What do you think of this lens to be multi-purpose use as landscape, travel and portrait Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX VR II Zoom Lens *
Any others recommendation ?
What do you think of this lens to be multi-purpose use as landscape, travel and portrait Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX VR II Zoom Lens *
Any others recommendation ?
Hi Adrian and welcome to CiC.
I had a look at this lens when i upgraded my camera but I had others so it didn’t really compliment my range. From what I understand this is a good all purpose lens.
My personal reason for not looking more seriously at this lens is that it has an 11 times optical range and I find lenses tend to suffer from barrel distortion and clarity issues at the extreme ends of their range when makers try to extend the zoom range too far. I prefer to try and keep my zoom ranges to around 4 time optical zoom. Having said that I did purchase a Nikor 16 – 85 zoom that I am very happy with. My other lens covers the range of 70 – 300 so each lens overlaps the other.
Hi Adrian,
I do have this lens, well actually the slightly older version (VR1, not VR2), but other than that I think it's the same beastie.
I like it - yes, it is a wide range, but that's why I got it (instead of a kit lens) - I was used to same range on a bridge camera and didn't want to be swapping lenses all the time, nor be restricted by a kit lens that stops at 55, 70 or even 105mm.
It obviously has some compromises due to this wide range, but none are so bad I would consider replacing it with anything other than a wider aperture versions, see all that I have in my signature. Size wise it is same diameter and really isn't much longer than the kit lens, although a bit heavier. It is definitely a 'do anything' lens and goes on for travel and general use.
I haven't found barrel distortion to be a problem, but that might be because I shoot wildlife, not buildings so much. It's biggest problem at 18mm is CA (chromatic abberation) but this is fine by 24mm and I see worse from some non-Nikon lenses here.
I got the Nikon 70-300mm for the extra reach for wildlife - another one I like.
If you have a kit lens, maybe that would be a better choice, but I don't regret buying it.
Cheers,
I'd rather prefer the 16-85mm VR coupled with the 70-300 VR.
tbh if i am going out on a non specific shoot (by that i mean if i am going into town and want to take my camera in case a good photo op turns up) i take just the 18-200mm (vr1), its small enough to be inconspicuous and 200mm on my D200 is great for close ups,
its an everyday type of lens that is nearly always attached to that camera, you can guarantee i would have the wrong lens attached if i used either 50mm prime or 70-200 2.8, its great for candids, cheers martyn
If you are after a one-lens option then there aren't many options and the 18-200mm will serve you well.
If you don't mind carrying two lenses then I'd agree with uspandey and go the 16-85 VR and the 70-300 VR (which will cost you twice as much). You could also look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for a constant f2.8 kit lens. You wouldn't have anything between 50mm and 70mm but who cares?
If you look at my equipment list you'll see I don't mind carrying a little weight, though
Good luck
Hi, I had the 18-200 VR1 but was not happy with it so bought a 70-200 f2.8 and a Sigma f2.8 24-70 HSM (which is a great lens, and well reviews alternative to a similar Nikkor).
tony
It is a great lens for what it does. Have used with the D90 and now use it with the D7000. Works great on both. Best thing about the lens is the range and the fact that you don't really need other lenses if you go walking.
The drawback is that it has its limitations but for most users this won't be a problem.
Finally, I bought the Nikon AF-S 18-200mm Len, and is having a lot of fun with it !!!