Nikon 18-200mm

[TeleHoar]

How hard is it to get this lens?
Waiting periods seem to be the norm.

I'm looking at a Tamron 18-200 instead, cheaper yes, is the quality that much worse? I'm not a pro but appreciate decent images.
or
Should I hold out for the Nikon?

[pechelman]

i dont know how similar the lenses are, but I have had a horrible experience with the Tamron 28-200. Incredibly soft lens. Extremely frustrating to shoot with.

maybe check out www.photographyreview.com
http://www.photographyreview.com/sf-...om_lens-tamron

also checkout the other reviews for the canon version.
Id think the optics would be identical and just a different mount interface.
ie, the reviews on the glass' performance should be useful on any body.

[Staggerwing]

You've probably already seen this, but I like Thom Hogan's Site for all things Nikon. He comes off a bit more level headed than Ken Rockwell.

On general principal, I wouldn't typically consider a 10x range zoom, as they don't have a good reputation. This one seems to perform better than specs would suggest, although, I would still worry about long term durability and optical alignment with that many elements in a consumer grade carcass.

If you are having trouble finding one, Fairborn Camera, a small shop in the Dayton, OH area, near Wright-Patterson AFB, is great to deal with. Ping me if you want a number, and contact. I don't think they have an internet store front, but they've never had a problem shipping. For some reason, they have a really good relationship with the regional Nikon rep, and often have better stock than some national outlets.

There is also Robert's over in Indianapolis. Don't have a contact there, but they are well known and reputable.

[hemas]

Nikon 18-200/2.8 VRS?

No actual experience... but the rumors I keep hearing that it's about the best thing out there (atleast for Nikon)... Tamron just doesn't cut it.

Plus, an ugly rumor is that Tamron has quite a bit of variance between lenses (same model)... even more than Sigma... You can easily get a really good lens, or a total lemon.

And like Pechelman said, the optics are the same, wether it's the Nikon or Canon lens (otherwise same model). Although, I've heard that the Pentax ones might have some difficulty on working fully (again, a rumor and should nor concern you).

Personally, I'd get two lenses (something in the wide end, and another one at the long end).... Often better IQ (but not always).

[pechelman]

Nikon 18-200/2.8 VRS?

even more than Sigma... You can easily get a really good lens, or a total lemon.

nothing more to add other than Ive had nothing than an exceptional experience with Sigma EX lenses. In particular, the 105mm Macro and the 12-24mm. Both are amazing in my experience....especially for the price. Think I spent maybe 800$ for both when I may have spent nearly that much for just one of the canon L series.

[hemas]

nothing more to add other than Ive had nothing than an exceptional experience with Sigma EX lenses. In particular, the 105mm Macro and the 12-24mm. Both are amazing in my experience....especially for the price. Think I spent maybe 800$ for both when I may have spent nearly that much for just one of the canon L series.

True, I love my 24-70/2.8 Macro EX... I've seem to heard that the lemons are really rare with EX stuff, but their reg. lenses sometimes have lemons...

[Shepherd Wong]

I have the Nikon 18-200 and it's a great lens. I think it took me 3 months from ordering to shipping for me, but it seems like if you time it correctly you can find them immediatly at some of the bigger online places like bh and adorama. Also might get lucky locally.

[TeleHoar]

OK
I think I am sold on going with the Nikon lens.

Adorama seems the way to go, they tell me the lead time is only around 18 days or so now. It was three months, but they tell me Nikon is catching up to production. They have a better price than most too, but not as good as BH who tell you to check the website daily and then order when it's listed as "stocked" - woot woot as it were.

Thanks for the links and advice...made this decision a little more informed.

I already have a tamron 70-300 but I'm not too pleased with it. Seemed great at first but now the AF is coming out kinda fuzzy...

I just got a Nikon 16mm prime fisheye that's really cool...I have to play with it some more.

What does the 16mm convert too for digi? 24mm?

[AstroPax]

What does the 16mm convert too for digi? 24mm?

Yes, the 35mm focal length equivalent is 24mm, at least on a Nikon 1.5x sensor anyway. 16 x 1.5 = 24.

[warthog]

OK
I think I am sold on going with the Nikon lens.

Adorama seems the way to go, they tell me the lead time is only around 18 days or so now. It was three months, but they tell me Nikon is catching up to production. They have a better price than most too, but not as good as BH who tell you to check the website daily and then order when it's listed as "stocked" - woot woot as it were.

Thanks for the links and advice...made this decision a little more informed.

I already have a tamron 70-300 but I'm not too pleased with it. Seemed great at first but now the AF is coming out kinda fuzzy...

I just got a Nikon 16mm prime fisheye that's really cool...I have to play with it some more.

What does the 16mm convert too for digi? 24mm?

Please don't listen to the naysayers. They have never used a lens like this. It is also 11x, not 10x. While most of the old 10x lenses are notoriously cheap, this lens is a true do it all for the amateur photographer. Read some of the reviews from some of the experts. They are all glowing.

I got it as a kit with my D200, mostly cause I didn't want to sink a ton into lenses before I figured out what I was doing. I also like the fact that I didn't have to take the lens off a lot, and worry about dust on the sensor.

You will love this lens. It was a 6 month lead time when I got mine, but it was a 4 day lead time with the kit. I think it is at about 3 month now, but you should be able to get one quicker, it would seem.

Good luck.

[dbp]

I got the 18-200VR back in October for my D80 instead of the kit lens. I love it. I used a place called Photo Pro. I only had to wait a few weeks and didn't have to put any money down to get on their waiting list.

[Tippster]

Always chose Nikon/Canon over Tamron/Sigma. If the latter is a necessity I would pick Sigma lenses over tamron every time. The QC is just much better, IMHO. They also "feel" more solid. Hard to quantify, but it makes a difference in trusting your gear, which every photog needs to be able to do.

[TeleHoar]

Trigger pulled!
Nikon 18-200 in the mail!!
Found a guy on D-Grin selling a barely used one, I was just about to get one from Ebay.

For the record

Waiting times are way down. You can find one available today if need be.Seems to be about $100 difference in the waiting list vendors and the ones who have them stocked.

The above links are great. thanks!

[summit]

wait! nooooooooooooooooo! bad lens!!!!!!!!!!!1

[TeleHoar]

wait! nooooooooooooooooo! bad lens!!!!!!!!!!!1

HUh? WTF?
Now you say something?

I value your opinion, as you know...
but you're the only one to say something negative about this lens.
The reviews are good, everyone has nothing but raves for this glass.

Now that it's too late, what's so wrong with it?

[dbp]

It seems like the strength and criticism of this lens is that it does almost everything well or very well... but does nothing great. Since I got this for my first SLR, I was willing to put up with its small limitations. After I learn what I am doing, I can supplement it with some nice primes or whatever. Yeah, it isn't a perfect lens and it may have been over-hyped, but the quality/price for this "jack of all trades" was perfect for someone who didn't want to carry around a bunch of lenses all the time. Hope you like yours.

Here is another non-technical review. Like Thom, he seems fairly level headed and points out the strengths and weaknesses.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zo...ml#AFS18-200VR

[summit]

HUh? WTF?
Now you say something?

I value your opinion, as you know...
but you're the only one to say something negative about this lens.
The reviews are good, everyone has nothing but raves for this glass.

Now that it's too late, what's so wrong with it?

I appologize. I didn't see the thread earlier.

OK... for what it is, it is extremely good, but all things are relative. Superzooms (anything above 4.4x) are always an exercise in compromise.

Yes I am a snob who is generally loath to own anything slower than 2.8... I could barely stomach the 3.5-4.5 of my 10-22. The biggest slowest zoom I ever owned was a 3.75x 28-105 3.5-4.5 10 years ago. The largest range zoom I have now is a 3.25x f/2.8 L zoom. OK now that those prejuidices are out in the open, the 18-200, 24-300, 28-200, etc all of the 7x-12x megazooms have always suffered from:

1. slow aperture
2. soft tele
3. soft borders
4. distortion
5. flare
6. focus speed issues

While I would say that this Nikon lens possibly addresses these issues better than any other super zoom on the market, it still has the weaknesses and it is still a 3.5-5.6

I suppose it is about your shooting priorities... do you need one do it all lightweight zoom for multiday backpacking for still life and landscapes or do you need a lens that produces quality shots in action shooting and portrait shooting conditions?

It has great center sharpness most of the time but like most superzooms it needs to be f/5.6 to f/8 on the short end and f/8 or even f/11 in the mid and long ends in order to give you some semblance of border sharpness and to control vignetting. You'll be needing that VR

As a strange quirk it also has a falloff in resolution and and increase in distortion around 100mm.

I forget your current lens lineup, but the 18-200 seems like a specialty quiver lens like the 16mm rather than a primary lens.

[TeleHoar]

Thanks dbp and Summit.
I researched this pretty well and you guys are right. Although I don't think this zoom suffers some of the problems that Summit pointed out as bad as zooms used to. The reason that lens is so desirable is that Nikon has adressed some of those issues and overcome them. For example the AF is a lot faster than their 70-200mm lenses.

I am not a professional so the slower speed isn't much of an issue, and it is just going to be a walk around lens, - pack trips and ski days. reducing the quiver from two lenses down to one. Right now I have a Tamron 70-300 that just isn't cutting it for me, this seems like a nice alternative.

Now I start saving for a 300mm prime or even 500mm. Mmmmmm

[warthog]

I appologize. I didn't see the thread earlier.

OK... for what it is, it is extremely good, but all things are relative. Superzooms (anything above 4.4x) are always an exercise in compromise.

Yes I am a snob who is generally loath to own anything slower than 2.8... I could barely stomach the 3.5-4.5 of my 10-22. The biggest slowest zoom I ever owned was a 3.75x 28-105 3.5-4.5 10 years ago. The largest range zoom I have now is a 3.25x f/2.8 L zoom. OK now that those prejuidices are out in the open, the 18-200, 24-300, 28-200, etc all of the 7x-12x megazooms have always suffered from:

1. slow aperture
2. soft tele
3. soft borders
4. distortion
5. flare
6. focus speed issues

While I would say that this Nikon lens possibly addresses these issues better than any other super zoom on the market, it still has the weaknesses and it is still a 3.5-5.6

I suppose it is about your shooting priorities... do you need one do it all lightweight zoom for multiday backpacking for still life and landscapes or do you need a lens that produces quality shots in action shooting and portrait shooting conditions?

It has great center sharpness most of the time but like most superzooms it needs to be f/5.6 to f/8 on the short end and f/8 or even f/11 in the mid and long ends in order to give you some semblance of border sharpness and to control vignetting. You'll be needing that VR

As a strange quirk it also has a falloff in resolution and and increase in distortion around 100mm.

I forget your current lens lineup, but the 18-200 seems like a specialty quiver lens like the 16mm rather than a primary lens.

Don't you shoot Canon? Have you even used this lens?

I respect your opinion too, but step into the shoes of an amateur for a second. This lens will help you get into shooting a lot, prevent you from having to lug around several lenses, and teach you what to look for in your next lenses.

It is an amateur photogs lens, nothing else. But, I can carry it in a slingshot and shoot all day long. The 3.5-5 is rough in low light, but that's about it.

Don't regret your purchase. The lens is great for what you will be using it for.

[warthog]

Although I don't think this zoom suffers some of the problems that Summit pointed out as bad as zooms used to. The reason that lens is so desirable is that Nikon has adressed some of those issues and overcome them.

Canon shooters have no point of reference. They don't have a lens like this available. Tamron and Sigma don't compare at all.

[Shepherd Wong]

Awesome lens. Just spent all day hiking(hobbling) around with mine. The convenience of it makes me excited to take it out. It's not too fast, but for skiing and good light it's not a problem. I do find it focuses slower than my 70-200 hsm sigma, but so what. Check out this thread from Nikon Cafe to get you excited about its sharpness, you'll love it.

[TeleHoar]

. Check out this thread from Nikon Cafe to get you excited about its sharpness, you'll love it.

Wow...very impressive. Many of the pro's on there are calling it "Nikon's finest lens ever". The picture test tells the tale, seems as sharp if not sharper than some of the prime lenses.

Cool, thanks for that!

[Tippster]

I respect your opinion too, but step into the shoes of an amateur for a second.

I'm pretty sure he IS an amateur - a very enthusiastic one at that.

[warthog]

I'm pretty sure he IS an amateur - a very enthusiastic one at that.

I know. Just giving him some shit. Dude is knowledgeable, but I don't think he knows Nikon like he knows Canon.

[summit]

you are correct. i don't know nikon like i know canon.

i do know that it is no contender against a prime lens

I'm pretty sure he IS an amateur - a very enthusiastic one at that.

yes, i no LONGER make my money off photography