Nikon 18-200mm VR lens query

Hi, I've been using a Nikon D40 for a while and have since bought a
55-200mm VR lens. This seemed to be quite good value but I'm starting
to think it might have been better to spend the extra and get the
18-200mm VR lens. So I could effectively do away with the 18-55 kit
lens and the 55-200. Is this something I should be thinking about? I
don't have that much experience with DSLRs or lenses in particular, so
I am not sure what people normally do. Is it better to have a lot of
different lenses or try to whittle them down to a few 'all
ecompassing' lenses for multi-purpose.

Any advice would be great.

Thanks,

Neil

Greenbrightly wrote:
Hi, I've been using a Nikon D40 for a while and have since bought a
55-200mm VR lens. This seemed to be quite good value but I'm starting
to think it might have been better to spend the extra and get the
18-200mm VR lens. So I could effectively do away with the 18-55 kit
lens and the 55-200. Is this something I should be thinking about? I
don't have that much experience with DSLRs or lenses in particular, so
I am not sure what people normally do. Is it better to have a lot of
different lenses or try to whittle them down to a few 'all
ecompassing' lenses for multi-purpose.

Any advice would be great.

Thanks,

Neil

Neil,

I think that, had I been able to, I would have got the D40 and the
18-200mm VR. That would have served me very well. As it is, I have the
same combination as you, and have recently also bought the 70 - 300mm as
my interests also lie at the telephoto end. In some respects, I could now
sell on the 55-200 VR, and live with the gap between 55 and 70mm, but I
think I'll hang onto it as spare.

You undoubtedly do loose some pictures if you are changing lenses and, for
my style of photography, the 18 - 200mm VR would have been ideal. Light
and simple suits me best so the 18 - 55mm wins on weight and compact size,
but the 18 - 200mm wins on simple!

Cheers,
David

I have the Nikon 18-200VR.
It is a very heavy lens that is optically no better than the Sigma 18-200
non stabilized. I had both these lenses for awhile, I got the Nikon because
I needed the VR, and in my many sided by side comparisons the Nikon did not
win many if any and none at 18mm.
If you are not squeamish about distortion at the wide end you could use an
18-200 as an everyday all purpose lens as it is convenient to rely on one of
these SUV sized lenses for their zoom range. The 18-200s are great for
travelling/trekking. Mine have survived better than I did in a variety of
locales. But you will be toting around a behemoth camera/lens combination-I
believe the Nikon 18-200 is larger and heavier than the D40 camera body.
I would not get rid of your 18-55 as it is a visibly better performer at the
wide end of the zoom.
Before you tithe Nikon for an expensive, tanklike lens with mediocre optical
performance but excellent VR check out the Sigma 18-200 OS for a few hundred
dollars less. I own and have used the Nikon extensively and I strongly
recommend you check out the Sigma.

Greenbrightly wrote:
Hi, I've been using a Nikon D40 for a while and have since bought a
55-200mm VR lens. This seemed to be quite good value but I'm starting
to think it might have been better to spend the extra and get the
18-200mm VR lens. So I could effectively do away with the 18-55 kit
lens and the 55-200. Is this something I should be thinking about? I
don't have that much experience with DSLRs or lenses in particular, so
I am not sure what people normally do. Is it better to have a lot of
different lenses or try to whittle them down to a few 'all
ecompassing' lenses for multi-purpose.

That totally depends on what _you_ want to do.
- a single zoom with a large zoom range is typically more convenient. At the
low bugdet end typically it is also cheaper than several individual lenses.
- multiple lenses with shorter zoom ranges typically have better picture
quality with less distortion, in particular at the short and long ends of
their respective zoom areas.

Designing a zoom lens is always a struggle for compromise and much more so
when the zoom range is large like the 11x for the 18-200.

Highest quality and fastest lenses you can typically still only find in
lenses with fixed focal length.

jue

In article , flambe
wrote:

I have the Nikon 18-200VR.
It is a very heavy lens that is optically no better than the Sigma 18-200
non stabilized.

it's not 'very heavy' and it's much better than sigma's 18-200. look
at photozone's reviews, for instance.

But you will be toting around a behemoth camera/lens combination-I
believe the Nikon 18-200 is larger and heavier than the D40 camera body.

only slightly. the 18-200 is 560 grams and the d40 is 475 grams, and
the d40 is wider than the lens is long (when retracted).

Before you tithe Nikon for an expensive, tanklike lens with mediocre optical
performance but excellent VR check out the Sigma 18-200 OS for a few hundred
dollars less. I own and have used the Nikon extensively and I strongly
recommend you check out the Sigma.

the stabilization on the sigma is noticably worse than the nikon (it's
even visible in the viewfinder) and the lens is slower at the long end
(f/6.3) which can affect focus in non-ideal conditions. the price
difference is small, now that the nikon version is not hard to find
anymore. also, the sigma is even *heavier* than the supposedly 'very
heavy' nikon lens (610 grams versus 560 grams) as well as slightly
longer in length.

In article
,
Greenbrightly wrote:

Hi, I've been using a Nikon D40 for a while and have since bought a
55-200mm VR lens. This seemed to be quite good value but I'm starting
to think it might have been better to spend the extra and get the
18-200mm VR lens. So I could effectively do away with the 18-55 kit
lens and the 55-200. Is this something I should be thinking about? I
don't have that much experience with DSLRs or lenses in particular, so
I am not sure what people normally do. Is it better to have a lot of
different lenses or try to whittle them down to a few 'all
ecompassing' lenses for multi-purpose.

I went through the identical situation and decided to take the cheap way
out. The 55-200 was only $200, and the two lenses may have better
optics, although I really can't vouch for that.

The 70-300 was interesting, but it left a gap. Apparently there is an
18-70 that avoids that gap. Also, I figured if I ever really needed
anything beyond 200, which is about the same as a 300 on a 35mm camera,
I could always get a tele-converter. I've used them before, and while I
don't much like them, they are useful in an emergency.

Finally, if you decide to go with the 18-200, not only do you have to
spend a lot of money, but you have to get rid of the 18-55 and the
55-200.

People say DSLRs are more prone to dust problems than SLRs, so you want
to avoid changing lenses as much as possible. I think it might be
better to just try to avoid dusty locations as much as possible or be
prepared to have the right lens on your camera when you go in. So far I
haven't had a problem, but maybe it is because I have been able to avoid
changing lenses in dusty locations.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

Greenbrightly wrote:


Hi, I've been using a Nikon D40 for a while and have since bought a
55-200mm VR lens. This seemed to be quite good value but I'm starting
to think it might have been better to spend the extra and get the
18-200mm VR lens. So I could effectively do away with the 18-55 kit
lens and the 55-200. Is this something I should be thinking about? I
don't have that much experience with DSLRs or lenses in particular, so
I am not sure what people normally do. Is it better to have a lot of
different lenses or try to whittle them down to a few 'all
ecompassing' lenses for multi-purpose.

Any advice would be great.



The best optical quality of all comes from fixed focal length lenses.
The best pro zoom lenses come close to the performance of fixed focal
length lenses, but they cost a lot of money.

In the consumer price range, shorter zoom ratios tend to give better
optical quality. Longer zoom ratios tend to give poor quality. The
11X ratio of the 18-200mm is way past the point where you can expect
decent optical quality.

If you want to throw away the optical advantages of an DSLR over a
point and shoot, go buy an 18-200mm lens. They are all optically very
poor, so buy the cheapest 11X zoom that you can find. That way, you
will waste the minimum amount of money.

Sorry to be so terse, but after 10 years of reading people asking the
same questions in online forums, there has been no improvement
whatsoever in the optical qualities of 11X zoom lenses. So I get a
little impatient with people who think that they are worth buying.

;-)

On Jan 23, 7:57 am, Greenbrightly wrote:
Hi, I've been using a Nikon D40 for a while and have since bought a
... So I could effectively do away with the 18-55 kit
lens ...

Hi Neil,
One drawback to the 18-200 is that it blocks the built in flash at
wider angles. You might wish to keep the 18-55 to cover that situation
and perhaps be useful when weight is a concern.

-hank

The 18-200 is a good lens. Excellent walk around lens.
If you're sensitive about the 18 mm distortion it is easily fixed in most
software.
I've shot horse shows and jumps with it and it really keeps up with the auto
focus very nicely.
I can comfortably freeze a horse running or in the middle of a jump at
1/500th or more, outside, no problem.
Good VR that works.
Do I wish it was 2.8? Sure but it isn't, and shooting horse shows with just
one lens in places where there's lots of sand and mud flying around in the
wind and never have to change a lens is a pure luxury.

Who cares if the lens is bigger than the camera?
Have you seen this lens:
http://www.trademe.co.nz:80/Electron...-136607550.htm ?
? ? ?

Now, is the 18-200 as good as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G at 200?
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-200mm...2975&s r=8-10

Hell No!

You decide what is important to you.
Perhaps buying the 18-200 will keep you going for a while, or at least until
they make a camera that's bigger than the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G.

J

"Greenbrightly" wrote in message
...

Hi, I've been using a Nikon D40 for a while and have since bought a
55-200mm VR lens. This seemed to be quite good value but I'm starting
to think it might have been better to spend the extra and get the
18-200mm VR lens. So I could effectively do away with the 18-55 kit
lens and the 55-200. Is this something I should be thinking about? I
don't have that much experience with DSLRs or lenses in particular, so
I am not sure what people normally do. Is it better to have a lot of
different lenses or try to whittle them down to a few 'all
ecompassing' lenses for multi-purpose.

Any advice would be great.

Thanks,

Neil

"Greenbrightly" wrote in message
...

Hi, I've been using a Nikon D40 for a while and have since bought a
55-200mm VR lens. This seemed to be quite good value but I'm starting
to think it might have been better to spend the extra and get the
18-200mm VR lens. So I could effectively do away with the 18-55 kit
lens and the 55-200. Is this something I should be thinking about?

Depends on how much you hate changing lenses. I have all three of those and
like them all. In my opinion while the 18-200 VR is a wonderful lens to
have, it does not really replace the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 VR. The
18-55 is delightfully compact, light weight, sharp and exceptionally close
focusing. The 55-200 VR is also relatively compact and light (the 18-200 VR
is substantially heavier), very sharp and takes the same filter size as the
18-55 -- and filters in that 52mm size are much less expensive than the 72mm
ones the 18-200 requires. I don't really find most filters as important with
digital as they were with film, but I think a polarizer is a good thing to
have.

So whether or not you buy the 18-200 VR or whatever, I'd keep the 18-55 and
55-200 VR if I were you. That's a very nice pair of lenses. And selling them
would not bring you half the price of an 18-200 VR.

Neil