 18-200 I use all of it's capabilities. With a maximum reproduction of 1:3 it is very useful for flowers and smaller animals etc. The 70-300 can't touch that.

The 18-200mm is a lens that is good at everything and only has a small compromise in most areas.
 
Phil the 18-200 gets raped pretty bad on new cameras. I wouldnt touch one with a barge pole. I also used one of my D7000 and to be honest it was no better than a kit lens. I will give it the fact it covers a great range but for me the quality was rubbish.

Its quite the rip off to be fair :bang:
 
Phil Young said:
I borrowed it from my brother once.

It's got faster AF albeit not too noticeable in good light...

They are about the same for sharpness.

They both have VR and manual overide.

They both have good build quality.

I wouldn't trade the 100mm which isn't much, for the extra 52mm you get on the wider end.

The 70-300 is not a walkabout lens. It's a telephoto lens. When I have the 18-200 I use all of it's capabilities. With a maximum reproduction of 1:3 it is very useful for flowers and smaller animals etc. The 70-300 can't touch that.

The 18-200mm is a lens that is good at everything and only has a small compromise in most areas.
Click to expand...


Sorry Phil but you are wrong on this one the 70-300vr is sharper than the 18-200.
 
Phil Young said:
Noticeably?

What is your experience of the 18-200mm?
Click to expand...

Its a decent lens for a walkabout, jack of all trades master of none bit like myself. A good friend has one he uses for holidays etc. I borrowed it for a few weeks myself while on hols and not wanting to bring a lot of gear with me. The 70-300vr rapes it in terms of I.Q and a.f speed though. Good all purpose holiday lens but not much good for anything else. Not a lens I would ever consider buying regardless of the handiness factor I would be pulling my hair out over performance.
 
Let be honest here, this is kit lens performance of 18-55 55-200 in one lens. Actually the 55-200 is prob sharper. This lens shows its shortcomings at high res hence the massive hike in used ones post D7000
 
TonyNI said:
Let be honest here, this is kit lens performance of 18-55 55-200 in one lens. Actually the 55-200 is prob sharper. This lens shows its shortcomings at high res hence the massive hike in used ones post D7000
Click to expand...

I agree with you for a change I would regard the 18-55vr and the 55-200vr as a better option than the 18-200. The o.p though has an 18-70 which is better the 18-55 so the 70-300vr is a really good option in terms of the focal length it will cover along with the o.p's 18-70.
 
Almost second guessed myself there based on the opinions (still unsure of the amount of use had from users) of others...

Hope this helps...

All taken in RAW, put through PS with unsharp mask at 100% radius 1.0%. All taken at ISO100.

Here is the subject:

577139_10152658679060305_591759130_n.jpg

18-105mm - 95mm - 1/60th - f5.6

And a crop from the 105mm f2.8 VR as my sharpest lens:
542738_10152658678980305_148765596_n.jpg

f3

Crop from the 18-200mm @95mm
24311_10152658679000305_1080569724_n.jpg

f3

I'd say that was pretty good. Remember I have compared it to one of Nikon's sharpest lenses so there is a noticeable difference but the point is...the 18-200mm is not soft.

And finally, my cat. Close focus @200mm.
482761_10152658679120305_2089567032_n.jpg

1/20th - f5.6

Crop:
482616_10152658679085305_807987667_n.jpg


Again, not a soft lens.
 
Last edited:
Soda Farl said:
I agree with you for a change I would regard the 18-55vr and the 55-200vr as a better option than the 18-200. The o.p though has an 18-70 which is better the 18-55 so the 70-300vr is a really good option in terms of the focal length it will cover along with the o.p's 18-70.
Click to expand...

We still don't know what experience you two both have of the lens???
 
Phil are you bonkers comparing the 18-200 sharpness to a 105 macro????? What planet are you on? Yes if you read the thread you will see we both have used the lens on a D7k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top