The infamous Nikon 18-200 AFS-VR I (Page 2): LensTip.com does excellent reviews and tests lenses in eleven or twelve different categories. They have tested both the Nikon 18-200mm AF-S...

CO

LensTip.com does excellent reviews and tests lenses in eleven or twelve different categories. They have tested both the Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR1 and VR2 versions. I went on their website and opened the review for the VR1 version. Open this link. When you get to the bottom of the page click on the different categories shown there.

http://www.lenstip.com/16.1-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_DX_18-200_mm_f_3.5-5.6G_IF-ED_VR-Introduction.html

I downloaded their image resolution charts for the lens center and lens edge. It looks like it's the sharpest in the 18-50mm range. It resolves about 42 line pairs per millimeter at 18mm and f/4 to f/5.6 in the center. That's pretty good. They were not disappointed with its chromatic aberration performance. They were disappointed with its ghosting and flare.

Image resolution at center
Image resolution at center...

Image resolution at edge
Image resolution at edge...

Revet Loc: Fairview Park, Ohio

I have the VR II version and I love it

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

JPL wrote:

They all look good to me also. Maybe your photographic skills are better than those of some of the critics to this lens.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Geegee wrote:

I have had the VR II version of this lens for four years and I have similar results. It is a great walk-about lens. What I also like is that I don't have to lug around and change lenses as often.

NoSocks Loc: quonochontaug, rhode island

I used this lens with my old D80 and it performed just fine. Then I dropped it face first on the beach. It made an uncomfortable grinding sound when zooming after that. But, surprisingly, it seemed to recover from that after some time and continued throughout to perform well. Finally sold it with full disclosure and the buyer was pleased. Gave the D80 to my daughter who immediately bought another 18-200 from KEH and is thrilled.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Thank you JSMangis for your comments. The 18-200 VR is as I have said already is a very versatile lens.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

When the 18-200 vr first came out, I bought one to use on my Fuji S2. It was really doing the job, so I bought one for my wife for her D200. My shoots were always better than hers. We changed lenses and the quality of the shots reversed in her favor. We eventually sold her 18-200 vr and kept mine. Although we now shot FX I decided to buy a D7200 refurb instead of losing a wonderful lens that shots clear and doesn't creep. It still works great on a higher resolution camera. Although the party that bought my wife's lens does nice work with it, there was a noticeable difference to me between the two copies. I've always wondered if the first set of lenses manufactured were made in different factories under different quality controls. I've also found the same thing true with my 24-120 vr. I think it takes very good pictures where other people complain about it's performance. I will have to agree that the 24-120 vr f4 does better, but not enough to upgrade to it for now. So, enjoy your 18-200. If the lens does the job, use it. Leon

londonfire Loc: NY to NC

I have the same v1 lens and use it all the time. Your #3 shot with the water drops is outstanding ( at least to me ).

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

[quote=camerapapi... Do you remember the first Nikon 24-120? An awfully bad lens, right? It was almost impossible to find someone pleased by the photographs made with that lens. I found it excellent in quality and even made good money with it shooting weddings.
I recommend anyone as I already said looking to buy a lens with a dubious reputation to rent it and test it. It is the only way to know if indeed the lens performs to one's satisfaction.
Ralph thank you for you comments on my mundane photography.[/quote]

It's interesting that you mentioned this lens, the old 24-120. I recently bought it from my local photo store. I knew that it is supposed to be not a good lens but I liked the size, the feel and the price. It gives me good results on my d7000, at f/8 it's very sharp, I like it a lot so far. So, you are right, you never know until you try.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Thank you Londonfire for your nice comments. Leon, how much a lens can vary from one copy to the other is unknown to me. Today and because of the technology, the lenses are not hand made anymore. I do not really know if Leica is still making all of their lenses by hand like they did in the past. Technology allows better tolerances than what the hand made can do.
I am more than satisfied with the performance of my copy. Creeping is not an issue with my lens and the infamous 135mm focal length performs to perfection in spite of all the bad reports I have heard.
The picture of the plant with the rain drops is a clear example of what the lens can do at 200mm wide open. The original is simply superb in optical quality.
All wide angle lenses are going to exhibit distortions if the lens is tilted and for extreme wide angles even if the lens is held level there will be distortions at the corners. All that is the result of the optical aberrations that go with such a wide angle of view. Many of those distortions can be corrected with software. This lens at 18mm is not any worse than others I have and although the distortions are there usually the camera corrects for them or as I said software can do the job. Many times I prefer those distortions because for my taste it makes the photograph different.
My lens was made in Thailand and I know that the original batch was made in Japan. How better is one against the other I do not really know.
What is important to know here is that a lens with a 13 X span of focal lengths is going to have compromises. In my initial tests with this lens and based only on my experience I have found that the 18-200 VR is a very good performer and although I have not had the time to make enlargements I am sure that for my needs it will not let me down. Nikon formulated this lens with 3 Aspherical surfaces and 2 LD glass and they have done a great job in such a versatile lens that renders images that in my humble opinion are very acceptable. Most of the images I have seen from others using this lens convinced me that it was the ideal lens I could buy for traveling.
I hope that the next time that I post images made with this lens they will be more interesting than these ones and for those that could still be interested in buying it I repeat that they should test it first to see if it meets their expectations.
Here is another hand held photograph with the lens wide open at 200mm.

(Download)

Elsiss Loc: Bayside, NY, Boynton Beach, Fl.

VR2 version on my d7000. G reat lens, especially for travel. Love it!

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

camerapapi wrote:

In the first place, these are only test images of a recently bought used lens so nothing extraordinary here. The images were shot around my backyard or at a near by public park. It is not my intention to dispute what many reviewers have said about this lens. I can only speak of my experience on the first couple of times that I have used it. As I keep on using the lens perhaps I will discover all of the bad attitudes that have been said about it but in the more than 20 images I have shot so far using different focal lengths and apertures my first impressions are very satisfactory.

I know that many of you own or have used this lens. I have no way to tell how you feel about it but I was kind of skeptical before I bought it reasoning that if I did not like it I could sell it right away. My initial images are very pleasant to my eyes and some of what has been said about the lens I have not been able to notice or reproduce.

This is the VR I lens, not the new one with VR II. The new lens has a switch for creeping. My copy has no creeping. Chromatic aberrations and flare are supposed to be bad with my lens. So far I have not seen that. At 135mm at any aperture the copy I have is supposed to be horrific in resolution. I did not experience that either even wide open. 200mm is supposed to yield very soft images, not my copy. Distortions at 18mm are called hard to correct but my lens should be a very good copy because or they are corrected in camera or it is very easily done with software and I am no expert when it comes to correcting perspective. The corners are supposed to be very soft but in these images that does not seem to bother me. Optically the general consensus is that both lens are identical.

In short, I cannot speak for others except on my own behalf and to my eyes the lens performs very nicely for an all purpose lens and all zooms with such a range of focal lengths are going to have compromises. If you are interested in a lens such as this I recommend that you rent one before buying it. Put it through its paces and then you can make a final decision.

The first image shot at 18mm at f18. According to all laws of optics at this opening softening must be evident due to refraction. I did not correct perspective.
The second image was shot to show flare and chromatic aberrations. If my old eyes do not betray me I see none.
The third image was shot at 200mm wide open. The lens is supposed to be very soft at 200mm but the original is superb in quality.
The fourth image was shot wide open at 135mm. It is said to be the worst setting for this lens. The original looks great.
The last image was shot at 70mm wide open.

I used RAW and JPEG files for these images in the sRGB color space at ISO 200 or 400. All images edited in Capture NX2 (RAW images only) and Photoshop using basic levels, contrast, color correction and mild sharpening.
I used my D7000 and it is said that the higher the pixel count of the camera the worse the results. I am not a pixel peeper but for a general all purpose lens such as this I am very satisfied with the results.

In the first place, these are only test images of ... (show quote)

I agree. I love the 18 - 200 VR 1. It has a permanent home on the front of my 5500. I think that the critics overestimate the value of laboratory results, when it is a combination of usefulness and image quality that counts in the real world.

Elsiss Loc: Bayside, NY, Boynton Beach, Fl.

CatMarley wrote:

I agree. I love the 18 - 200 VR 1. It has a permanent home on the front of my 5500. I think that the critics overestimate the value of laboratory results, when it is a combination of usefulness and image quality that counts in the real world.

Here, here!😉

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Look fine to me!

MtnMan Loc: ID

Images are fine.

Just to note something I recently learned about Nikon lens designations. The VR II does not mean it is adifferent version of the VR system. It means the lens is an updated version. The VR might be the same. Or not.