18-200mm lenses

[boBQuincy]

From DPReview:
"...overall it will likely be outperformed optically by a cheaper combination of standard and telephoto zooms. So for a certain type of photographer interested mainly in absolute image quality, this may well cause it to be regarded as nothing more than an expensive snapshot lens.

But to dismiss the 18-200mm VR based purely on its optical quality is to miss the point quite fundamentally. The whole idea of such a lens is to allow the photographer to travel light and never miss a shot while changing lenses...".

 

[NateNLogansDad]

So when I read that, I'm taking it as "This is a good addition to your kit, but not necessarily a real replacement for the kit lenses."

 

[MICKEY88]

just buy a second body, then you won't have to swap lenses..

 

[NateNLogansDad]

Ain't gonna happen....I'm still stunned she let me get the one!

 

[ssanders79]

I say if she is cool with it then make the purchase. The 18-200 is a great lens to have when you want to travel light. I wish I had this lens sometimes as I sit an ponder what lens I should take when I only want to just have the camera. This lens would not solve all my scenarios, but it would make life a bit easier.

 

[photo_chick]

A lot of this comes down to personal tolerances and weighing the benefits to with the costs. While it wouldn't work for me, someone else could think it's the best lens ever.

 

[zackiedawg]

If I may be so bold and by no means intending to sound insulting...I personally believe that a large and vast majority of DSLR shooters are not skilled enough to be getting the most out of their cameras & lenses, so the lens may not be playing as important a role as reviewers and professionals say. In the hands of a good photographer who really knows how to maximize any lens' potential, their photography may be noticeably impacted by an all-in-one type zoom lens. But for the average user, it likely won't be noticeable at all.

And part 2 of that is - a very good photographer who knows how to get the most out of a lens will be able to get very good results out of even a travel-zoom type lens like the 18-200...there will be good shots and poor shots from that lens, just as any other. Could a good photographer have gotten better results with a more specialized lens at any particular focal length? Sure. But many might not. I think skill and knowledge needs to be considered, convenience vs compromise considered, and willingness to learn where the sweet spots are on the travel zoom lens to use it to the best of its ability needs to be considered.

Personally, I love having a travel zoom lens...and use it a ton. Mine's an 18-250, and I think I can do pretty well with it. I've also got a 30mm F1.4, a 50mm F1.7, and a 90mm F2.8 that all can do better than the 18-250 at their respective focal lengths...but the convenience and portability makes the 18-250 a justified and satisfying purchase that can still produce. As long as you've got the money and the permission, I'd say go for it. If you're an average photographer, you'll probably not see much difference in results, and if you're a great photographer, you'll probably be able to squeeze out the very best the lens can produce.

 

[KarenAylwood]

There are plenty of people that will say you're sacrificing quality by using it. I personally don't see a huge difference. I have the 18-55mm and the 18-200mm. Where I DO see a real difference is between my 18-200mm and my 24-105 f/4L but I should- I paid twice as much for it and it's L series glass!

I was in love with my 18-200mm and carried it everywhere before I got the 24-105, and even could possibly still use it for long distances (before I buy another lens of course )

The following were taken with the Canon version (at a mix of focal lengths from 18 to 200). The last two were taken at 200mm on the safari ride.

 

[WVDisGeek]

Even though I shoot Pentax and can't speak specifically to the quality of the Nikkor 18-200, I have a Pentax 18-250. I got this lens when I bought my body specifically so I could have most focal lengths covered in one lens. As others have correctly stated, you may compromise on quality comapred to primes or better zooms. However, it is a viable alternative when you want to travel light and it is more important to get THE shot than to get the PERFECT shot. I have had this lens on the camera when shooting with friends and got shots while they were changing lenses. If you play with it and know its limitations, it can be a valuable tool in your arsenal. It is still my favorite lens for the Safari at Animal Kingdom just because it covers so much range.

All that being said, Pentax has discontinued this lens so I may be crazy! Use my advice at your peril!

 

[NateNLogansDad]

I'm thinking I may be leaning towards going for the 18-200. Any thoughts on the Sigma version? I know the 30 1.4 is a favorite of some on the boards, I'm just leery when I compare prices to that of Nikon's glass. I see 1/2 the price which looks real nice but I keep telling myself you get what you pay for.......


P.S. Since I haven't mentioned it yet, thank you all for all your opinions and examples, it's really helping me decide!

P.P.S. My wife took the Boards yesterday and found out today that she passed! She's officially a registered nurse!!!!!! I'm thinking something in a 2.8 for Christmas

 

[annnewjerz]

I personally didn't have any issues with IQ from the Nikon 18-200 when I had it and for the time I used it, it was a GREAT lens to have. Convenience was the main benefit, followed by weight. Two things that were lacking were speed on the telephoto end (which made NO difference during the day) and a nice shallow DOF (which you probably aren't getting with your kit lenses anyway).

If you like the quality of the photos with the two kit lenses you have been using but hate switching out, I think the 18-200 would be perfect for you. I got rid of mine because it limited me in terms of the "look" I liked to get in my photos, but definitely don't regret ever getting it.

I can't speak for the Sigma or Tamron versions of the lens, but the Nikon was great. Wasn't too flimsy, came with a nice hood and pouch and I never experienced any issue with lens creep.

A very random sampling that isn't a great demonstration of what the lens can do...and unfortunately none from Disney, but this is what I was able to dig up in 10 minutes. I have loads more though on my SmugMug.

 

[rossb]

I've have an 18-55VR and an 18-200VR and I use them both with my D50 and D90. The 18-55VR is a bit sharper and it distorts less on the wide end, but it is not a huge deal unless you spend a lot of time pixel peeping at 100%. The 18-200 has a better build quality than the 18-55, but it is prone to zoom creep.

The 18-200 and the 10-24 make up the ultimate travel combo. I think you should buy the 18-200, but I would not use it 100% of the time. SLRs are made to work with more than one lens, use that to your advantage. I use a prime or the 18-55VR when I want the highest quality and I don't need long focals. The 18-200 is much heavier than the 18-55VR.

Here are samples taken with my 18-200:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4949354431/invite/7D28C3C554EA4860BF1A53C3ACBB69AF

Click the samples multiple times to bring them up in a large size.

 

[Chikabowa]

If I may be so bold and by no means intending to sound insulting...I personally believe that a large and vast majority of DSLR shooters are not skilled enough to be getting the most out of their cameras & lenses, so the lens may not be playing as important a role as reviewers and professionals say. In the hands of a good photographer who really knows how to maximize any lens' potential, their photography may be noticeably impacted by an all-in-one type zoom lens. But for the average user, it likely won't be noticeable at all.

And part 2 of that is - a very good photographer who knows how to get the most out of a lens will be able to get very good results out of even a travel-zoom type lens like the 18-200...there will be good shots and poor shots from that lens, just as any other. Could a good photographer have gotten better results with a more specialized lens at any particular focal length? Sure. But many might not. I think skill and knowledge needs to be considered, convenience vs compromise considered, and willingness to learn where the sweet spots are on the travel zoom lens to use it to the best of its ability needs to be considered.

Personally, I love having a travel zoom lens...and use it a ton. Mine's an 18-250, and I think I can do pretty well with it. I've also got a 30mm F1.4, a 50mm F1.7, and a 90mm F2.8 that all can do better than the 18-250 at their respective focal lengths...but the convenience and portability makes the 18-250 a justified and satisfying purchase that can still produce. As long as you've got the money and the permission, I'd say go for it. If you're an average photographer, you'll probably not see much difference in results, and if you're a great photographer, you'll probably be able to squeeze out the very best the lens can produce.

Very well stated.

 

[Master Mason]

The short answer is yes you will sacrafice quality, the long answer Zacky did a better job of saying than I could.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

I must say I feel a whole lot better after seeing some examples. You guys are the best! I have a habit of researching the heck out of something before I buy it so it'll happen soon, but not this week. As of right now I'm leaning toward the Sigma 18-250 but that could change before I go to bed I did a little research on it and it looks like it's getting some pretty good reviews but we will see.

If anyone want's to chime in with any other thoughts, I'll be more than happy to listen!

 

[NateNLogansDad]

b/t/w I've looked at everybody's pictures a bunch of times today and they really are beautiful shots!

 

[Icemann]

I"m a newbie like you,everyone has an opinion about len's and camera's it seems no two are alike. The one thing everyone agrees on is how it's used by that person,no matter what they use they should be able to take a decent picture with what they have.I use Tamron lens because I can't afford Nikon glass now.I have their 18-270 that's my walk around lens at WDW.I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Nikon 35 f1.8.I can't honestly tell the difference between the Nikon or Tamron glass but i don't spend hours or days in post trying to get that perfect picture either.I have no issues with Tamron glass.Sigma is good glass to,or so I've heard.Tell the wife congrats on her test.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

I"m a newbie like you,everyone has an opinion about len's and camera's it seems no two are alike. The one thing everyone agrees on is how it's used by that person,no matter what they use they should be able to take a decent picture with what they have.I use Tamron lens because I can't afford Nikon glass now.I have their 18-270 that's my walk around lens at WDW.I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Nikon 35 f1.8.I can't honestly tell the difference between the Nikon or Tamron glass but i don't spend hours or days in post trying to get that perfect picture either.I have no issues with Tamron glass.Sigma is good glass to,or so I've heard.Tell the wife congrats on her test.

Thanks I will tell her!

What's your walk around outside of WDW?

 

[Icemann]

Thanks I will tell her!

What's your walk around outside of WDW?

I pretty much use the18-270 in low light the 17-50.I'm going to Alaska in two weeks and I plan on using the 18-270 pretty much of the time,thats one reason I bought the lens in the first place

 

[WDWFigment]

The 18-200 kicks *** for beginner and intermediate photographers or anyone looking to travel light. Anyone who tells you otherwise is likely a gear snob or a professional who won't contemplate any travel lenses. If you look at EXIF data from my shots prior to my most recent trip, anything with a focal length between 18 and 200mm (that's not exactly 30 or 50) was taken with the 18-200.