JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

My lovely wifey gifted me with a Nikon D7000 nearly six years ago, just a few weeks before the D7100 was released. The D7000 came with an AF-S Nikkor 18-200 f3.5/5.6 GII ED DX lens.

I've gotten good service from this lens, which covers most of my usage needs.

I am curious as to what sort of performance any of you who might also have used this particular lens have gotten.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

If you have a Photographer's eye, and can see good compositions and light, then the lens you use is irrelevant. I got an award on a on line photo critique with an image I took with a POS Canon Powershot while hiking down the Matterhorn in Zermatt. What stood out was the subject and composition. Eventually, you'll get to the point with your D7000 where you want longer reach or faster aperture. Then, get something else. Until then, keep on clicking.

mharvey

I have a friend who has that same lens and wanted to try it in my D810 during an air show.
I was amazed, and he was pleased!
It was practically impossible to tell the difference in quality between the DX “kit” lens and my Nikkor FX 80-400!

DTran

Regardless of sharpness I thought it would be easy to tell them apart due to their different focal length and image circle.

mharvey

Sure. But the aircraft that were photographed, displayed at identical sizes, were virtually indistinguishable.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The Nikon 18-200mm lens is a popular lens. It is better suited on your camera, rather than the customary Nikon 18-55mm kit lens. If you desire a longer range, you may want to sell your 18-200mm, and go for a Nikon 18-300mm, or Tamron's new 18-400mm. Which is having great reviews on this forum.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I shoot Pentax but I know the situation can be the same for many Nikon lenses. I have a kit Pentax-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and a fancy Pentax-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 lens, for actual pictures the images are hard to tell apart. The comparisons were with my Pentax K-20D (14MP), and Pentax K-5 (16MP) cameras. I might see a difference with my new to me used K-3 (24MP).

If you compared your kit lens to a similar Nikon FX lens you might see a difference. ???



And to OP, JaiGieEse: Also seriously consider rgrenaderphoto's good non-GAS reply and advice. Just shoot and practice.

Bill_de Loc: US

I got this lens in a kit with my D300. While I dumped the 18-55 that came with another camera, this one still sits front and center in my camera cabinet. Most often I use it with a D7200, but I still have one D300 and will occaisionally pair these 2 up for old times sake.

It performs flawlessly.

--

mharvey

I don’t have a “kit” lens (it was my friend’s). But it WAS compared with my $2,000.00+ Nikkor 80-400 and was remarkably similar in image quality.

CO

I've used the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. What bothers me about superzoom lenses is that they usually have a lot of barrel distortion at wide angle settings and a lot of pincushion distortion at long focal lengths. I noticed that with the 18-200mm. I have the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. It has one-half the distortion of Nikon's superzoom lenses. If I need a longer focal length I use my Nikon 70-300mm or 80-400mm.

mharvey

I use my 70-200 and 80-400 Nikkors as well...But I love to experiment.
Today I borrowed a neighbor's 55-200mm DX and used it on the D850!
Using a high quality resolution chart, with the "auto DX crop" setting engaged, images with the "cheapo DX" were virtually indistinguishable from those using
the Nikkor 80-400 at the same image scale!The only noticeable difference is some slight CA in the DX lens under certain lighting conditions.
Still scratching my head.

PS- the big Nikkor is an exceptionally fine example. I loaned it to a ladyfriend today and with that lens and her D800 she took some shots of nesting Great Blue Herons that are as good as anything you'll see in National Geographic.

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

The earliest version of this lens was "made in Japan" later versions now are all "made in China". I still retain this lens in my arsenal because it is so sharp. The first version of this lens did not have a lens lock, this first lens had the reputation of zooming out on it's own when folks carried it around. Your second version got a lens lock to prevent this. Although I find when it is not locked the lens does not creep much at all.
Anyway, your lens is super sharp and it was one of the original "walk around lenses". When it first came out their was quite the waiting list for it, much like the wait for the D850 today. KEEP THIS LENS AND USE IT, WORKS GREAT. On trips I used to pair this lens with the 10-24 Nikon and I could just about cover any situation with the pair. Your lens still gets positive reviews on the B&H web site. Enjoy.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

The Nikkor 18-200 DX lens is/was a decent lens. On a DX camera it does a decent job and is a good DX all in one lens. If it is used on a Nikon FX camera, the camera will either shift to "DX" mode in order to fill the sensor with image (the DX image is 2/3rds roughly of the FX image) so the image would give a general appearance of a 37-300mm lens. Personally, I have a couple of DX lenses and they are okay but not great. All in one lenses (which category yours falls into) tend to try to be okay at everything and not great at any one thing. I have used and to recommend the wide to telephoto lens for trips where you may not want to carry 2 or more lenses due to weight or the time it takes to change lenses.. like traveling in a city in a foreign country and you want to easily shoot street scenes or the top of a tower. This and lenses similar are good for this. But, you must remember that a "all-in-one" lens is a compromise on much if it's focal length. You're probably familiar with the saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none". This fits the Nikkor 18-300mm, 18-200mm and the other lenses in that category. Don't get me wrong. All are decent lenses for an all-in-one. But ANY telephoto (and I have and love my telephoto lenses) is a compromise in image quality across the focal length. And being a DX lens, it just adds to the compromise. Kit lenses are inexpensive for a reason. But, they do fulfil a need. I have a 10-24mm Tamron... and it has issues. I have an 18-70 Nikkor DX. Its really a decent lens for a DX kit. And I have a Nikkor FX 70-300mm kit lens. The 70-300 Nikkor is very light weight and is an AF lens vs an AFS lens. I also have a Nikkor AF 80-400mm lens with is a professional grade (but the older version) lens. It probably weights 10 times what the 70-300mm kit lens does even though both are FX. One reason is that it has VR (2 levels) and various other features. The images are significantly better. (and not just because of the additional 100mm reach. My 70-300mm lens was my favorite lens until I got the 80-400. Now the 70-300 ONLY gets used on the wife's D7000 when it gets used at all.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I had that lens on my D7000 and later on the D7100. Very nice lens.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

POS or P&S? Or both?