Patriot66 Loc: Minnesota

nikon af-s dx nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6g ed vr ii Just bought this lens because was not getting "sharp" pics from my Tamron 70-300. Does anyone have this lens and have comments good or bad?? Would like to think I made a good choice - thanks for the input.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

The answer falls to what you plan to shoot with this lens.
To me, since I shoot sports and wildlife this lens is not even an option. At 200mm it is a 5.6 lens. My 200mm lens is a 2.8 that is a full two f-stops faster than yours. That is a HUGE difference. So for me---no deal.

However, it all I was gong to shoot was flowers in my yard and some portraits of family and friends, the lens would be acceptable. It all comes down to what are you going to do with the lens.

Larry

Stef C Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA

haha i feel like you should've asked for reviews before you bought it :).

It's a good lens, but with any superzoom you're going to be sacrificing one thing for convenience and that is image quality.

Check out reviews at photozone. Ken Rockwell loves it, but he's lazy and doesn't want to change lenses all of the time.

It's not going to be as sharp as a prime, or even a mid range telephoto, but you also shouldn't really ever have to change lenses.

Patriot66 Loc: Minnesota

OK now I really feel like an idiot. Here is what I have: Kit 28-55 nikon, Zeiss 1.4 55 mm fixed, aforementioned 70-300mm Tamron (not thrilled with) and 200-500mm Tamron. Need something to fill the gap in the middle. I want a lens that will do wildlife (near), landscape and maybe a wide angle for group shots if needed. Looked at the site but that is complicated as well. ANY help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Rick

berchman Loc: South Central PA

It all depends on how much money you have to spend. My first lens was the previous model of the 18-200. I wasn't happy with it. I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 17-35 f/2.8 and I felt there was a big improvement. Get any of the Nikon FX pro lenses. The cheapest semi-pro which still is very good is the 24-120 f/4. I have it and like it a lot.

davpal Loc: long island

i have the 18=200 nikon and i am very happy with the quality of the pictures it may not be as sharp the 80-200 2.8 but
the price is reasnble as compared to the above also a lot lighter to carry. you have the wide angle plus the telephoto covered
use it at iso 400 and a fast shutter speed
there is no one lens made that can do every thing perfit comprise
in photography is a fact as in life

Stef C Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA

If you are covered and happy with your range up to 55mm, why invest in the 70-300 Nikon AF-S, or the cheaper 55-300. Both of these are decent quality. I think my 55-200 kit lens is nearly as sharp as anything out there that isn't a pro 2.8 lens.

Sigma also makes a 100-300 lens that has gotten great reviews.

stonecherub Loc: Tucson, AZ

How prescient. I have this same lens and am NOT happy with it. As you can see, I am a geologist working in a volcano field in Northwestern Mexico. I decided to get the 18-200 so that I would never have to change lenses in the dirt thinking the expected quality degradation of that long a range would justify never getting a camera full of sand. It cost a kilobuck and the results have been disappointing. Imagine hiking for a day over the lava and coming back with fuzzy pictures.

Interestingly, I have a friend who is a pro with the pro versions of the 18-55 and 55-200. I put his lenses on my camera focused on the 1952 Air Force target and found that my coke-bottle and his Nikkors resolved the same line sets. The target was on or near the optical axis of all lenses.

At 72, I don't know how many field seasons I have left in these old bones but I gotta get a better lens.

keekimaru

There are a lot of reviews comparing every feature of the lense. They are long, detailed, but more confusing than helpful. So I'll try to keep it short.

Let's say you a typical amature photographer. You take all kinds of pictures in all kinds of conditions. So what lense would be the best?

You can probably live with some minor distortions but nothing gives you as much freedom as a wide range zoom. If you shoot inside a room, you really need 18 m on a low end. The smaller the number the wider the angle and the more people you can squeeze into the frame from the other side of party table. Every mm here makes a big difference. So 18 mm on the low end is pretty much a must have. On the longer end, well, the bigger the better. However, if you that also means heavier and it also means much harder to take good pictures because on a long zoom range the camera gets less light, it's sensitive to shaking hands and the lense distortion is getting worse. Also it's more expensive.

More Detail : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002JCSV8A/tipfla-20

More Review : http://www.webcamerawebcamera.com/detail.php?id_detail=Nikon-18-200mm-f-3-5-5-6G-AF-S-ED-VR-II-Nikkor-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens-for-Nikon-DX-Format-Digital-SLR-Cameras&website=uglyhedgehog