18-200mm lenses

[NateNLogansDad]

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.

Nikon version or Sigma?

 

[mrcricket]

I'm going on a trip to the west coast this week and kept struggling with which lenses to take with me. After much research and angst, I finally decided to order the Nikon 18- 200 VR II lens. I'll take it and my 35mm 1.8 for low light situations and that's it. Just 2 lenses. I'm so excited! Traveling light is important to me, but having lens options are too. I know there are some tradeoffs with this lens, but the fact I can keep just one lens on my camera during the day and cover almost all the situations I'll be shooting in is a benefit that I've never experienced. Any of you have this lens? If so, any pointers for overcoming some of the shortcomings of this lens? Any help will be appreciated.

 

[mrcricket]

Nikon version or Sigma?

From DPreview.com concerning the Sigma:

"In terms of operation and ergonomics, the 18-250mm scores pretty highly. The HSM autofocus is fast, silent and positive, and probably on a par with Canon and Nikon's own image stabilized superzooms - this is important when you want to grab quick shots of moving subjects. The zoom action is impressively smooth and even in feel for a lens with such a long range, and our sample also showed no inclination towards zoom creep (i.e. the tendency for the zoom mechanism to extend under its own weight), which is a common affliction of superzoom designs. Of course that enormous zoom range is compelling in itself - and hugely useful in situations when changing lenses is undesirable or inconvenient.

The optical stabilization system, however, is some way short of the best we've used, and perhaps the weakest link of the package. It works reasonably well towards the wide end, giving about three stops benefit, but disappointingly is at its least effective at telephoto, where we got at best two stops stabilization (compared to 4 stops from the best performers in this class). This is problematic because it's where you need it most; indeed the combination of the long focal length, slow F6.3 maximum aperture, and ineffective OS means that on anything other than a bright, sunny day, you'll find yourself struggling for light, and needing to boost the ISO significantly to get usable results."

Personally, I just ordered the Nikon 18 - 200 VR II for my trip this week. Image stabilization is very important for the longer shots, and 4 stops is impressive. That is why I chose the Nikon.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I realized early on I did not particularly enjoy changing lenses. So I went from the kits to an 18-180 (Olympus) and never looked back (which is now my son's as he has my first dSLR and lenses and I upgraded both). If I did sacrifice quality - which I don't think I did, if anything I was able to get better shots as a more relaxed photographer - then it was well worth it. (BTW I am back to changing lenses again. )

My wife took the Boards yesterday and found out today that she passed! She's officially a registered nurse!!!!!!

Congratulations from a fellow RN.

 

[mrcricket]

I recently watched a web video with Jay Maisel and he made a statement that I think could apply to your question. When asked why he'll shoot his on the street shots at 1600 ISO, he stated "I'm concerned with picture quality, not pixel quality". He doesn't want to miss the shot because of having too slow a shutter speed and have it turn out blurred. Now bear with me, but I think this apply's to lenses as well. If you miss a shot because you are changing lenses or you didn't bring the "right" lens, then I think an 18 -200 makes sense. I would rather get the shot with a slightly inferior lens than not get the shot at all because I didn't have an 18mm or a 200mm or whatever. Sometimes we just can't have our bag of gear with us. In those instances we must chose the lens of our choice and pray we get the shot.

 

[Janell]

I am really new to all of this, still learning how to take better photos. I love the Nikkor 18-200VR( I also have a 50mm) Im not one to switch lens often. So it works for me. I like to travel lightly. That may changes as I get better. I don't think you can go wrong with an 18-200, its a lot of fun.

 

[mom2rtk]

I've always loved my superzoom. But I have unsteady hands. I have traditionally had bad luck with my superzoom getting sharp images. I always blamed my unsteady hands, but now know it was partly because of my superzoom's small maximum aperture, especially when I zoom in. It got to the point that the zoom was almost worthless unless I was in bright sunshine. If it clouded over or got too close to dusk during one of my son's soccer game, I had to sit with the camera in my lap.

So my focus this year has been to get faster lenses. It's tempting to use the superzoom again, especially after dragging all that extra gear along on vacation. I'm still torn. I love the convenience of it, but have also really enjoyed getting faster shutter speeds out of my camera!

 

[DebºoºS]

Congratulations!
It's really been the perfect walking around lens for me. Especially at WDW when weight is an issue. Combined with the Sigma 30mm I feel like I can get just about any shot.

 

[mrcricket]

Congratulations!
It's really been the perfect walking around lens for me. Especially at WDW when weight is an issue. Combined with the Sigma 30mm I feel like I can get just about any shot.

Thanks. I'm excited to get it. Your combo sound very much like mine. I'll take the 18-200 along with my Nikon 35m f1.8. I think I'll be more than covered with just 2 lenses.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

Sounds awesome! When you get back please post how it worked out and maybe if you would do anything different if you could do it all again. I'm thinking of selling my 2 kit lenses and getting either the Nikon 18-200 or the Sigma 18-250 as my main lens and having my 35 mm 1.8 as my low light also.

 

[mrcricket]

Sounds awesome! When you get back please post how it worked out and maybe if you would do anything different if you could do it all again. I'm thinking of selling my 2 kit lenses and getting either the Nikon 18-200 or the Sigma 18-250 as my main lens and having my 35 mm 1.8 as my low light also.

If you can afford it, go with Nikon. From what I've read the Sigma is okay, but it is slower and the Vibration Reduction isn't as good as the Nikon. All that adds up to a really slow lens and that can be frustrating. The 35mm 1.8 is a great little lens and I use it often. Sometimes I force myself to use just that and I think I wind up taking better shots for some reason. Limitations usually forces one to be more creative which equals better shots.

Oh, and I will post shots from the new lens in a couple of weeks when I get back. The Oregon coast should give me plenty of raw material for some good subject matter.

 

[annnewjerz]

Nikon version or Sigma?

I see this hasn't been answered yet and just figured I would jump in...Tom has (IIRC) the Nikon version of the 18-200.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

I really want a new lens........

 

[zackiedawg]

It got to the point that the zoom was almost worthless unless I was in bright sunshine. If it clouded over or got too close to dusk during one of my son's soccer game, I had to sit with the camera in my lap....It's tempting to use the superzoom again, especially after dragging all that extra gear along on vacation. I'm still torn. I love the convenience of it, but have also really enjoyed getting faster shutter speeds out of my camera!

Your point is true - with most superzooms, you're lucky to start around F3.5, and that's at wide end...most fall into the F6 or smaller at full zoom...so it definitely won't compete with a nice F2.8 prime at the long end.

However, don't throw out the superzoom lens because they take on a whole new usefulness as you upgrade your camera body. On my last camera, my 18-250 was limited to daytime use, or the occasional long-exposure night shot...anything in low light was pointless, as I would be dealing with super-slow shutters and blur, or horrible noise from high ISO. But with my camera body now shooting clean ISO6400s, I can use the 18-250 even in low light situations, cloudy days, etc. Most of the new batches of cameras are very clean and detailed well into the high ISOs - 3200 at least, and often even 6400. So the overall versatility of the superzoom lenses depends on how well your camera can raise the ISO to get faster shutters to compensate for the lens' aperture limitations.

 

[mom2rtk]

Your point is true - with most superzooms, you're lucky to start around F3.5, and that's at wide end...most fall into the F6 or smaller at full zoom...so it definitely won't compete with a nice F2.8 prime at the long end.

However, don't throw out the superzoom lens because they take on a whole new usefulness as you upgrade your camera body. On my last camera, my 18-250 was limited to daytime use, or the occasional long-exposure night shot...anything in low light was pointless, as I would be dealing with super-slow shutters and blur, or horrible noise from high ISO. But with my camera body now shooting clean ISO6400s, I can use the 18-250 even in low light situations, cloudy days, etc. Most of the new batches of cameras are very clean and detailed well into the high ISOs - 3200 at least, and often even 6400. So the overall versatility of the superzoom lenses depends on how well your camera can raise the ISO to get faster shutters to compensate for the lens' aperture limitations.

You make a very good point I hadn't considered. And I HAD been back and forth about selling it. But to be honest, I'm not sold yet on carting all those other lenses all the time. It MIGHT just keep me from selling it in the near future.

I keep my camera under warranty, and historically they replace it any time something even minor happens. I have upgraded every year or 2 with the warranty since 2004. So my next step up would be to the T1i or the T2i with higher ISO capabilities.

 

[alan]

I have the Sigma 18-200OS on my Canon, and my experience is that it's best at f8 or so. It produces pictures that are more than acceptable!

 

[mrcricket]

I've had the nikon 18- 200 for just 4 days and I'm already loving it. As a travel lens this thing works great. Walking around with just one lens allows me to really enjoy my vacation and gets some good shots. Can't wait to get back home and see the images on my computer.

 

[mrcricket]

Sounds awesome! When you get back please post how it worked out and maybe if you would do anything different if you could do it all again. I'm thinking of selling my 2 kit lenses and getting either the Nikon 18-200 or the Sigma 18-250 as my main lens and having my 35 mm 1.8 as my low light also.

Here's an HDR shot with the new 18-200. After spending a week with this lens, I don't know why I waited so long to get it. I never took it off my camera and only once did I think I needed my 35m 1.8 lens and I didn't have that with me, but the 18-200 pulled through anyway. I'll post more as I can. I took well over a thousand shots and that's a lot to process.

This shot was shot at 18mm, f11, iso 200. And I used a tripod.

 

[curtiswheat]

Love the shot!

 

[mrcricket]

A few more shots with the Nikon 18 -200 super zoom

Focal: 24mm; f/1; 1/200; ISO 200

Focal: 170mm; f/9; 1/320; ISO 200

Focal: 38mm; f/5; 1/80; ISO 1100

Focal: 18mm; f/9; 1/320; ISO 320

I think the lens is very good for traveling and offers up some nice results. It will become my travel lens from now until they make something better. I'm very pleased.