Nikkor 18-200VR vs 18-200VR II

justinitus

justinitus

Messages
807
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All

Bought myself an 18-200VR during my lunch break today as a general walkabout / travel lens to replace my 18-105VR. Wanted a bit more length you see ;)

Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any review right now comparing the two versions back2back. Well, I went for the original Mk1 after handling and trying out both versions and here's why:

a) New Mk2 version seems to be £150 or so more expensive.

b) Glass elements are identical. Supposedly the coatings have been improved but I took 20 shots with each and I cannot spot a nats hair between them, even shooting towards the sun.

c) New Mk2 version has the zoom lock switch, which puts to bed the problems of reported zoom creep. The problem here is where it has been sited, which is between the focus and zoom rings. This part of the lens has been extended about 5mm to accomodate the lock switch but to keep the lens the same length, the rubber zoom ring has been made narrower by 5mm to about 15mm (from memory). For me, with my sausage fingers, I couldn't grip it properly. It has to be the narrowest zoom ring I've ever used - strange especially for an all-in-one lens!!

So, that was the deal breaker on the MkII. Oh, and the extra £££££ :LOL:

So, a quick comparison when I got home with my 18-105VR. Its just as sharp corner to corner through all the focal lengths upto 105mm. From 105-180mm it was still sharp all the way accross and at 200mm it lost a little. I only viewed these comparisons at 100% on screen, but I'm happy enough :thumbs

It does, however, focus slightly slower than the 18-105VR but still quick enough and far quicker than my Sigma! The "4-stops" VR on the 18-200 doesn't seem any better than the "3-stops" VR on my 18-105 so I'm glad I took this with a pinch of salt!!

Hopefully my amateurish review will help someone... somewhere!!

Have a good evening folks.
 
So as we have been saying on the other thread they are basically the same! Same glass, same VR, same quality.....

The zoom creep is pretty much irrelevant as you tend to hold the lens anyway whilst using it. Save the money get the cheaper one :)
 
Good review Jus, when you say it's faster than the Sigma, which Sigma is that? I'd be interested to know how this lens compares to the Sigma 18-200 OS.
 
I didn't spot the other thread before writing mine!

Yep, they are the same spec wise. BUT the narrower zoom ring on the new version is a pretty big :thumbsdown:
 
I've found the 18-200mm Mk1 lens does move ('zoom creep') if pointed directly down. But it hasn't proved a problem for me to date.
 
what's the price of one of these?

did you consider the tamron 18-270 VC?
 
Northstar100 said:
Good review Jus, when you say it's faster than the Sigma, which Sigma is that? I'd be interested to know how this lens compares to the Sigma 18-200 OS.
Click to expand...

I did have a Siggy 18-200OS at one point when I had my Canon but I can't really remember much about that lens... sorry!

I was refering to my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and 70-300APO.... but now you raise the question of course they are - mine are non-motored versions so drive from the camera :bonk:

Back of the class Justin..... :LOL:
 
p1tse said:
what's the price of one of these?

did you consider the tamron 18-270 VC?
Click to expand...

I paid £489 @ PC World (They price matched Jessops plus an extra 10%) but RGB are showing them at £449 but no stock.

There are usually some good used ones on the classifieds here.
 
RGB Tech - camera dealer online and shop in Middlesborough IIRC.
 
Uncle Ken (kenrockwell.com) has, as always, got all the details you need to know about both lenses and the differences between them.

He agrees with you, suggesting the older version is the one to get - the bits that matter are exactly the same.

The thing I don't understand about the zoom lock switch is: apparently it only works at 18mm, where the original lens doesn't creep anyway! It has a sort of "detent" feel at 18mm. It will creep when extended from 18mm, simply get used to zooming back to 18mm when done.

I think it's an excellent all-purpose lens. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that it's less sharp than the other mid-range Nikon zooms. However I can always tell the difference between photos taken with it and the 35mm f/1.8. The prime is creamier and sharper. But that's old news.
 
interesting read. how does it perform in low light i.e. indoors etc.?
 
p1tse said:
interesting read. how does it perform in low light i.e. indoors etc.?
Click to expand...

Not brilliant due to being a slower lens starting at f3.5 but with enough light it is fine. I would just make sure I had a flash but this applies to most lenses of that type.
 
I am thinking of getting this lens, glad you mentioned PC worlds price match, I might try that!
 
Northstar100 said:
Good review Jus, when you say it's faster than the Sigma, which Sigma is that? I'd be interested to know how this lens compares to the Sigma 18-200 OS.
Click to expand...

I've used both (and got the Sigma)

I suppose it depends on how often you'll use it. I bought it to take to Italy last year and it was a decent performer. I realised I wouldn't use a 'walkabout' all that often so I didn't want to spend Nikon money. But using both I can hardly tell the difference at all (in fact I think 'What Camera' rated the Sigma slightly higher than the Nikkor).

Day to day I rarely use the Sigma, but I decided to keep it for holidays or when I want to travel light.
 
I doubt if the new Nikon 18-200mm VR II will be much if any different from the original, i had the first version and never had any of that lens creep people speak about, it's not a bad all round lens for holidays, as it keeps the weight down as it saves carrying a few lenses, all the photos HERE were taken with it fixed on the front of a D300 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top