Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G, Hot, or Not?

It seems the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX lens is in great demand,
and hard to get. Dealers have them on back-order, eBay is asking high
prices.

Is this lens really "all that"? It would be nice to have a one-does-all
lens, but is it realistic? To begin with, it's not that fast. From
everything I read, it's next to impossible to design a zoom with that range
and not have distortion issues. Are photographers sacrificing performance
for sake of convenience?

Thanks,
Bill Crocker

"Bill Crocker" wrote in message
. ..

It seems the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX lens is in great demand,
and hard to get. Dealers have them on back-order, eBay is asking high
prices.

Is this lens really "all that"? It would be nice to have a one-does-all
lens, but is it realistic? To begin with, it's not that fast. From
everything I read, it's next to impossible to design a zoom with that
range and not have distortion issues. Are photographers sacrificing
performance for sake of convenience?

I'm not convinced that being able to zoom out to 200mm stopped down to f5.6
is *that* useful, as the 200mm focal length is mainly useful for "action"
photography where a fast lens is important. I'm glad I went for the much
cheaper 18-70 3.5-4.5 instead.

Cheers - Adrian www.boliston.co.uk

Bill writes:
The Nikon 18-200 VR seems to be better than any other consumer super
zoom on the market for SLR cameras, especially when you consider the
very wide angle of 18mm. Nikon did a great job with this one (my friend
has had one for a couple of weeks now).

18mm isn't that wide on a DX sensor. The full-frame equivalent is
about 29mm. My favorite wideangle from my film-shooting days was
24mm, and I think of "very wide" as 20mm or wider.

I've been shooting for a while with P/S cameras with 35-90 or
comparable zooms (now with a Canon A530 with 35-140 equivalent). For
my shooting, I've often wanted more wideangle coverage, and rarely
wanted more telephoto reach. I'd think the 18-200's main attraction
over the 18-70 is the VR. Otherwise, as a general purpose upgrade
from the 18-70 with higher zoom ratio, I'd prefer something like 15-70
instead of 18-200. 15-70 would be comparable to the existing 24-120
full frame lens.

Bill writes:
Compare Nikons 18-200 VR to almost any other makers 28-200 (much easier
to design) and you'll find Nikon did an excellent job - better than I
would have thought possible in a consumer oriented zoom (computer design
can do wonders!).

The smaller sensor also helps. 10:1 or even 20:1 zooms have been
common on video cameras, and 8mm movie cameras before that, even in
the lower-tech computer era.

For fun snaps, I prefer 18-200 VR DX over lugging around my trinity lens [
AF-S 17-35 , 28-70 and 80-200 ]
Excellent 'fun' snaps performer and the range provide a lot of convinience.
But for artistic / action shots, you can't compare it with the 2.8s or 1.4s





"Bill Crocker" wrote in message
. ..

Is this lens really "all that"? It would be nice to have a one-does-all
lens, but is it realistic? To begin with, it's not that fast. From
everything I read, it's next to impossible to design a zoom with that
range and not have distortion issues. Are photographers sacrificing
performance for sake of convenience?

Paul Rubin wrote:
Bill writes:
Compare Nikons 18-200 VR to almost any other makers 28-200 (much easier
to design) and you'll find Nikon did an excellent job - better than I
would have thought possible in a consumer oriented zoom (computer design
can do wonders!).

The smaller sensor also helps. 10:1 or even 20:1 zooms have been
common on video cameras, and 8mm movie cameras before that, even in
the lower-tech computer era.

Also the resolution of the video sensor isn't that great, relys alot,
as do other motion media on persistance of vision. Looking at a good
looking video is a whole different experience from seeing a still from
that video.
Nikon did do a great job with the 18-200, certainly better than any of
the third paty offerings. But it is still not a great lens, but for the
money and convenience they seem to sell as fast as Nikon can make them.
My last vacation my 17mm Tokina wasn't wide enough, so 18 wouldn't come
close. I also object to big things hanging off the front of my camera
(even though the 18-200 is supposed to be compact, it is still big).
I'll use a my 70-210 f4 if I need a telephoto, but it sits in my bag
for a lot of the time. My main lens is a 24 f2 Nikor, which is almost a
perfect match for what I'm used to shooting on film. This lens is very
small and compact , you almost can't feel it on the camera.

Tom

"tomm42" writes:
I'll use a my 70-210 f4 if I need a telephoto, but it sits in my bag
for a lot of the time. My main lens is a 24 f2 Nikor, which is almost a
perfect match for what I'm used to shooting on film. This lens is very
small and compact , you almost can't feel it on the camera.

You mean the 24/2 is your main lens for film? Or for digital?
There's no AF version of that lens, I thought. Do you use a D2/D200?

Paul Rubin wrote:
"tomm42" writes:
I'll use a my 70-210 f4 if I need a telephoto, but it sits in my bag
for a lot of the time. My main lens is a 24 f2 Nikor, which is almost a
perfect match for what I'm used to shooting on film. This lens is very
small and compact , you almost can't feel it on the camera.

You mean the 24/2 is your main lens for film? Or for digital?
There's no AF version of that lens, I thought. Do you use a D2/D200?

I use a D200, focusing with WA takes a little getting used to, but
doable, it is a nice, small sharp lens.

Tom

[BnH] wrote:
For fun snaps, I prefer 18-200 VR DX over lugging around my trinity lens [
AF-S 17-35 , 28-70 and 80-200 ]
Excellent 'fun' snaps performer and the range provide a lot of convinience.
But for artistic / action shots, you can't compare it with the 2.8s or 1.4s



Yeah you'd need a chiropractor after a bag with those lenses, sure is a
sweet set though.

Tom

In article ,
Bill wrote:


Having said that, two zooms that cover the same range with the same
parameters will perform better. And three zooms that cover the same
range would be great. Of course several primes would beat everything in
optical performance, but convenience is lost.

No doubt, but then I would have to have a heavy bag and be changing
lenses frequently, often missing the best shot.

And, there is that seemingly increasing problem of dirt on sensors,
increasing with every lens change.

--
There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.