As I develop as a photographer and learn my shooting style I'm starting to view zooms as a convenience. If I need the ultimate in speed or quality, I'll always turn to a prime. With that in mind this would be one heck of a convenience and would perfectly mate with a handful of nice primes.
I am getting addicted to OS/VR so...
I am just waiting for some serious reviews. If that lens is as good as it seems, I will definitely buy a copy, for the versatility (range + VR).
Given the fact that I plan on making the D200 my first SLR camera of any type, and I don't own any lenses, it looks like a great all around lens. I will be very interested to see how it performs at extremes. I also plan on getting the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 at the same time.
strange that so many might buy the lens depending on the price...
The price is known (in Europe you get (order) one for 650-700 Euro depending on the shop).
Lets see now, the points that I`m considering are
1......... the AFS 18-70 DX seems to illustrate that a Nikon 4X zoom that starts this wide is already going to be stretched to the limit to obtain decent image quality across the zoom range.
2..........the 24-120 with VR is not an optically high quality lens .
3..........3rd party makers can`t seem to make anything significantly good in this super zoom range either.
4.......Why would I believe Nikon lens technology has experienced a significant breakthrough in technology with this lens?
5.....$700 isn`t cheap by any stretch for a consumer grade lens even if it sports VR.
6.........Did I buy a dslr for convenience of one lens ? (Of course this is subjective.) however I need to remind myself that a one lens system camera might be significantly cheaper and a better solution than buying this lens for the convenience factor only.
So unless Nikon pulled a rabbit out of the hat on this one I`m passing on it.
Now , I`m willing to hear the other side too.
John
My biggest concern with this lens is that it's hard to get perfect corrections for optical issues throughout a very wide range. Lesser ranges are more easily corrected for flaws and distortions so I would be concerned about finding certain spots in a lens like this as having noticeable errors in it. The other consideration is that this could be a person's one and only lens as it covers so much range. Let's say you go on an expensive holiday somewhere and the first day out you drop it. Now you have a nice camera with "no place to go" (i.e. nothing to shoot with). At least if you own a number of smaller range zooms, you can still shoot, although it will require a bit more moving around to get what you want. You aren't "dead in the water" though.
I would probably pass on it, although for some it could be a good option (particularly if you are just starting out and have no equipment to speak of).
The zoom range of this lens could be perfectly matched with IQ likely to be better for at least a hundred bucks less with the following combination.
1........AFS 18-70 DX
2........ AFS 55-200 DX
Both are slightly faster .
But if on the other hand this new 18-200VR surprises us and come closer in IQ than we assume it will I would understand how the VR could be well worth the $100 more for convenience sake.
It`s an individual`s choice and we can only speak for ourselves anyway so mostly everything I write can be taken with a grain of salt ,at least till the qualities of the lens is better known.
John
I have no inyerest in this one as it is bound to suffer at both ends as zoom ratio is simply too great. In my humble experience, anytime a lens goes beyond 2.5 X zoom ratio one or both ends suffer. I have yet to see a "super zoom" that is worth buying.
Hey, ah, shoot me if I'm wrong but aren't plenty of the D200 sample images kicking round on this forum and many other sites all taken using the new 18-200?? I am however going to pass on it, my 17-55DX and 70-200VR cover the range and are two lenses I could not live without even if they are a little cumbersome and heavy to haul around!!!
It will fly out of dealers hands as fast as they get their hands on it. It has the the magic Silver Bullet Nikon Dealers asked for.
If you build it and tell them it's a Nikkor and 18-200 VR they will sell like crazy not to the advanced fanatics here but to the common man. Im probably suspecting it bumps the 649 dollar D50 to an average sale of 1200 dollars and thats what they wanted.
Easy to build, easy to stock, it handles the lower price realm, has VR for those often under bad shots and pop flash for the under exposures. Hey remember when the 950 and 995 were selling close to a thousand. Who says dollars don't get you more? Maybe not in food, clothing, cars, houses and other items necessary to life but in cameras we are doing great!
A few AF ( advanced fanatics) will knock it and some will praise it as a great walk-a-bout lens. Like we all have enough time to walk-a-bout. For each of us who tried the Tamron and the Sigmas in this range and the 28-300 and used them as paperweights there are those fiercely loyal to those lenses.
Proof is many are still in the closet where they were left four-five years ago.
Hey TIME will tell and like they say in forensics, in death there is truth and in forensics there are no lies.
Why kick it to death, it will either prove itself a winner or loser soon enough..........
I'd probably give it a shot as a rental if I were going on a trip and wanted to save some space. Otherwise, that's $ I could be putting toward replacing my 18-70 with a 24-70 2.8.
My concerns with a slow lens and VR is that it is only worth it, if you have the image quality to make it worthwhile. The older 70-210 f/4-5.6 was a great lens despite the slow focus, noise, and slow speed, becuase it was SHARP.
if the lens isn't sharp it can focus at the speed of light and remain perfectly still from the greatest VR on the planet....and it will still be subpar.
And I am definitely not spending $700 on a "walk around" lens.
