"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

The 18-200mm VR does *NOT* do macro it does close-up work. It does
have a decent FoV equivalent to a 135mm lens, but it would have been
nice for it to have the same as a 200mm lens. The biggest problem
with this lens is its poor build quality and poor light gathering
properties. The lens creep and many complaints of the front element
working its way loose and falling off are totally unacceptable. And
what compounds the problem is the need to have a lot of light to
wake this lens up. I find it near impossible to shoot below ISO 400
and +0.7 EV compensation. It's a decent walk around lens in
principle, but takes a lot of work to get used to if you are
accustomed to shooting with good glass. It's overpriced for what
you get. Fortunately I was able to sell a total of three of these
dogs to offset the cost of justify keeping mine. At $750 it is a
rip-off and Nikon should be ashamed of themselves. Pity the fool
that paid more than $750 MSRP, though I'm glad they do.

You say close-up; I say light macro, which is probably not as
technically correct but still reasonable.

Right! What the hell does "light macro" mean? Either use the terminology
right or don't use it at all. There are people new to this group that
might
mistake you for having a clue as to what you are talking about.

What's the "right terminology" for this anyway, and how is it determined?
"Close-up" is not at all specific. Some insist true macro must mean going
down to 1:1, but there have been several genuine macro lenses that only go
to 1:2 and many zoom lens makers call their products "macro" when they go to
1:4. The term is loose at best, and "people new to this group" might as well
learn that early on.



Poor build quality and poor light gathering
qualities are subjective. Most reviewers rave about this lens. You,

Which reviewers would these be? I mean the ones without a vested interest
in pushing this lens?

Well, I've had one for a couple of weeks, I'm prepared to rave about it and
I have no "vested interest in pushing this lens." I think it's an absolutely
fabulous, glorious, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious lens.



OTOH, have a hatred that borders on psychopathic. "Many" complaints
about the front element falling off? Nonsense. This is a new complaint
that you made up. Neither is lens creep unique to this lens. It is
common to nearly all lenses in the price range that the OP was talking
about. Not everyone can afford to spent $1500 on a lens, Rita.

Hey, I don't hate the lens, in fact I think in principle and concept of
turning a D200 or a D2x into a P&S on steroids is awesome. On the other
hand, I guess one could buy a decent P&S for $750 that will perform almost
as well.

I . . . don't . . . think . . . so. I have all of Nikon's last and finest
Coolpix "prosumer" models, which is the sort of thing I suppose you mean by
"P&S," and while the 8700 and 8800 are wonderful cameras they are certainly
not comparable to the 18-200 on an SLR.


As for the front element falling off, it is a legitimate complaint and
very
common. If you don't believe me just check the front of your 18-200.

I've just checked the front of mine and I'm happy to report it isn't falling
off. When is this supposed to happen? Where are the reports of this "very
common" complaint?


The biggest lens creep around here is you. I have had it with your
unsubstantiated claims.

LOL! You're a fool if you find it acceptable for a $750 lens to have lens
creep and other QA problems.

I don't see lens creep as being a "QA problem," and mine hasn't crept
anyway, so far. But then I carry it with the lens shortened. I read
somewhere that the lens creep mostly occurs when the camera is carried with
the lens somewhere in mid-zoom, which seems to make sense. If mine (which is
still quite new) does eventually creep I still won't see it as a quality
problem. The part of the lens that extends has some weight, after all, and
there's a reasonable limit to how stiff one wants the zoom control to be.

Neil