Nikon lens 18-200
- Started
- Last post
- 10 Responses
- 303
Is anyone using Nikkor lens 18-200 with Nikon D40 or D60.
Any thoughts or suggestions? I was planning to get 55-200 but I think, that selling my 18-55 lens would be a better choice.
The biggest issue so far is the price.
- ok_not_ok0
hmm..getting mixed reviews. Versatile but not sharp.
- Samush0
don't do it.
lenses with large optical range like an 18-200mm usual suffer from a fair amount of distortion at the widest and narrowest ends.
- AVAVA0
Canon. Primes.
;-)
- mnmlst0
I bought this lens for my honeymoon because I didn't want something big and heavy to lug around. Also, i couldn't easily switch lenses on the go.
Here is the deal from an actual owner of many Nikon lenses. It is a great, sharp, compact lens as long as you understand what you are buying. Getting a lens with this kind of range obviously requires some compromises.
The good:
- very sharp
- shockingly compact for a 200mm. my 80-200 dwarfs it.
- the VR works VERY wellThe compromises (I don't say bad, because these are just the reality of any lens like this):
- variable and slow aperture. if you're in low light it's fine as long as your subject is not moving. That's where the VR makes the difference. However, if your subject is moving, forget about it. You could get a cheap 50mm 1.8 (130$) to supplement those situations. Don't be fooled by the price, the 50 1.8 is a great lens and it's very small and light.
- distortion. yes, any lens with this range is going to have distortion at the ends. In this case, the 18mm has a ton of barrel distortion. Nothing you can't fix in photoshop, but it's still there and very noticeable at the wide end.
- 3030
Thanks for that mnmlst - it clears my mind.
It looks like 24-120 or 18-105 will be a nice transition from 18-55.
In terms of traveling, size of D40 doesn't make it difficult and even with 18-55 I still have a lot of space in my bag.
- jayoh0
I have a D90 with the 18-105 Nikor and I love it. Very compact and light and extremely versatile. I haven't noticed any distortion at either end, so this is probably a good range.
- Rand0
I always heard that the 18-200 was soft, but haven't tried it
- mnmlst0
This review pretty much nails it: http://www.dpreview.com/lensrevi…
Soft at 135, I can see that as possible, but when I was using it I was generally at the extremes, shooting either 24-35 or all the way at 200mm. At 200 it is very sharp.
It is what it is, a lens that can do many things decent, but few things excellent. I found the 200m the only excellent area. That said, it is tiny for a 200mm lens, and that is primarily what I wanted for my limited use.
Definitely don't buy the hype that some people, Ken Rockwell I think, said that is was as good as the 24-70 2.8 at many things. That's just crap. This lens is not even on the same planet as that glass.
- mnmlst0
In closing, haha, the only amazing quality you're going to get on a budget is using prime lenses. Zooms are generally mediocre at best until you get into the 1200$+ range.