DSLRUsers.com

Hi all

I've been contemplating this lens for a while as a walkaround lens and one I can easily leave on the D300 and sling in the bag for my work trips. I hate leaving the other 'babies' at home but space is usually limited so it's a case of economise or leave the camera at home. The 18-200 seems a great compact way of achieving some good images with just the one lens.

I've read plenty of reviews and they all seem to recommend the lens but also say it's a jack of all trades rather than brilliant at any one feature (e.g. sharpness across the focal lengths, distortion etc). I've got other lenses that do the specifics very well but wanted something that would suffice for 80-90% of the shots I'm likely to take. I'm not a sufficiently talented tog that I'll be overly concerned about a few less than perfect images!

I've actually just bought the original (red "VR" without the focus lock switch) lens on ebay for just under $600, more than $200 under the price of the new lens. (Waiting for delivery)

According to Ken Rockwell (yes, I know he has his critics), the original lens was much better value if you could get hold of one as the focus lock added little apart from the extra dollars.

I'd love to hear from other members who have this lens and whether they're happy with it. Also, seeing some shots you've made with it would be great.

(Incidentally, I got to try one out for a weekend recently when my daughter found it in a camera bag attached to a D60 in the back of a taxi. Needless to say the owner was very happy to get the package back though it was hard to say goodbye to the lens!!)

Cheers.

Simon,

My (limited) experience with this lens is that it's remarkably sharp with good contrast, and as long as you remember its limitations, it can make a great lightweight walkaround lens.

Alternatively, just grab a bagful of choice primes.

Mmmmmmm....a bagful of choice primes. Yes please!

Thanks Gary.

The biggest thing I miss about my D300 is the 18-200 that I sold off with all my DX stuff when I went to the D700.

As long as you remember it covers a large range so this is a compromise. But it was good some times to just take one lens and not a whole bag full of gear.

My copy did not have the lens creep issue.

Enjoy your new lens.

MATT

Thanks Matt. Yeah, I guess I'm taking pot luck with the lens creep. Some seem to have it, others...not yet!

Simon,

I had this lens for the intended purpose of an all round travel lens and I was dissapointed with it.

I sold it and bought a good quality P&S for travel instead.

See if you can borrow one first and see if you like the results.

It might just be that I've been spoiled with some high quality glass e.g. (14-24, 24-70,70-200 zooms;85, 200 & 500 primes plus a couple of zeiss primes 22 & 100).

MATT wrote:The biggest thing I miss about my D300 is the 18-200 that I sold off with all my DX stuff when I went to the D700.

Well, there's the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S due out in a few days....

Murray Foote wrote:

MATT wrote:The biggest thing I miss about my D300 is the 18-200 that I sold off with all my DX stuff when I went to the D700.

Well, there's the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S due out in a few days....

I was going to say the same...

As for the 18-200....I went the 16-85VR instead, but my D60 still finds the 35mm f/1.8DX mounted more often (the D300 stays at home a lot now)

Hi Simon
I have this lens on my D300 and use it for travelling, rather than the D700 with the two lenses covering the same focal length range, which would be considerably bulkier. I tried the compact route with both a Canon and a Lumix at different times and was unhappy with the noise aspect of both.

Although versatility is its strong point, it is sharp enough. I would like it to be a bit faster (of course), but that would add dollars to the price, whereas the VR gives you some latitude. That's particularly true on the D300, which has quite good AF and reasonable high ISO performance. I don't think that you would be disappointed with it for your stated requirements.

Here's some images:

Bob G wrote:It might just be that I've been spoiled with some high quality glass

rofl, i think you might be spot on there when comapring the 18-200 to any of your listed bits of glass its just gonna pale in comparison. I found teh same thing when comparing it to the 17-55 - but that was not expected.

I have this lens and it was my first lens when I got my DSLR, imo thats the way to buy it before all teh good glass, getting it after your higher end glass is only going to lead to disappointment - with that said, the draw card for this lens and other 18-200mm ones is the pure versatility in one lens, especially when you do not want to change lens, for wahtever reason.

Basically, know its limitations and work within the sweet spots.

This topic has been done several times before...

http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=35281

and here - just avoid all the OT BS that is also in there...

http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=35116

as for images, here a few from a QLD trip where it was then, my only lens, click for larger.

I also have this lens (well the VRII version - bought it with my D90 about 10 months ago) and have been very pleasantly happy with the results and if I hadn't since bought myself some primes would have been blissfully unaware. I've also used the Tamron 18-270mm and they both took remarkably good shots and if I'm going away somewhere without a specific photographic plan in mind - with just one lens on the camera in the small camera pouch it would definitely be this for the versatility - basically I'd rather have the shots than nothing and frankly whilst I own and used a number of superzoom P&S's there's totally no comparison in the end results (the images from the D90+18-200 are like night and day noticeably shaper, cleaner and much greater DoF control).

Just in case you hadn't seen it, Thom Hogan's review is here.

Thanks all for your collective wisdom. I'm mightily impressed with the results you've achieved with the lens and hope I can even get close to that standard. I'm happy to stooge around with this one for a while until I can start populating the bag with primes or better quality zooms. Trying to sneak this one in under the financial radar. not likely to get away with that if I got a 300 prime

Thanks again your input (love this place) and, yes Trevor, I've seen Thom's review as well. Cheers! PS - Gerry: I suspected there would have been a thread or two on this topic and did a search on "18-200mm". For some reason nothing showed up. I played with a few search settings but still got nothing. I did try!

Hi Simon

I have the 18-200VR and have used it almost exclusively for the past 2 years. Such a versatile lens and considering it's range and usefulness quite compact too. It works well with the Canon ( ) 500D close up lens as a cheap macro and saving on weight if intending to travel light.

That said, I have recently acquired a Nikkor 17-55 f 2.8 and have not used the 18-200 since, I am now considering off loading it as the new glass is so much sharper. If I do off load it I will be looking for a 70-200 f2.8 VR as a replacement.

PS - Gerry: I suspected there would have been a thread or two on this topic and did a search on "18-200mm". For some reason nothing showed up. I played with a few search settings but still got nothing. I did try!

yeah, the search is a bit fincky - the the only reason I remember those two posts is because I responded in them!

I have the original 18-200 VR and have found that whilst it is definitely a most versatile lens and does, in fact, live on the camera body, It is NOT the sharpest pin in the cushion by any stretch. If I want to copy offset printed material, I use this as the macro lens will show the dots in the printing process. A bit of distortion on the horizon at extremes and I sharpen in Camera Raw by default and again slightly in PS with Focus Magic plugin.
My first digital camera was a Sony F828 with a Zeiss T* 18-200 on it and it was twice as sharp!
Col