Is the Nikon 18-200 a good sharp lens

bobman

bobman

Messages
639
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
As the title says really, I am looking to invest in a new lens to add to my 50mm f1.4g and this seems to fit the bill for an all purpose lens, will it be sharp enough to produce good results on my D7000 body.

Also what are the cons of purchasing second hand lenses from on line specialist websites as it appears I could save £200 on the new cost for one which is described as almost mint.
 
Have a look on here Pixel-Peep as it will give you some idea on what you want to know - I often use it to see what a lens combo can do - but you'll have to input the camera & lens of your choice thou as I'm not going to do it all for you :p :LOL:
 
I got fed up of changing my 18-55VR & my 55-200VR and do travel a fair bit so this was high on my list. I purchased the first (no lock) version second hand from these forums and honestly do not think the IQ has dropped much, if at all.I use it on my D5000 and is my day to day lens. Im no pixelpeeper but the stories I heard about huge compromises are not nearly as bad as I had envisaged. That said if you only usually use the 50mm f/1.4 then it may not hold up for you. I don't know if I managed to get a good quality copy or if its the general standard.
 
had an 18-200 vr mki
Brilliant for first time use, but after I got a 105mm micro nikkor, it fell into non use. With a 50mm f1.4d it didn't even get put on and eventually got put back in its box... and sold.

It was too soft. But good if you need just one lens.
Some people seem to have very crisp pics from it (see flickr).

I would try it out before buying (poss rent if you don't take the other poster up on experimenting).

What are you looking for? length?

Sigma 50-500, or tamron 80-400?
If you are experimenting, check out the manual m42 - you can get 200, or 300 mm for 50-80ukp.
Problem is knowing which of the older lenses will do what you want and be right in the price.
 
The 18-200VR is one of my sharpest lenses. Considering the range of focal length it has, it does very well. Best all-rounder nikon lens imo.

If you're new to photography, this is all you need to get started. Although I have heard that some professionals use this lens too.

If only it had one or two more stops it would be the perfect lens.
 
Would echo what's been said, great all round lens and pretty sharp although not as sharp as the 1.4 50mm obviously!
 
I have an 18-200 that I used for a couple of years with my D70 before upgrading to my D7000 this year. I've since got some better glass too but am keeping the 18-200 as an all purpose holiday/walkabout lens when weight is an issue...I have a young family so my luggage allowance has shrunk somewhat! Happy to take some test pics if there is something you would particularly like to look at on the D7000?
 
+1 on this lens as well. It certainly isn't soggy, just not as sharp as the primes and pro lenses out there. It does have problems with distortion (pin cusion and barrel) but these are so easily sorted out in PP that it's a non issue.

Once you understand the limitations of a super zoom and learn to work within them then it's brilliant lens, and probably the best of it's type on the market at the moment. For the flexibility it gives you, it's a no brainer.
 
Last edited:
Great all rounder, yes its not as sharp as a prime, but then its way more flexible if you dont want to lug around extra glass,
 
You can't compare a zoom lens with a prime. :shrug:

For the range of zoom you get, the only other nikon lens as sharp imo would be the 28-300 VR. But even that is not perfect, not least because it is almost twice the price.

In my opinion, every nikon user needs a 18-200 VR in their bag. My only gripe with it is dust. But other than that, its fantastic. Yes it can do with a 1 or 2 more stops but the VR does help a little with this, so you can't complain.
 
After having initially a 18-55 kit on my d3100, then picking up the 18-70 just the other week I can't help bit think I will end up buying the 18-200 sooner rather than later for the ultimate do it all /outdoor lens.

Then keep the 35mm 1.8 for indoor shots.

Went on a walk the other day and needed more reach than the 18-70 could provide when trying to capture a shot of a grouse in the heather. Now I'm not a bird man by any means, but I think this showed to me how useful the extra reach could be under circumstances when you don't expect it.

So 18-200 better than a 18-70?

Slightly heavier, slightly bigger in size and another different size of damn filters. LOL.

Money, money, money. :)

Sent from my Gingerbread driven HTC Desire using TP Forums
 
Last edited:
I think its a superb lens with a great range. I was very happy with the sharpness at all ranges, the only time it gets soft is at 200mm close up.

Heres a shot I took of the Eiffel Tower tower with a D80 and the 18-200vr ( original version) lens at 200mm. Bit of CA on the lower structure.
Click image for full size. The sharpness was very good ( but not the leaning tower!)



When I used this lens on my D300, there was no CA at all and better resolution, I guess the D7000 will be even better.

Allan
 
Last edited:
I've always thought about this too, as I have a 55-200 and used to use it alongside my 18-55 kit lens on my old d40

In terms of a walk about lens on holiday it was all I used, and although it limited me upclose the 18-200 would not have that limitation

You don't always need an expensive lens to take the best pictures, and as said above if you're out of range it doesn't matter how expensive or sharp your lens is

Ollie
 
Sorry to crash the thread whats the sigma version like.

Is it the same sort of thing soft at full zoom
 
Thanks all for the advice.

Took the plunge and ordered the VR1 version off a second hand Nikon dealer online, I have limited chances so far to use it but the little I have used it Im very happy.

Took this Saturday in Leeds while the misses was shopping.
DSC_2119_edited-1.jpg
 
After finally deciding to upgrade from the 18-55 to the 18-70, I'm thinking I need a 18-200 for days out. Went out to a small animal sanctuary and could have well done with longer reach in certain situations.

1. How much heavier and longer is the 18-200 over the 18-70?
2. Will it look plain daft on the front of my small D3100?
3. To get sharp images i'm finding i'm shooting at 1/250 with the 18-70 (especially of my active little girl), would the addition of VR let me drop this down to 1/125?
4. Is the 18-200 too big just to keep on there 24/7 around the house? I can't see i'd need 200m in the house and garden? Maybe keep the 18-70 for that? And 35mm for low light situations.
5. Probably try and pick one up 2nd hand, is there really much difference between mk1 and mk2?
6. Is lens creep as bad as some people report on the mk1?

Any other thoughts on the 18-200 very welcome.

I'm looking at the flickr 18-200 group and there are some really great shots taken with it: http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_18-200_vr/
 
Zarch said:
After finally deciding to upgrade from the 18-55 to the 18-70, I'm thinking I need a 18-200 for days out. Went out to a small animal sanctuary and could have well done with longer reach in certain situations.
Click to expand...

what about carrying the Nikon 55-200 in your pocket and just swapping when needed - I have the non VR one think it was about 70 notes secondhand.

This is a pic with it straight from my camera on friday (no cropping or fancy stuff !!) :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjhudson/5670270849/

5670270849_d9a06ca594.jpg


You already have a smashing lens to go from 18-70 so in my mind you are wasting money by duplicating that range with the 18-200 - it isn't that much of a mind to swap lenses and the 55-200 is really small and light.

This would also leave you the option to in future get the really nice 70-300 VR or even the mega dear 70-200/2.8.
 
Thanks Tim, its certainly an option to think about, although i'm really drawn to the convienience of one 18-200 lens rather than carrying 2 lens. (y)

So is a 18-200 better than 18-70 and a 55-200 combo? :thinking:

I've read the 55-200 is slow to auto-focus? Is the 18-200 quicker/better?
 
Went to a local store yesterday and tried the 18-200 on a D3100 body and its not that much heavier or larger than my 18-70...... so I think i'm going to get the 18-200...... It seems like its the "do it all" lens for me.

I've put a wanted thread up the classifieds if anyone is thinking of selling: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=317624
(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top