Thinking about getting the Nikon 18-200 AF-S DX VR

[WORDSWORTH]

I read alot of mixed reviews about the Nikon 18-200 AF-S DX VR lens.

I love the idea of having a single lens with so much flexibility and as I have the D60, the auto-focus and image stabilisation is a must.

Can anyone recommend a lens other than this with the same functions and range?

Im new to photography and want to get off on the right track, any advice is much appreciated!!

[Yandros]

Either get the Nikon 18-200VR, or the 16-85VR+70-300VR, depending on if you want the added reach.

The 18-200 is my 'swiss army knife' lens that is a perfect companion to other more specialist lenses (in my case superwide and macro). If you're looking for a good travel lens - look no further. I'll let some pics do the talking.

18-200VR does Rome, Kew, Chatsworth House, Leeds Castle, Sutton Hoo and Colchester Zoo...

D200+18-200VR @18mm, 100ISO 1/45th sec f7.1

D200+18-200VR @18mm, 400ISO 1/10th sec f5.6

D200+18-200VR @18mm, 800ISO 1/8th sec f3.5

D200+18-200VR @20mm, 100ISO 1/40th sec f4.5

D200+18-200VR @42mm, 320ISO 1/15th sec f7.1

D200+18-200VR @65mm, 400ISO 1/40th sec f5.6

D200+18-200VR @105mm, 100ISO 1/250th sec f5.3

D200+18-200VR @200mm, 320ISO 1/125th sec f7.1

D200+18-200VR @200mm, 320ISO 1/350th sec f7.1

D200+18-200VR @200mm, 640ISO 1/2000th sec f5.6 (heavy crop)

[Gingerbillc]

Nothing in this range touches it. Super fast focus and the vr is better than the kit vr too. One thing to note, you'll need an external flash as the onboard is u/s with this lens, it's too big.

Far better post than mine came in before me as I was posting.

[ingie79]

it looks like this lens must be pretty good then.

only thing, its pretty expensive. more expensive than the actual camera

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by ingie79

it looks like this lens must be pretty good then.

only thing, its pretty expensive. more expensive than the actual camera

A cheaper alternative is the 18-105VR (the new kit lens for the D90 and about £195 on its own). To be honest I don't use the 105-200 range much, and when I do, I wish I had the 70-300VR, as 200mm is too short for some wildlife.

The main advantage of the 16-85VR and 18-200VR is better build quality compared to the cheaper VR zooms (metal vs plastic mount for a start) so you're largely paying for that, rather that optical quality. I think the VR is slightly better too.

[Gingerbillc]

Originally Posted by ingie79

it looks like this lens must be pretty good then.

only thing, its pretty expensive. more expensive than the actual camera

But don't forget the advice the experts tell you is invest in good glass. 2nd hand 18 months old they fetch over £300, your camera won't. Ow and don't forget (as I did) the filter size is 72mm so you'll need new filters- if you use them that is. And you'll need a speedlite if this is going to be your stay on lens, that goes for any 'super zooms'.

[johnaalex]

I am an other fan of the 18-200VR if you can afford it, buy one

As has already been said good lenses can often cost more than the camera, but the hold their value and will enable you to get the best out of your camera.

The only cloud on the horizon is the debate over the future of DX sensors with the growing number of FX cameras being launched. I am not sure how well the 18-200 would work with FX, but I don't think you should worry about that now as DX is going to be around for some time yet (I hope )

[mij]

I have had the Nikon 18-200 VR on a D40 for most of this year and have never felt the need for another lens (Yet ), I used to have a 4 lens Sony kit and am finding that this combination gets much more use. I also use the SB400 flash with it as the built in flash will cast a shadow on the wider settings.

A cheaper alternative is the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS or maybe the recently announced Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF) Macro.

That great set of pictures Yandros has posted prove what it can do far better than any words.

[TarMoo]

I've got a 18-200VR. It is good, but not as sharp as the Nikon f2.8 zoom lenses. Having got used to the excellent quality of the f2.8 105VR I am not thinking of getting a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 when I get some cash.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by TarMoo

I've got a 18-200VR. It is good, but not as sharp as the Nikon f2.8 zoom lenses. Having got used to the excellent quality of the f2.8 105VR I am not thinking of getting a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 when I get some cash.

I can't really tell much difference between the 18-200VR and my Tokina 12-24m f4 (and the Tokina is supposedly as sharp as the £600 Nikon 12-24mm), so once you add VR into the mix, the 18-200 is preferrable for a lot of walkaround stuff.

My 50mm f1.8 is definitely sharper, as is the 105mm f2.8 VR of course (but then a £500 prime should be!).