That's odd - before I bought mine I read reviews ad nauseum - pretty much everyone gushed over the quality.
It is a consumer lens of course - but so are all of these.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Help Choosing a Nikon Lens.
- Thread starter GoGoSamGo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's odd - before I bought mine I read reviews ad nauseum - pretty much everyone gushed over the quality.
It is a consumer lens of course - but so are all of these.
I've noticed, that as the 18-200 becomes more available there are more people "moaning", especially over on dpreview, about the IQ of the 18-200, and how it doesn't compare to the 70-300. There are also quite a few threads, saying how the 70-300 holds it own against the dearer Nikkor zooms.
I have both, and find that, while it is a good lens, the 18-200 doesn't appear to be as sharp as the 70-300. I'm beginning to wonder, if some of this is due to where each 18-200 is manufactured ( there are two factories churning them, apparently ).
I have the previous iteration of the 70-300 (ED, non-VR unfortunately). That seems to be a decent lens, but I find I'm not using it much (and am planning to sell it).
Given the lag in supply of the 18-200, I guess it wouldn't be a huge surprise if quality was somewhat variable. I know I'm happy with mine though.
Compared to my original 18-70 it is at least as good over that range (and that was certainly a good lens). But it'd be interesting to see some hand-held test shots at, say, 100, 150 and 200 between the 70-300 VR and the 18-200 VR on the same body.I like my 70-300 VR. The contrast is seems good to me and if I want more I could fiddle with the camera settings or later say, "Hello post-processing!"
It would be nice to have a wider aperture, but price and weight sky-rocket. As it is, the 70-300 is a good compromise for amateur use.
The 18-200 range is great, but the price is steep considering the reputed medium quality of the output. (I'm just going by the reviews, of course.)
I'd say keep the kit lens and get the 70-300 because that extra 100mm reach does make a big difference--much better bokeh, tighter framing, etc.
If weight/size is a concern, however, then choose the 55-200mm. It looks sweet.
If you really hate to change lenses or you are always traveling, then get 18-200mm.
If you're worried about the price differences, maybe waiting until you can afford what you really want might be a good idea.
Also, keep in mind that the equipment is only part of the quality-photo equation.
Wow that is one amazing picture. I talked to a few local camera stores around here, a few of the workers recommended 70-300 while others said just go for the 55-200
I think I'll wait it out a month or two and then just try both lenses for myself and decide which would be the better one to stick with.
I recently bought the Nikon D80 with the 18-200 VR DX Nikkor lens. It is a great combination as the Nikkor lens is very versatile; it is pricey but in the long run worth it.
Yeah, I know what you mean. But, perhaps it is a relative thing. That is, compared to other 18-200mm lenses, the Nikon is fantastic. Hence the many positive reviews. The reviews I was thinking of--like the DPReview ones mentioned by another poster--compared it to some other, less ambitious, lenses.
18-200vr
I'd go with the 18-200VR lens. Sigma also has one of similar focal length out, but I haven't looked at it much. I have the 18-200 and I'm REALLY happy with it. It's not as sharp as a fixed lens with manual focus... but just the fact that you almost never have to change the lens is amazing. I dont' consider it an unsharp lens at all.
I also keep around a 50mm 1.8 Nikkor and I'm looking into the 30mm 1.4 Sigma and a 10-20mm.
I'd go with the 18-200VR lens. Sigma also has one of similar focal length out, but I haven't looked at it much. I have the 18-200 and I'm REALLY happy with it. It's not as sharp as a fixed lens with manual focus... but just the fact that you almost never have to change the lens is amazing. I dont' consider it an unsharp lens at all.
I also keep around a 50mm 1.8 Nikkor and I'm looking into the 30mm 1.4 Sigma and a 10-20mm.
I'll see what I can do....
( Might be a while, though
That's fine, and it'll be great whenever you get the chance. Thanks!
I'm in no hurry since I've obviously made my purchasing decision already.
But it would be nice to see.
I definitely can see the difference between photos taken using my 35mm f/2 prime versus with my 18-200mm lens.
The 18-200 takes great photos IMHO, and the convenience is wonderful - but the 35mm prime can be cut yourself sharp.I really want to get an 85mm prime; but I'm waiting to see if Nikon updates it soon (not to mention that I've pretty much blown my photo allowance for a while...).
Don't buy anything at all. Seriously.
First shoot about 1,000 frames then go through your images and maybe your notes and figure out what is missing. What images were you NOT able to capture with the kit lens. Then get the lens that would have gotten you those missing images.
I notice your selection of lenses pretty much follows what we see from all beginners. They always assume they will need a long telephoto zoom and they always go for those slow F/5.6 lenses. Maybe this is what you will want. but maybe not. Perhaps you will find a 12-24mm zoom fits you better or very likey you might want something that works at a wider f-stop then your kit lens has. You will not know until after you shoot quite a few frames
Yes the 35 and 85 are great. I have a 50 f/1.4 and use it a lot. I have the 85 also. These lenses are a great argument for why people should NOT buy the D40. The D40 only works with AF-S lenses so you are stuck, unable to take advantage on Nikon's best and most cost effective optics.
Yep, it's actually pretty fun to try and focus a 50mm prime on a D40.
Makes it all the more exciting when the shot you wanted turns out.
This is incorrect. One can use ANY Nikon lens with the D40; it's just that with lenses that are not AF-S one has to manually focus. A big deal? Not necessarily....
The 35mm f/2, the 45P, the 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.4.....all fun to use on the D40!
I have manually focussed with the 35mm, and you're right it's not a big deal - but on my D70 that lens is very fast (and accurate) to auto-focus as well.
I think when I do get the 85mm, I'll be going for the f/1.8 - I don't have the budget for the f/1.4 really.
Oh, absolutely -- I love the 35mm's quick autofocus on my other cameras....but my point here was to correct the misinformation that was being spread about the D40. One CAN use various lenses on that camera body, but the only ones which will autofocus are the AF-S ones. For some people that might be a serious drawback, but for others it might not be. Much depends upon the photographer and why he/she has chosen the D40 in the first place. The targeted audience for that camera is those moving up from P&S cameras, those who are not likely to invest in a whole bunch of other lenses but who will stick one lens on the camera (either the kit lens or the 18-200mm VR) and be done with it. For those users, the whole lens thing is a moot point. There are others who purchase the D40 who may also have other Nikon bodies and lenses and for whom the D40 is meant as a substitute for a P&S and for whom the idea of needing to manually focus many lenses isn't a big deal.
If someone wants to use the D40 as their only camera, as their substitute for a P&S and who doesn't care about moving beyond family snapshots, the lens situation isn't a big deal. If someone is purchasing the D40 as their first DSLR with the intention of learning photography and becoming serious about it, wants the option of being able to pick up other lenses inexpensively as they learn and grow into this, then the D40 is probably not the best choice. The D50, D70, D70s or D80 would actually fit their needs better.
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to contradict what you said - that wasn't my intention at all. I was actually just drifting off-topic, mentioning how well the autofocus works as just another reason I like that lens.
true, true, however if you've ever tried to focus in the tiny viewfinders of any consumer dslr you'll realize it's damn near impossible. Luckily the little green 'in focus' light still lights on the bottom left, so you can pretend you're the autofocus motor and hunt around for the right spot, but this isn't exactly 'fun' in most cases. the enormous viewfinder and a nice choice of focusing screens on my old F3 made it easy to focus where I wanted quickly, but focusing via 'manual autofocus' is an unrelated activity. It's certainly easier than an older ai etc. lens that won't meter on the D40, but if i had a D40 I doubt i'd bother with screw focusing lenses.
Lens Test
OK, I've done a "test" of the 18-200VR and the 70-300VR, at 100/150/200, and 300 ( or as near to each one as I could get ).
I'll apologise for the subject ( erm, a tree and some sky ), but I thought the sky would be of use to show up any signs of vingetting, and the tree for sharpness. They pictures have been take on a D80, -0.7 exposure, in A-mode ( Exif is available on each ). They've been imported straight into Lightroom, and then exported to JPEG. Other than being re-sized ( basically half, so I could get them under 5mb for Flickr ), there's been no PP done.
I'm beginning to wonder if there's something wrong with my 18-200, as I didn't think that it would display as much vignetting as it is ( if what I'm seeing is vignetting ), though I'm starting if it's just more suited to the D40.
Edit: The pictures don't seem to be displaying correctly, so have a look at the Set: http://flickr.com/photos/7773344@N07/sets/72157600173142075/
70-300 @ 100mm
70-300 @ 155mm
70-300 @ 200mm
70-300 @ 300mm ( OK, a bit unfair on the 18-200, but I thought I'd try and show what the lens could do at it's maximum )
18-200 @ 105mm ( Ignore the black line down the left hand side, it's a window frame )
18-200 @ 150mm
18-200 @ 200mm
OK, I've done a "test" of the 18-200VR and the 70-300VR, at 100/150/200, and 300 ( or as near to each one as I could get ).
I'll apologise for the subject ( erm, a tree and some sky ), but I thought the sky would be of use to show up any signs of vingetting, and the tree for sharpness. They pictures have been take on a D80, -0.7 exposure, in A-mode ( Exif is available on each ). They've been imported straight into Lightroom, and then exported to JPEG. Other than being re-sized ( basically half, so I could get them under 5mb for Flickr ), there's been no PP done.
I'm beginning to wonder if there's something wrong with my 18-200, as I didn't think that it would display as much vignetting as it is ( if what I'm seeing is vignetting ), though I'm starting if it's just more suited to the D40.
Edit: The pictures don't seem to be displaying correctly, so have a look at the Set: http://flickr.com/photos/7773344@N07/sets/72157600173142075/
70-300 @ 100mm
70-300 @ 155mm
70-300 @ 200mm
70-300 @ 300mm ( OK, a bit unfair on the 18-200, but I thought I'd try and show what the lens could do at it's maximum )
18-200 @ 105mm ( Ignore the black line down the left hand side, it's a window frame
)18-200 @ 150mm
18-200 @ 200mm
A lens to keep
The 200mm lenses are equivalent to 300mm on a film camera, and the 300mm lens to a 450mm on film. Unless you have particular needs, you are unlikely to use focal lengths between 300 and 450mm very often, so I would forget about the 70-300 because it's not versatile enough. Starting at 70mm (105mm on film), even at the shorter focal, it's quite a long lens for everyday use.
For the rest, it all depends how you are going to use your camera and how you approach photography. An obvious choice for a casual shooter is to go with the 55-200 to complement your kit lens. It's a good all-around lens and it's damn cheap for a Nikon-brand, especially with VR.
If you are planning to get more serious later about photography, I'd go with the 18-200 VR. I have it, as well as a collection of other pro lenses, and I love it. It's probably the best travel lens money can buy. A consideration when traveling, especially in dusty places (deserts, polluted cities) or wet areas (tropical climate, waterfalls), is to avoid to swap lenses as much as possible. With a film camera, dust would only spoil one frame. With a digital camera, once a speck of dust gets on the sensor, you're screwed: you must photoshop it out of every single frame until you bring your camera for service.
Result: now, depending on what I'm going to shoot, I pack my camera bag with either a single 18-200 (+ occasionally an ultra-wide lens), or my collection of big and heavy pro lenses. If you are not planning on spending thousands of dollars on big glass, I promise you will be very happy with an excellent and very universal 18-200. Besides if one day you want to upgrade your camera, you will want to keep that lens - while the other two (18-55 and 55-200), I'm not so sure.
Hope this helps,
Pierre - http:http://www.photobiker.com
The 200mm lenses are equivalent to 300mm on a film camera, and the 300mm lens to a 450mm on film. Unless you have particular needs, you are unlikely to use focal lengths between 300 and 450mm very often, so I would forget about the 70-300 because it's not versatile enough. Starting at 70mm (105mm on film), even at the shorter focal, it's quite a long lens for everyday use.
For the rest, it all depends how you are going to use your camera and how you approach photography. An obvious choice for a casual shooter is to go with the 55-200 to complement your kit lens. It's a good all-around lens and it's damn cheap for a Nikon-brand, especially with VR.
If you are planning to get more serious later about photography, I'd go with the 18-200 VR. I have it, as well as a collection of other pro lenses, and I love it. It's probably the best travel lens money can buy. A consideration when traveling, especially in dusty places (deserts, polluted cities) or wet areas (tropical climate, waterfalls), is to avoid to swap lenses as much as possible. With a film camera, dust would only spoil one frame. With a digital camera, once a speck of dust gets on the sensor, you're screwed: you must photoshop it out of every single frame until you bring your camera for service.
Result: now, depending on what I'm going to shoot, I pack my camera bag with either a single 18-200 (+ occasionally an ultra-wide lens), or my collection of big and heavy pro lenses. If you are not planning on spending thousands of dollars on big glass, I promise you will be very happy with an excellent and very universal 18-200. Besides if one day you want to upgrade your camera, you will want to keep that lens - while the other two (18-55 and 55-200), I'm not so sure.
Hope this helps,
Pierre - http:http://www.photobiker.com
As a professional photographer I feel compelled to tell you in terms of Nikon zoom lenses under the 200mm. There are only 2, maybe three that are worth spending money on. The Nikon 28-70mm EDIF AF and the 80-200mm EDIF AF. The third, if you're desperate for a wide angle zoom, is the 17-35mm EDIF AF.
And for the love of god don't ever let a Sigma lens touch your camera.
And for the love of god don't ever let a Sigma lens touch your camera.
Go ahead and pick up the 18-200VR. You won't regret it. Pass on the other 2. Good luck finding one though.
Cheap lenses are not very good investments in the long run. 18-200 is the most flexible and it's a great lens.
After that, focus on being a better photographer and don't buy any more lenses for at least a year unless you really need it for special purposes. I personally prefer prime lenses, but this one is really good.
Cheap lenses are not very good investments in the long run. 18-200 is the most flexible and it's a great lens.
After that, focus on being a better photographer and don't buy any more lenses for at least a year unless you really need it for special purposes. I personally prefer prime lenses, but this one is really good.
As a professional (but not full-time) photographer, I call baloney.
I've seen lots and lots of fantastic shots from the 20-35mm, 35-70mm, 17-35mm, 70-200mm VR, and while it's not on my list of fantastic lenses, the 12-24mm DX.
As for Sigma, all the samples I've seen from the 10-20mm zoom show it to be a stellar lens. The 50-500mm is better than Nikon's 80-400VR by a visible margin on my samples of each as well as the samples I've seen from others. I've seen great shots from the Sigma 300/2.8 as well. I've got the Sigma 10-20mm on order, and I'm betting I'll sell as many, if not more shots from that than from my also-stellar Nikkor 20-35mm AFD, which isn't quite wide enough on an APS-C body (in my case the D2x.)