How many of you own a AF-S VR 18-200mm ?
- Thread starter minzhong
- Start date
- Status
I thought since the above is a multi-purpose lens, most of you will have it.
Currently deciding between this and the 18-105mm VR..
not everyone goes for multi-purpose u see...
depends on how picky you are...people going for image quality/fast lens will not go for this...
not that the IQ is very bad, but there are better ones, and some ppl wan that.
And speed wise, 3.5-5.6.....may not be fast enough for people who wanna take fast action sports, and these fellows go for 2.8 lenses....yeah....so just because its a multi-purpose lens does not mean everyone will have it......similarly, just because it is not fast, and image quality is not the best does not mean nobody will have it.....
But nonetheless, yes i did own the lens before in the past=) Very convenient....
i have it.... its sitting in the dry cabi....
cause if shoot wide, i use 17-35mm, if shoot telephoto, 70-200mm
if you do not have a wide or tele, then 18-200 is good.... but image quality is so so only compared to pro glasses...
cause if shoot wide, i use 17-35mm, if shoot telephoto, 70-200mm
if you do not have a wide or tele, then 18-200 is good.... but image quality is so so only compared to pro glasses...
Well, its my first lens.
Many a times I wanted sell it away, but just could not do it.
Until, until I save enough for 17-55, then I think of selling again.
Its versetile and really the best lens for walk around.
Down side, OK on QC and Creeping problem.
Many a times I wanted sell it away, but just could not do it.
Until, until I save enough for 17-55, then I think of selling again.
Its versetile and really the best lens for walk around.
Down side, OK on QC and Creeping problem.
wth better iso nowadays
18-200 is becoming a better and better lense
however... do bare in mind that it produces horrible bokeh
i had it for awhile. bought and sold it.
still i agree tat this lense is worth it when comparing "quality + price + 18-200mm range + VR"
18-200 is becoming a better and better lense
however... do bare in mind that it produces horrible bokeh
i had it for awhile. bought and sold it.
still i agree tat this lense is worth it when comparing "quality + price + 18-200mm range + VR"
Unlikely to get the 18-200mm VR, at least, not the present version. Couple of reasons :-
1. Have the 18-135mm + 70-300mm VR that covers up to 300mm and don't really need to go for convenience....
2. There's a thread somewhere in here that a CSer did an excellent job of dissecting the problems in the construct of the 18-200mm Nikon.
3. The 18-135mm covers literally all my needs when I am travelling light and don't wanna change lens. Just don't see the need for something that does all in a package as yet.
If I really really really really needed reach in a convenience package without the hassle of changing lenses, I'll prob go for a bridge camera.... haaa.... ;p
1. Have the 18-135mm + 70-300mm VR that covers up to 300mm and don't really need to go for convenience....
2. There's a thread somewhere in here that a CSer did an excellent job of dissecting the problems in the construct of the 18-200mm Nikon.
3. The 18-135mm covers literally all my needs when I am travelling light and don't wanna change lens. Just don't see the need for something that does all in a package as yet.
If I really really really really needed reach in a convenience package without the hassle of changing lenses, I'll prob go for a bridge camera.... haaa.... ;p
Last edited:
IQ is decent for me cos when it comes to traveling, can't find a better setup yet. Whip out and shoot, near or far. Creeping problem can be greatly reduced when buying/testing the lens. I believe its partly the design as well as batch QC problem. Mine is smooth to zoom and zero on creep. (so far lah)
IMHO. If you travel a bit, you will need this lens. If you find changing lenses a hassle (which is a shame), this is the lens for you, or the tamron 18-270VC. Complement it with a UWA like tokina 12-24, 11-16 or Sigma 10-20 and can't go wrong for travel or even local.. cheers
So far no problems for me at the 135 mm end.
If low light or nite shots will be on my tripods of course. I've tried 800-1600 ISO without tripods and some shots will be ok as well. Tripod shots are dependent on the tripod u use of cos.... mine's a manfrotto and seems to work well.The difference I think is not whether there's VR with the 135mm but rather whether you need the reach from 135mm to 200mm. If you require to shoot at 200mm, frankly, VR is a must.
Bottomline for me is that if I am travelling and doing some leisure photography of buildings and landscape, I don't really need to have anything longer than 135mm. In fact, was thinking of getting the 18-105mm VR some weeks back (BBB virus) but successfully resisted it cos the 18-135mm is working fine for me. Come to think of it, I use my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 a good deal when I travel, esp for landscape shots. I went Phuket on vacation for almost a week last month and had nothing but the 18-135mm with CPL on my cam. I didnt miss any of my other lenses.
That said, my impression of the 18-200mm VR is that it is very versatile, and takes away the hassle of changing lens. If you need that, then buy away ! ;p
I agreed with most that it is really a good travel lense with decent image quality. You will like it if you travel with kids. My camera bag is filled mostly with my daughter's stuff.
Ha.... That's COOL ! Yeah, ain't no space for ur own stuff after kids huh ?
So far no problems for me at the 135 mm end.
The difference I think is not whether there's VR with the 135mm but rather whether you need the reach from 135mm to 200mm. If you require to shoot at 200mm, frankly, VR is a must.
Bottomline for me is that if I am travelling and doing some leisure photography of buildings and landscape, I don't really need to have anything longer than 135mm. In fact, was thinking of getting the 18-105mm VR some weeks back (BBB virus) but successfully resisted it cos the 18-135mm is working fine for me. Come to think of it, I use my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 a good deal when I travel, esp for landscape shots. I went Phuket on vacation for almost a week last month and had nothing but the 18-135mm with CPL on my cam. I didnt miss any of my other lenses.
That said, my impression of the 18-200mm VR is that it is very versatile, and takes away the hassle of changing lens. If you need that, then buy away ! ;p
Just to add.. you can't go wrong with all the pros of the lens at $800.
Love it personally for the convenience, but its VR died after I used it for 6 months (second hand). Without warranty and $375 to service the VR, its quite a headache and heartpain. If you don't on VR all the time, the lens will probably be more durable and with its mega range, you can probably do some amazing things. Note its very close focusing range too, which is also useful for sub macro. IQ wise, the lens works better in bright light *obviously*, pretty sharp if you ask me, especially at f/8.
- Status
