Nikkor 18-200mm AF-S DX VR - Any First Thoughts?
- Thread starter filmpicker
- Start date
- Status
All i can say about the lens is wow
been using it since last month
the nightshot captured greatly improved without stand
especially for my minor shaking hand
hehehe
been using it since last month
the nightshot captured greatly improved without stand
especially for my minor shaking hand
hehehe
All-in-one. More for convenience/travel than for pic quality ...
Good enough for macro ??? (see http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=189190)
good as a "walkaround lens" ... (http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=191812)
Good enough for macro ??? (see http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=189190)
good as a "walkaround lens" ... (http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=191812)
Got mine in March. Is a good lens and gets great reviews. "About the same quality as the 18-70 through the same range" is the subjective answer I'd give in terms of quality / distortion / sharpness. The two main advantages of course are the long end telefoto (which I use maybe only 10% of the time - but when I use it I am v thankful) and more importantly for me, the VR. The VR is a huge benefit, I have sharp handheld shots at around 1/2 second (when at the widest 18mm). Can go as low as 1/30s when at 200mm.
For me, the way I view this lens is as a 18-70 with VR and occasional telefoto. It stays on my camera about 90% of the time now.
If you want to see a selection of shots with it (combined with the D200), feel free to check out my trip to Japan which I took a week after getting this lens:
http://www.pbase.com/scared_of_the_dark/japan_2006__coming_soon
Cheers,
Lawrence
For me, the way I view this lens is as a 18-70 with VR and occasional telefoto. It stays on my camera about 90% of the time now.
If you want to see a selection of shots with it (combined with the D200), feel free to check out my trip to Japan which I took a week after getting this lens:
http://www.pbase.com/scared_of_the_dark/japan_2006__coming_soon
Cheers,
Lawrence
HLL said:
I choose 18-200 against 70-300 because:
(1) 18mm for landscape and group photos (very important for travelling).
(2) The compact size of the zoom (again, very important for travelling).
(3) VR which helps a couple of stops if you do not have tripod (yet again, very important for travelling if you do not want to lug the tripod along).
(4) The weight of a total 18-200, as compared to a few pieces of lens, which is very impt when walking long distances on sightseeing or flying without excess baggage problem, etc. (Typical scenario when travelling).
In case I forgot to mention, my main reason for 18-200 is to be my travelling lens.
Basically I don't think you should compare the two lenses because they are not meant for the same purpose.
Of course for travelling can't beat the 18-200mm
But if one is rich enough to travel all the time then of course $1200+ is no problem.
But if you want to just go out and take photo having 2 cams with 2 lens is an option.
Many (20+) years ago the walkabout kit could have up to 3 cams with 3 fixed lenses. 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 135mm f2.... This is actually even better than what most people have these days. With such fast lenses no VR also can.
Don't forget lots of times you can rest your cam on something to get it steady. A railing or wall or leaning against something.
And when you go on holiday it is good to carry more than 1 cam incase it malfunctions.
But if one is rich enough to travel all the time then of course $1200+ is no problem.
But if you want to just go out and take photo having 2 cams with 2 lens is an option.
Many (20+) years ago the walkabout kit could have up to 3 cams with 3 fixed lenses. 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 135mm f2.... This is actually even better than what most people have these days. With such fast lenses no VR also can.
Don't forget lots of times you can rest your cam on something to get it steady. A railing or wall or leaning against something.
And when you go on holiday it is good to carry more than 1 cam incase it malfunctions.
HLL said:
For holiday, I rather pack light. Most often I travel with non-photographer so my main camera is F11, secondary is D70+18~200mm. You example of 70-300mm is not an ideal lens because I think ideal should at least cover 50 up to 105mm.
18~200mm is also more cost-effective compared to the 3 lenses you mentioned. I don't really need that much quality lens since I just post them on website having 600x400 size.
filmpicker said:
Personally, as a walk about (e.g. scenery, building, etc.) lens, its range is sufficient. Maybe you should scour the Nikon subforum about the CREEP and other known takes about this lens. Btw, what is your application?
VR2 said:
You style resembles someone in this subforum. Nonetheless, if you have no personal takes about or experience with this lens, I would rather you refrain from posting. What is the point of directing someone to the search page.
HLL said:
many lens is not an option when u are touring with other ppl. dont expect them to wait for u while u change your lens...it's about being able to take as many photos in different situation (wide n tele) in as short a time as possible without inconveniencing others.
I got mine under 2 weeks ago as a general purpose travelling lens. I wanted a single lens to cover a big range and this was it.
Initial thoughts are:
1. it is heavy but it keeps the camera more stable
2. the VR works well (the view thru the viewfinder settles down when you turn VR on)
3. Focus time is quite quick.
4. The zoom ring isn't consistent throughout the zoom scale. It is tighter at either end
5. There is lens creep if the lens is not fully retracted or fully extended.
I used it for a friend's wedding. The huge zoom is great as I can get a full head shot while standing far enough away that they don't know I am taking a shot of them. Basically I can shoot more from the same spot and get a tight crop of the photo at the same time.
I take a lot of people shots as well as holiday shots. So distortion isn't too much of a concern to me. The main thing is sharpness and focus times. I'm really happy with it.
Initial thoughts are:
1. it is heavy but it keeps the camera more stable
2. the VR works well (the view thru the viewfinder settles down when you turn VR on)
3. Focus time is quite quick.
4. The zoom ring isn't consistent throughout the zoom scale. It is tighter at either end
5. There is lens creep if the lens is not fully retracted or fully extended.
I used it for a friend's wedding. The huge zoom is great as I can get a full head shot while standing far enough away that they don't know I am taking a shot of them. Basically I can shoot more from the same spot and get a tight crop of the photo at the same time.
I take a lot of people shots as well as holiday shots. So distortion isn't too much of a concern to me. The main thing is sharpness and focus times. I'm really happy with it.
HLL said:
Dude.. you seriously would do this? get a d50 with a 70-300mm rather than an 18-200mm VR? I dunno man... seems like a big difference in quality and functionality.. And definitely not a fair scenario man... You got a better choice of examples? :S
Recently got a chance to play with this lens on a D2X body from a pro. The VR rocks plus the image quality of the lens blow my mind away when looking at a 16" by 20" prints. Proven by pro. I'll start saving to get this lens. Real bang for the bucks.
Spectrum said:Recently got a chance to play with this lens on a D2X body from a pro. The VR rocks plus the image quality of the lens blow my mind away when looking at a 16" by 20" prints. Proven by pro. I'll start saving to get this lens. Real bang for the bucks.
post image see see leh
darkspike said:
There is no doubt that 18-200mm is damm good. Everybody says so, even the Ken Rockwell loves it. Sure can't beat it for sheer convenience and speed.
But
It is expensive lah. If you know you can use flash then can get away with not having VR.
Some of you out there may already have a 12-24mm Nikkor, which is superb. But once you buy 18-200mm got overlap in focal range. for less than the price of the 18-200mm you can have the D50 + 70-300mm as well. Then you can use both lenses on 2 bodies and have 12-300mm!!! Super super wat!
Anyhow, I do conceed that if you just going to have 1 lens then obviously cannot beat 18-200mm. In fact I do need a 18-200mm for a wedding I'm taking (see other thread) if anybody can lend me, I have lots of stuff to lend you.
scared_of_the_dark said:
Hi Lawrence,
jus saw ur japan pics. U mean u took those night shots handheld using the vr lens?:bigeyes:
That would the kinda results i wana achieve with this lens cos i got problem takin pics at night handheld as the aperture is only 2.8.
f/2.8? Huh?EdOkH said:Hi Lawrence,
jus saw ur japan pics. U mean u took those night shots handheld using the vr lens?:bigeyes:
That would the kinda results i wana achieve with this lens cos i got problem takin pics at night handheld as the aperture is only 2.8.
westwest1 said:
Sorry that I couldn't post any image here. It's not my work/image. But sure no regrets if you get one yourself.
- Status
Similar threads
