 |
|
|
dave chilvers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1702
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
First of all it covers most focal lengths that you would need as a general walk-a-bout lens.Second, it isn`t as bad as I thought it would be.
|
|
Cons:
|
Extends quite a lot when on full magnification.
|
|
|
Not sure if the rating is working so O/A 9, Build 8 and Price rating 8.
I purchased a D3100 with the low present prices(around £250) I needed a light carry around camera so as to be able to enjoy a pleasant walk rather than a photographic outing and as we all know if you don`t have a camera with you then the shot of a lifetime comes along. The kit lens was never going to be enough so I invested in this lens as a one lens carry around. Did I expect this combo to equal my FF gear (5D3+ contax lenses +lenses like my 70-200 f4 IS) No, of course not or we would all be using something like this all of the time and saving ourselves a fortune. So, did this lens turn out to be any good? Yes it did and to be quite honest some of the lack of contrast and colour fidelity I`m pretty sure is down to the ageing D3100 rather than the lens. In PS it`s pretty easy to bring things back on par. The lens focuses pretty fast and the hit rate far outweighed the miss rate for sure, maybe not on par with the Canon 70-200 but certainly not far off and again how much is down to the camera body? My wife and I walked the cliff walk that I did last week toting the 5d3 +70-200+1.4 and for sure I returned to the car in much better shape + I needed a second Canon lens to take care of the WA stuff. There are parts of the focal range that are better than others but to be honest in the real world there isn`t that much in it without real pixel peeping. This all in one lens is just a touch of a compromise vs our best lenses but compromise aside the shear joy of an all in one far outweighs everything else. So, will it replace my other gear? of course not, when you are going for a particular subject then ( and can park nearby) you will always choose your best gear. I`m just wondering just how this lens would perform with one of the later cameras with more modern sensors. Will it show up some weakness or possibly enhance the performance? I`ve been around photography for long enough to know that all that glitters is not gold. Take my 24-105 Canon lens, it can be a cracker at times but other times it can miss the point for sure. A bit more care when shooting and some camera raw input and the results a pretty good.
Taken in context and put against other lenses of similar focal length and cost that I have owned or used over the years then this lens could easily be scoring 10.
I just wonder how it would handle 24 million pixels rather than 14?
|
|
 Jan 7, 2014
|
|
NuclearRoy
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 5, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 346
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $550.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Versitility
Cost
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens creep
not tack sharp, but not bad
|
|
|
I got this lens for walk-a-round use on vacations etc.
I use it on a D5100 so the effective range of 27-300 can't be beat.
If you are on a mission to get a specific photo, then this is not the lens you want, but if you are just out for the day to capture what ever happens by, get it.
No it is not as sharp as say even the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 AF-S IF-ED VR (although at 300mm that lens is pretty poor IMO) but try taking a photo of a building facade from the street at 70mm on a DX.
Yes, the lens creeps if pointed straight up or down, but you are using proper holding technique when shooting anyway, right? If you have this on a tripod, then you have the wrong lens.
Construction is adequate. It is by no means a Pro lens, but it doesn't weigh 3 pounds either - important when carrying all day on a non-photo dedicated mission.
When used for what it was made for, it is an excellent choice.
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2012
|
|
Tony305
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2010
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 21, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatile Zoom ratio
Sharp lens, at most ranges
|
|
Cons:
|
Creep of the zoom when not locked
|
|
|
I am happy to use this lens for most photos. with Nikon D90
The stories I hear about missing sharpness, is not an issue for me. I try to maintain a high shutter speed, in order to avoid any shaking
Only for more wide views, I use my Tokina 12-24.
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2010
|
|
robertw164
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Covers 90% of my needs. Fast focus, modest size, light weight and VR make it a keeper
|
|
Cons:
|
Not the sharpest lens I own and not built as tough as Nikon's "pro" lenses
|
|
|
Most everything I shoot, I shoot professionally for high school yearbooks. Proms, sports teams, pep rallies. games, parades, you name it. My body of choice for this lens is the D300.
This is the lens I use far and away the most. Indoor sports the Nikon 70-200 and outside field games and skiing are shot with the Sigma 100-300. Everything else is covered by this lens. I've even shot football where the wide angle makes for a better variety of shots. Using this for a dance is a much better choice than my 24-70 which is way too heavy to lug around all night.
As noted above, it's not the sharpest lens I own but it's plenty sharp. I've done 16x20 portraits that are just fine. The 24-70 might resolve a few more hairs, but this lens doesn't embarrass itself.
Also, it's not built like the more expensive lenses - I'm on my 2nd. First one broke in 2 as I fell avoiding a larger football player coming my way. I had no doubts about getting a 2nd one the next day. Now I'm just more careful.
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2010
|
|
margilli
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 60
|
|
Review Date: Dec 28, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Focal range makes this a perfect all occasion lens. Af-s focusing is fast. VR works great. Compact size.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really, but if I nitpick then I would say the slight lens creep between 50mm and 135mm when the lens is held straight up or down.
|
|
|
I love everything about this lens. At f8 the image quality is just fantastic. I've used this lens to shoot a wedding with a D90 and an sb-600 and the indoor church photos were beautiful. Having the flexibility to zoom from wide to telephoto in an instant is what this lens is all about. Af-s and VR are icing on the cake. Indoor, outdoor, landscape, portraits, events, this lens handles it all with ease.
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2009
|
|
profmom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Nov 3, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
wide range, light for what it does, versatile, great for a general use lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Not a lens for super sharp photos, can hunt a bit, not for low light
|
|
|
My copy produces many very nice shots. I've also not had any issues with lens creep. For situations when you don't want to pack several lenses, this is a great lens.
|
|
|
Nov 3, 2009
|
|
erayboy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 4, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Mar 18, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $780.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Nikon finally satisfied this customer
|
|
Cons:
|
None, now
|
|
|
Now that I have a working version, my rating jumps to an 8.
I wrote about my adventures in Nikon-land (see review of the 18-200 below).
After two more back-and-forths, Nikon sent me a new lens as a replacement. I'm happy that they honored their warranty and that my 'regular lens' is back on the D200.
Thank you, Nikon.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009
|
|
johnmh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 26, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 89
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
A good one lens 'carry' solution. If this is how you use it and accept its limitations, you'll be fine.
|
|
Cons:
|
Perfect at extremes? - no, but few other lenses will cover the same range as well
|
|
|
This lens stays on my wife's camera 90% of the time. She doesn't like changing lenses and doesn't have to with this lens.
If using outside in nature you won't notice the distortion at the wide end. Avoid using in urban environments with lots of lines.
This is a nice 'all-in-one' lens, not a great pro one. It covers a wide range and does what you want out of a consumer carry lens. Look at it in this way, and accept that it is NOT perfect throughout its substantial range.
If you're willing to carry multiple lenses, and change them, (and pay more) go for a 16-85VR and 70-300VR. A great 'carry' combination. Wider coverage overall and better IQ.
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2009
|
|
rk-d
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 25, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 109
|
|
Review Date: Mar 2, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Ridiculous, enormous range. Very effective VRII, Solid construction, Sharp in the mid ranges with good color and contrast, Affordable.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow, Wide and Tele are soft, Fair amount of sample variation, lens creep with use, Range requires a double barrel telescoping design
|
|
|
This is a very good lens for the vast majority of casual photographers out there. It encompasses an enormous range that will cover 99% of all practical situations when traveling. The color, contrast and sharpness are all good enough for snapshots and the performance in the mid range is not bad at all. The wide end is relatively soft and the tele is uninspiring.
This is a slow lens, so forget freezing action at the tele end of the range.
Lens creep is a common complaint and is something that worsens over time. Because of the huge range, the lens requires a double barrel telescoping design. This makes the lens a bit flimsy and vulnerable when completely zoomed out.
VRII is excellent and works as advertised.
I would recommend this lens to anyone who is not particularly critical about image quality and wants a huge zoom range without having to switch lenses. It's the ideal lens for a new SLR owner transitioning from a point and shoot.
The ability to shoot such a huge range in one lens does open up opportunities - it's liberating not having to switch lenses and to be able to just shoot.
One thing to keep in mind is sample variation -- I've owned 18-200VRs that performed much better at the wide end compared to others. I would only buy from a source with a good return policy.
At the end of the day, the relative lack of sharpness, slow speed, mediocre color/contrast and construction make this an uninspiring lens to use and I would not recommend it to anyone who is remotely critical about lens quality. For a consumer lens, the 18-200VR is better than average.
|
|
|
Mar 2, 2009
|
|
topoff
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 8, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
VR, good enough for holiday snaps
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft images, lens creep - it knocks into everything when you walk around
|
|
|
This is a jack of all trades; a master of none. On my D300 the quality of images with VR are marginally better than my non OS sigma 18-50 f2.8 on my eos 400d.
It is a good starter lens for a D80 or D40 but the D300 deserves better. For the D300 this in hindsight is a waste of money. If you are going spend £900 on a D300 you might as well get better quality lenses to match the D300 sensor.
My Nikon 35mm f2 stays on my D300 and I will get a 50mm f1.4 and a 70-200VR in due course. The 35 f2 hand held produces much sharper and better contrast images than the 18-200VR at 35mm. Sometimes the images are so soft I wonder whether the VR is working properly. It's even soft when using a tripod!
Regarding build quality the lens is very good in my opinion. Apart from having to return the lens to get the malfunctioning silent wave focus motor replaced it has performed ok. The worst thing about this lens however is the lens creep. If you don't mind your expensive lens self extending and bashing everything near you then that's ok. For me, the continually fully extended lens is irritating at best.
Anyway in conclusion, this is a solid lens good for holiday snaps because of the range but if image quality is important to you, look elsewhere.
|
|
|
Feb 8, 2009
|
|
erayboy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 4, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Jan 31, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $780.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
wide angle to telephoto (one lens for 90% of shots)
|
|
Cons:
|
did not work right, 3 times back to Nikon
|
|
|
Nikon made a kit lens for everyone ... the 18-200mm zoom. Great. I had to shoot a friend's wedding, so I bought one. It worked OK. I liked the shots.
However, I noticed that a lot of my pictures were out of focus, and the nose drooped when I aimed the camera down. I sent it to Nikon for repairs. It worked for a while, but after a couple of months, I had to send it to Nikon again with the same problems.
When I got the lens back, it was so tight I couldn't zoom it. Pretty terrible quality control at the Melville Repair Center, I guess.
Anyway, I sent it directly to Yoshio Ichikawa, the President of Nikon America, with a complaint letter. Well, they still have it. They've had it for 3 months and they won't answer my inquiries. Maybe I hurt their feelings?
After 40 years of using Nikons, I finally decided that I won't be buying any more Nikon products. It's not that their products are bad, but the company backing the products really DOES NOT care to have my business any longer.
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2009
|
|
chylld
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 8, 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $960.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great all-rounder, fast AF, solid build quality, full-time MF override
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit washed out, slightly backfocuses, but of lens creep
|
|
|
My main everyday-holiday lens. Does everything well, but nothing particularly excellent, but I didn't it to either.
Bought this to replace my Tamron 18-270 VC (I got one of the first ones into the country) which had severe AF hunting problems in anything but bright light. The 18-200 by comparison is very quick, very accurate, and has never hunted for focus a single time.
That said the Tamron has slightly better contrast, but nothing that you can't fix in post. The difference is only apparent when comparing photos side-by-side though.
Excellent lens, and highly recommended!
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2008
|
|
dlscape
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very versatile. Well built for a consumer lens. Pretty good IQ. VR. Metal filter ring. Metal lens mount. Light rain proof.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow lens creep. Quite noticeable CA when wide or zoomed. Distortion around image edge on wide shots. AF hunts a bit when using peripheral zones in low light.
|
|
|
I do a lot of shoots on farms. This means I end up spending a lot of time wading through cow dung, hanging onto the back of quad bikes, climbing around milking sheds etc... While this lens is a jack of all trades and so doesn't offer the quality of primes or more expensive but shorted pro zooms, it does offer unsurpassed versatility. I can take portrait shots, then pull back and get the whole stock yard then zoom in tight on a subject, all without having to swap the lens and risk getting all sorts of nasty stuff in the camera body.
For anyone who has a similar requirement to me (i.e. not swapping lenses on shoot) this is the perfect DX lens. All I'm waiting for now is for Nikkor to get their buts in gear and do an FX version!
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2008
|
|
EOS20
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 13683
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good zoom range, Light weight, Decent build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really, Variable aperture.
|
|
|
I got this lens with my D300 and I've been impressed with it so far.
I wasn't expecting much from it due to the zoom range, But I find my copy to be sharp enough even wide open. Some say it suffers from distortion at the wide end, But I found my old Canon 24-105 IS to have much more distortion then this lens.
The build quality is good, It's not as well built as the Nikon "Gold Ring" Lenses, But for a consumer grade lens, The build quality is good. I've tried the Canon 18-200 IS, And the Nikon 18-200 VR Is a much better lens with better build quality, And faster AF!
Overall I think this lens would make a nice walkabout lens for those times I don't want to carry around a big bag full of lenses!
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2008
|
|
gavlister
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 30, 2008
Location: United Arab Emirates
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, compact and very versatile. VR is great.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft at longer focal lengths, barrel slides way too easily
|
|
|
When I first got this lens I thought it was brilliant, all that I would ever need. I do a lot of travel and if going light I would just take this and a 50mm.
That was till I got hold of the Nikon 17-55 and 70-200. I actually thought there was something wrong with this lens afterwards, it just didn't seem sharp. I would even use manual focus to try and get sharper shots. Eventually I just realised I had been spoilt with higher quality lenses!
That said it is a brilliant all purpose travel lens and still only take the two if backpacking etc, but I know I won't get the IQ that I would prefer....guess you can't have everything.
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2008
|
|
hallbert
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1147
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great lens for the money. Good range and compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
None yet!!
|
|
|
I had been using a Canon 40D with the 17-55 f2.8 IS lens. On a recent trip a friend showed me his D300 with this 18-200VR lens. We did some side by side shooting and I was blown away with the color and sharpness of his Nikon vs my Canon set up.
When I got back from our trip, I ordered the same kit, the D300 with the 18-200VR. I couldn't be happier!! I also bought the 17-55 f2.8 and find the 18-200 is as good as the 17-55, f4.5 and above.
We were asked to take photos at a Veterans Fund Raiser this past weekend. Some were inside a tent and others outside. I brought the D300 with the 18-200 lens, my 40D with the 17-55 IS lens and my 1D Mark IIn with the 24-70 lens.
When the fund raiser started I chose to use the Nikon and for the entire weekend never took the Canon out of the car. The photos inside, with the SB800 flash were right on. The photos outside had great color and were all in focus.
I never thought I would be a Nikon guy but the D300 with this 18-200VR lens has me convinced that Nikon has raised the bar with this newer equipment.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
29
|
100763
|
Jan 7, 2014
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
83% of reviewers
|
$691.65
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.52
|
7.85
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
