i currently have a d70s with kit lens (18-70)... i'm needing more telephoto... i've been looking at the DX 18-200 VR, and am wondering if anyone has this lens and what impressions they could impart.
as an aside, i am also contemplating selling my 18-70 in conjuction with purchasing the 18-200, and also picking up the DX 12-24...
so.... if anyone has opinions on those 2 lenses (12-24 & 18-200) and whether that sound like a solid plan, i'd appreciate the input..
I've shot one quite a bit, though for my shooting needs and styles have decided not to pick it up. It's not a reflection on the lens, but a measure of how I shoot. If I was traveling and restricted to one lens however, this one would move near the top of the list.
My reason for not owning it is the max aperture at 200mm and general need to shoot at mid-range apertures for best results at all other focal lengths. About the only time I use a 200mm lens is for candid portraits, for which I like an aperture of around f/2.8 to really minimize DOF and isolate subjects. For focal lengths shorter than 200 I already have a lens that I find more useful, even if it shares the same aperture characteristics as the 18-200. Basically I had to ask myself why I should buy another lens that did pretty much the same thing as the one I already own.
My lens of choice (and my wife's too- we own 4 of them!) is the 24-120mmVR. That's the focal length range we use most, and since we already owned those lenses there was no sense picking up the 18-200. If you have more uses for the long end than we do, while you are able to live with the aperture restrictions, you'll be very happy with th 18-200. Almost everyone I know who owns it is delighted with it.
I agree with your decision to drop the 18-70 and pick up some version of a 12-24. Other brands are cheaper, but I prefer the performance of the Nikon. Check the past threads over at TPN for some discussion of the pluses and minuses of the various brands. Many folks are delighted with the Sigma variation and turn out incredible results.
Along with my 24-120, the 12-24 is my constant companion in travel and pro photo work. If I added another lens to those it will be the 80-400 because when I feel the need for a 200, in reality I need something more like a 300 or 400.
There's was lots of fluff and bluster when Nikkon first came out with their DX lens series, but I have to say we are now fans. We initially picked them for convenience when travelling and backup for our pro lenses. Now all those lenses (we have at least two each of the 20-35 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, and 80-200 f/2.8) stay home when we travel, plus we seldom use them without good reason in the studio or on jobs. They still have their uses, but both the weight and the lack of VR are really noticeable compared to the DX series.
I don't have any direct experience with the 18-200mm, but a friend of mine has been shooting one for several months now. He got it as a travel lens, since he doesn't like to carry lots of equipment. He's generally happy, although he's noticed noticeable distortion and some light fall-off at the corners, especially at the longer focal lengths. I guess you have to pay for such convenience! Again, this is just hearsay.
Both the 18-200 and 12-24 have gotten great reviews, though, so if you're looking at carrying a minimum of equipment, the combo would probably be a solid choice.
I LOVE mine! It is the lens on the camera all the time, when it is just sitting in the car or I'm travelling. I cdan rely on it for those quick, "no-timeto get the right lens on" shots.
The VR attribute is very cool. It has allowed many hand-held shots of birds, bugs, and moving things that i never would have gotten before.
I have the firstt picture I took with it posted, on the macro forum - a very close-up of a red-eye fly that I could never have giotten without a tripod with any other lens.
Ther is some dostortion at the 18mm length, but easily corrected.
The one thing I'm not happy with, and what i was about to ask about on this forum, is the way the barrel changes focal length when you point the lens down, like in shooting a flower from above. I often check the image by righting the camera, and the barrel changes length and requires re-focuing again. this is VERY irksome. Sometimes, it will not stay focused if the length in in the middle of the range, as the weight pulls the barrel out.
Does anyone else experience this, or is it a quirk of this particular lens, which will require replacement whe they finally make more available??
I now carry the 18-200 VR, the 80-400 VR and that covers 98% of my shots happily, with my new D 200 - at considerable less backpack weight. i almost croaked in the Galapagos Islands and hiking in Ecuador for 3 weeks with the old D1X, the 105 macro, a 50-500, and a wideangle.
Sandy R
Sandy makes excellent points and reminds me of a reason I may go ahead and pick up the 18-200. If you spend a lot of time with a digital camera in dusty locations as I do, this lens might make it possible to go through a whole day without changing lenses. If you hate cleaning sensors and retouching photos, your life will be a lot simpler if you simply never change lenses while you are out and about. That's a big recommendation for the lens in my book.
Bryce - can't offer any opinions on the 18-200, but here's a link to a pretty good comparison of super wide angles, including the Nikon and Sigma 10-20, as well as the Tokina and Tamron. Pretty informative. Link is HERE
thanks for all the input thus far... it seems that from the reviews i've read and the comments here that its a great lens minus a few minor nits (slight distortion, corner discoloration)... with that in mind i'm leaning toward purchasing one.
i'm not a pro, and as such, probably wont notice a lot of the small issues this lens has compared to some of the higher priced nikkor pro lenses. while i do consider myself an advanced amateur, and do like capturing great images, i'm guessing a lot of the nits on this lens wont be a factor to me.
the most compelling reason for me to pick this up is not having a lens longer than 70mm... i've got an older tameron 70-210 for my FM10, but most likely both the body and lens would be packaged together in a sale to capture some needed $$ to get the 18-200 DX...
and again, i'm thinking of also selling off my 18-70 DX, and using that $$ to also acquire the 12-24 DX... going fully digital is fun!
thanks again, and please keep the comments coming.
After initially trying to use my old manual focus Nikon lenses with my D200, I am increasingly seeing the advantages of the DX lens concept: lightweight, some with VR, excellent autofocus and matrix metering. I am also struggling with a decision about this lens. I love the 18-70 for its convenience, excellent metering, lightweight and sharpness. Ken Rockwell (website) makes a good case for the 18-200, and then Bjorn Rorslett evaluation points out limitations.
Discussion
7 repliesi currently have a d70s with kit lens (18-70)... i'm needing more telephoto... i've been looking at the DX 18-200 VR, and am wondering if anyone has this lens and what impressions they could impart.
as an aside, i am also contemplating selling my 18-70 in conjuction with purchasing the 18-200, and also picking up the DX 12-24...
so.... if anyone has opinions on those 2 lenses (12-24 & 18-200) and whether that sound like a solid plan, i'd appreciate the input..
thanks in advance.
My reason for not owning it is the max aperture at 200mm and general need to shoot at mid-range apertures for best results at all other focal lengths. About the only time I use a 200mm lens is for candid portraits, for which I like an aperture of around f/2.8 to really minimize DOF and isolate subjects. For focal lengths shorter than 200 I already have a lens that I find more useful, even if it shares the same aperture characteristics as the 18-200. Basically I had to ask myself why I should buy another lens that did pretty much the same thing as the one I already own.
My lens of choice (and my wife's too- we own 4 of them!) is the 24-120mmVR. That's the focal length range we use most, and since we already owned those lenses there was no sense picking up the 18-200. If you have more uses for the long end than we do, while you are able to live with the aperture restrictions, you'll be very happy with th 18-200. Almost everyone I know who owns it is delighted with it.
I agree with your decision to drop the 18-70 and pick up some version of a 12-24. Other brands are cheaper, but I prefer the performance of the Nikon. Check the past threads over at TPN for some discussion of the pluses and minuses of the various brands. Many folks are delighted with the Sigma variation and turn out incredible results.
Along with my 24-120, the 12-24 is my constant companion in travel and pro photo work. If I added another lens to those it will be the 80-400 because when I feel the need for a 200, in reality I need something more like a 300 or 400.
There's was lots of fluff and bluster when Nikkon first came out with their DX lens series, but I have to say we are now fans. We initially picked them for convenience when travelling and backup for our pro lenses. Now all those lenses (we have at least two each of the 20-35 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8, and 80-200 f/2.8) stay home when we travel, plus we seldom use them without good reason in the studio or on jobs. They still have their uses, but both the weight and the lack of VR are really noticeable compared to the DX series.
I don't have any direct experience with the 18-200mm, but a friend of mine has been shooting one for several months now. He got it as a travel lens, since he doesn't like to carry lots of equipment. He's generally happy, although he's noticed noticeable distortion and some light fall-off at the corners, especially at the longer focal lengths. I guess you have to pay for such convenience! Again, this is just hearsay.
Both the 18-200 and 12-24 have gotten great reviews, though, so if you're looking at carrying a minimum of equipment, the combo would probably be a solid choice.
Martin
The VR attribute is very cool. It has allowed many hand-held shots of birds, bugs, and moving things that i never would have gotten before.
I have the firstt picture I took with it posted, on the macro forum - a very close-up of a red-eye fly that I could never have giotten without a tripod with any other lens.
Ther is some dostortion at the 18mm length, but easily corrected.
The one thing I'm not happy with, and what i was about to ask about on this forum, is the way the barrel changes focal length when you point the lens down, like in shooting a flower from above. I often check the image by righting the camera, and the barrel changes length and requires re-focuing again. this is VERY irksome. Sometimes, it will not stay focused if the length in in the middle of the range, as the weight pulls the barrel out.
Does anyone else experience this, or is it a quirk of this particular lens, which will require replacement whe they finally make more available??
I now carry the 18-200 VR, the 80-400 VR and that covers 98% of my shots happily, with my new D 200 - at considerable less backpack weight. i almost croaked in the Galapagos Islands and hiking in Ecuador for 3 weeks with the old D1X, the 105 macro, a 50-500, and a wideangle.
Sandy R
i'm not a pro, and as such, probably wont notice a lot of the small issues this lens has compared to some of the higher priced nikkor pro lenses. while i do consider myself an advanced amateur, and do like capturing great images, i'm guessing a lot of the nits on this lens wont be a factor to me.
the most compelling reason for me to pick this up is not having a lens longer than 70mm... i've got an older tameron 70-210 for my FM10, but most likely both the body and lens would be packaged together in a sale to capture some needed $$ to get the 18-200 DX...
and again, i'm thinking of also selling off my 18-70 DX, and using that $$ to also acquire the 12-24 DX... going fully digital is fun!
thanks again, and please keep the comments coming.