Views on Nikon 18-200vr

nice pics

which TT is yours, i had one not long ago
 
Hi guys, this is my first post and I've been lurking for a week or so, just reading up on a first dslr (I'm currently considering the 500D (not so sure about the high iso performance) the D5000 (no AF body motor) and the D90 (a little more pricey but looking good)).

I've been considering the lens options if I were to buy a Nikon as a body only and I like the idea of pairing the 55-200mm VR lens with a 35mm fast prime, as per Ken (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm).

Would the 55-200mm be a better performer than the 18-200mm?
 
without looking at the spec, but i would imagine the 18-200vr better than the 55-200vr
 
right definately on the look out for one now
 
p1tse said:
without looking at the spec, but i would imagine the 18-200vr better than the 55-200vr
Click to expand...

From an IQ perspective? I am interested to know why (not because I disagree, more a case of learning more) as I had assumed a lower zoom ratio would mean better IQ, all other elements being equal :)
 
info on the 18-200vr:
http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm

Lens Formula 16 elements in 12 groups; 3 aspheric, and 2 ED elements.
Other Features Manual focus override, AF-S lens focusing motor, vibration reduction, internal focus, 72mm filter size. Comes with HB-35 hood. Focuses to 16.5" (0.5m).
Click to expand...

imagine build quality, the 18-200vr uses VRII technology, metal mount
 
I've had both and can say both can give very good IQ in the right hand :)

The 55-200VR possibly just edges it - but you lose a lot of flexibility and changing lenses back and firth is a real pain when doing walkabout stuff.
 
very nice TT, don't see many red on red. red interior rocks ;-)

what were those taken with, the 18-200vr? just asking as it looks like wider angles shots on some
 
p1tse said:
info on the 18-200vr:
http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm



imagine build quality, the 18-200vr uses VRII technology, metal mount
Click to expand...

:thumbs:Thank you for explaining why and the 18-200mm does sound like a more solid lens with a more sophisticated VR system. It carries a proportionate price as well and so I'll have to consider further. I do like the idea of a short focal length fast lens for a less conspicuous camera when wandering around town and the ability to put on a zoom for other situations. However, I also appreciate another poster's comment re potentially being in the position that I would have to change lenses.

This is all theoretical though - I need to decide upon a camera body first of all!
 
p1tse - that pic was taken at Longleat Safari Park, was also taken through a car window at full 200mm on the 18-200vr.

This was another one I liked a lot from the day (again through glass)

2561545439_a6ced8e90f_b.jpg


Few others from the day:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jj1978/sets/72157605507904959/

I want to go back again!
 
nice one

yeah it's a cool place longleat

usually have the lions just lazying there doing nothing when i go, so top picture with it look up is class
 
I would like one of these, but wife says no!

However has anyone used the Tamron 18-200, just wondered what peoples thoughts on this are?

Thanks
 
JJ! said:
I was lucky in the sense that my lens creep was hardly there, would not creep at 18mm, but would slowly from around 70 onwards.

Never really found it an issue though as was always holding the lens.
Click to expand...

JJ! said:
Would slowly creep all the way out, but only if you held it with the lens facing downwards, held at an angle it stayed put.
Click to expand...

Mine the same, hardly ever notice it. Very useful lens.
 
Paper Lawyer said:
I've been considering the lens options if I were to buy a Nikon as a body only and I like the idea of pairing the 55-200mm VR lens with a 35mm fast prime, as per Ken (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm).

Would the 55-200mm be a better performer than the 18-200mm?
Click to expand...

The 55-200mm VR was an odd lens for me, too short on the long end and too long on the short end if you know what I mean. When I was just starting out I had the 55-200mm for a couple of days to go with the 18-55mm kit lens, and I ended up thoroughly sick of swapping lenses. The 70-300mm makes a lot more sense than the 55-200mm, as the 300mm really gives good reach for when it's needed, and you only mount it when you know you're going to be doing a lot of tele stuff.

The 18-200mm is a really impressive lens. Lots of people are sniffy about it for some reason, claiming softness, but I've seen plenty of sharp images made with it. You'll never miss a shot because you needed to switch lenses, and it's got VR everywhere.

Check out the sharpness on Hercules:



Even at 100% pixel-peeper size, we're limited by JPG basic artefacts than lens sharpness in my opinion.

One caveat: I use f/1.8 lenses indoors to freeze motion, and other bits and pieces when I know what I need. Travelling, it's the 18-200mm on the camera and the 35mm f/1.8 in the pocket for when it gets dark. Sorted.
 
now on the hunt for one, wanted thread in classifieds now open ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top