Is the Nikon 18-200mm zoom a good choice?

K

kartracer

Messages
1,178
Edit My Images
No
Previously I've used FX, and Nikon primes. Now I'm using a secondhand D90 with a secondhand Nikon 18-70mm. Previously I got a loan of the 35mm prime but found it not wide enough (equivalent to 50mm) so ruled that out as a walkabout lens. I like shooting wide, but find I need more zoom, mainly for sporting events. So, I'm tempted by the 18-200mm (don't care much whether its the VRI or VRII) and I've seen the earlier version new for around 450.00, and used for under 400.00.

But, after the 18-70mm, I'm concerned about softness of the 18-200mm. One review I read said the way to overcome softness is to use manual focus, with VR. I know the 70-300mm gets great reviews, but I'd not be using it very often, as I tend to shoot wide more often than not. And whilst the 70-300mm would fit with my 18-70mm I'd find it a pain to cart around. The 18-200 would not be a lot bigger or heavier than the 18-70mm.

Somewhere down the road I'd like to get a Sigma 10-20mm, or maybe the Tokina 12-24mm. So I thought the 18-200mm might be a good choice, and then the superwide later.

So my lenses might be:

10-20, 18-70, 70-300 (maybe the sharpest options?)
10-20, 18-200mm

Maybe I should go for the 70-300mm - what do you all think? Or given its fall-off over 200mm, maybe the 18-200mm and use manual focus at the long end?
 
I had the 18-200 and regret selling it, but then again, I am now FF so it's no good to me.

I would buy it again in an instant if i had a dx camera.
 
The 18-70 DX is better than the 18-200 VR throughout the overlapping range and up to 2/3rd of a stop faster once you get past 50mm.

Look at the 55-200 VR to get you to 200mm - much cheaper than the 18-200 VR and sharper. The 55-200 VR actually works quite well on a full frame camera too..!
 
As a walkabout lens it's fantastic, if I'm off on a trip out with the other hald somewhere and not allowed to take loads of gear I generally just use the 18-200, great for closeup stuff too
 
The 70-300 VR is a very good lens and even at 300mm gave me some very good images, all pretty sharp. The 18-200 can be soft, but you do get the benefit of an 'all in 1 lens'. I think if you want convenience, get the 18-200, if you want better quality images then you need to go for the 70-300 or 55-200
 
I have the 18-200 and love it, mostly for its convenience but I also get good sharp images, as for "better quality images" with the 70-300, would you get the images if you were changing between the UWA and the 70-300? Thats why I have the 18-200 so I dont have to change, and its also why I generally only carry one lens at a time.

FYI I also have the Nikkor 10-24 and use that a lot too.

Nick.
 
kartracer said:
Previously I've used FX, and Nikon primes. Now I'm using a secondhand D90 with a secondhand Nikon 18-70mm. Previously I got a loan of the 35mm prime but found it not wide enough (equivalent to 50mm) so ruled that out as a walkabout lens. I like shooting wide, but find I need more zoom, mainly for sporting events. So, I'm tempted by the 18-200mm (don't care much whether its the VRI or VRII) and I've seen the earlier version new for around 450.00, and used for under 400.00.

But, after the 18-70mm, I'm concerned about softness of the 18-200mm. One review I read said the way to overcome softness is to use manual focus, with VR. I know the 70-300mm gets great reviews, but I'd not be using it very often, as I tend to shoot wide more often than not. And whilst the 70-300mm would fit with my 18-70mm I'd find it a pain to cart around. The 18-200 would not be a lot bigger or heavier than the 18-70mm.

Somewhere down the road I'd like to get a Sigma 10-20mm, or maybe the Tokina 12-24mm. So I thought the 18-200mm might be a good choice, and then the superwide later.

So my lenses might be:

10-20, 18-70, 70-300 (maybe the sharpest options?)
10-20, 18-200mm

Maybe I should go for the 70-300mm - what do you all think? Or given its fall-off over 200mm, maybe the 18-200mm and use manual focus at the long end?
Click to expand...
I have two of the three lenses you mention in the top line of the two; the 18-70 and the 70-300VR.
With the 70-300 the fall off above the 200 mark is really not that great....I think its still very sharp even at 300mm. Yes, the 70-300 isnt a small bit of kit but its really not that big a deal to carry it around in my bag....the 18-200 is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the 18-70 as well.
I find that I pretty much know in advance when i'll need the longer zoom so its not a case of trying to quickly change lenses and missing the shot.
I had the similarly sized tamron 18-270 before i got the two Nikon lenses and I must say I dont miss it; from the point of view that it was bit of a lump to have sitting on the front of your camera and also the quality of the two shorter range zooms by Nikon is far superior. I'm sure the Nikon 18-200 is a bettter lens than the Tamron though.
Incidentally, I'm now saving for the exact same Sigma 10-20mm or maybe if i can stretch a bit (well quite a lot actually!!:bang:), the Nikon 12-24.

Neil
 
The 18-200mm is a bit of an attention whore, it'll make any lenses in that range redundant... In my opinion if you already have any lenses that cover any part of that range, it's not worth buying it really. I considered getting it until someone made the point that my 18-55mm vr covers some of the range the 18-200mm offers already. I went ahead and got the 70-300mm VR instead, and don't regret it one bit, it's a fantastic lens.
 
Thanks for all the helpful input. Its not an easy decision. I hadn't thought of the 55-200mm, but thats a nice suggestion - nice price too. Keeping the 18-70mm, and adding the 70-300mm has its merits, and the extra reach would be useful for motorsports, etc. How is it at the 70mm end? I do a lot of portraits too.

I'll go for the Sigma 10-20mm later, can't justify the Nikon as it would be sat idle for more time than the other lenses. But the cheapest options are the 55-200mm (140.00) now and 10-20mm later (350.00).

Its true to say that most occasions I'd use a longer focal length, I'd have a bag of kit with me anyway. Though I don't like having kit sat idle, I'd cover 10-300mm with those 3 lenses. I've not seen the 70-300mm VR for less than 390.00 - does that sound about right?

PS I'm not a big fan of using lens hoods - do any of those lenses suffer from excessive flare? I read somewhere that the 18-200mm VR II (later) version had new coatings..
 
kartracer said:
Thanks for all the helpful input. Its not an easy decision. I hadn't thought of the 55-200mm, but thats a nice suggestion - nice price too. Keeping the 18-70mm, and adding the 70-300mm has its merits, and the extra reach would be useful for motorsports, etc. How is it at the 70mm end? I do a lot of portraits too.

I'll go for the Sigma 10-20mm later, can't justify the Nikon as it would be sat idle for more time than the other lenses. But the cheapest options are the 55-200mm (140.00) now and 10-20mm later (350.00).

Its true to say that most occasions I'd use a longer focal length, I'd have a bag of kit with me anyway. Though I don't like having kit sat idle, I'd cover 10-300mm with those 3 lenses. I've not seen the 70-300mm VR for less than 390.00 - does that sound about right?

PS I'm not a big fan of using lens hoods - do any of those lenses suffer from excessive flare? I read somewhere that the 18-200mm VR II (later) version had new coatings..
Click to expand...

I was maybe a bit lucky and managed to get mine from ebay for £300 used and its a very nice, sharp copy. Dont be worried about buying 2nd hand, most photographers really look after their lenses; mine is mint and with box etc etc......there is a reasonable selection on there now actually http://shop.ebay.co.uk/i.html?_nkw=...ters_JN&_odkw=nikon+70-300mm&_osacat=0&bkBtn=
with a couple of auctions too rather than the buy it now listings.
As to the flare....well, i have always used mine with the lens hood so cant really comment other than ALL the reviews I have ever read about this lens say flare and ghosting is almost non-existant. Incedentally, this lens also has the VRII rather than the first Mk.1 system on some other Nikon lenses. Have a look and see what Mr Rockwell says!!!:D http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm#flare
 
I've decided, initially, to go with a 18-200mm just to see how I get on with it. The decision was swung in part, because someone wanted to buy my 18-70mm. I'll see how I get on with the 18-200mm in terms of weight, and results. If its OK, I'll get the Sigma 10-20mm next.

I was almost going along with Ken Rockwell's suggestion of the 12-24 (though I'd go Sigma due to cost...), 35mm f1.8, and 55-200MM VR. But, having experienced the 35mm f1.8 (its a fine lens) I found it not wide enough to keep on my camera. If it were really 35mm, and not 50mm equivalent, that would have done the trick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top