Most Helpful Customer Reviews
759 of 764 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A very good lens at a reasonable price, October 7, 2009
This review is from: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DX-Format Digital SLR Cameras (Camera)
I believe it was Thom Hogan who described this lens as not perfect but really good at everything. That's the review in a nutshell.
This is what I would term a prosumer lens. It certainly is not cheap yet it does not have the build quality of Nikon's top-of-the-line. The barrel, for example, is plastic rather than metal. I fear that a drop would be catastrophic and even a hard bang on the edge of a table might do serious damage if the lens was fully extended. On the other hand, this lens is a lot less expensive than those in the Nikon pro line. In addition, the lens is much lighter and easier to carry than it would be were it made entirely of metal.
It is my understanding that the only meaningful difference between this lens (the VR II) and its immediate predecessor is the addition of a cam lock to prevent lens creep. My own sample doesn't creep at all, even with the cam unlocked but apparently that has been a significant irritant for a number of buyers.
The use of "VR II" in the name is potentially misleading because it may lead shoppers to believe that the VR system has been improved over the original model. This is not the case. Both the original 18-200 and the new version contain Nikon's second generation VR system. Some have suggested that Nikon's marketing is a bit shady on this point while others counter that the "II" simply designates a new model.
Sharpness is less than absolute across the entire range but more than adequate for anything that an amateur, or even most professionals, is likely to need. There is mild to moderate distortion, more marked at the focal length extremes but scarcely visible in the vast majority of images and readily correctable in Photoshop, DxO, or other post-processing software. Contrast is crisp and I find the lens surprisingly free of flaring and ghosting.
No one should buy this lens thinking that it will make him/her a better photographer. Good photography is in the mind and the eye, not in camera. What the 18-200 will do, though, is provide a one-lens solution to the great majority of focal length needs, minimizing the need to tote a hefty bag full of lenses. It happens that, as a long time Nikon user, I have such a bag. Despite all the choices at my disposal, my 18-200 probably stays on my camera 85-90% of the time.
Folks who are obsessed with numbers, charts, and MTF curves will probably fret over the 18-200, taking delight in pointing out every little defect. For the rest of us, the only significant downside that I see is that the lens is not ideally suited for extended service in rough environments or adverse weather situations. Since most of us seldom shoot in such circumstances, this should not be much of a problem.
I heartily recommend the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G AF-S ED VR II (whew! what a mouthful) to any advanced amateur or professional seeking a highly usable wide range zoom.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
436 of 450 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
For the most people - the best lense you can get, December 30, 2009
This review is from: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DX-Format Digital SLR Cameras (Camera)
There are a lot of reviews comparing every feature of the lense. They are long, detailed, but more confusing than helpful. So I'll try to keep it short.
Let's say you a typical amature photographer. You take all kinds of pictures in all kinds of conditions. So what lense would be the best?
You can probably live with some minor distortions but nothing gives you as much freedom as a wide range zoom. If you shoot inside a room, you really need 18 m on a low end. The smaller the number the wider the angle and the more people you can squeeze into the frame from the other side of party table. Every mm here makes a big difference. So 18 mm on the low end is pretty much a must have. On the longer end, well, the bigger the better. However, if you that also means heavier and it also means much harder to take good pictures because on a long zoom range the camera gets less light, it's sensitive to shaking hands and the lense distortion is getting worse. Also it's more expensive.
So bottom line is - if you can afford the Nikon 18-200 mm lense - go for it. That will be your single all around lense and you won't feel sorry. If it's too pricey - check out the 18-105 mm one. Think about it this way - there are a lot of specialized lenses but really only a few all-around ones. So 80% people really need to choose between only 3: 18-55, 18-105 and 18-200 and the biggest factor here is how much you can afford. So it's actually not that complicated.
I few side notes.
It's tempting to buy a couple lenses instead of one. It looks like you're getting more for less, but in reality changing lenses is not something people do often. The extra lense is heavy, it takes time to change, every time you take a lense off, there is a risk you can get dust inside the camera - there are a lot of reasons why having two lenses is not the same as one.
Other vendors. You can get much cheaper lenses from other vendors like Sigma etc. I heard mixed stories. Some people got lucky and got good glass, some were not. If you can try and buy, you may want to take a chance. But Nikon quality control is pretty good, so there is not much risk there.
Protective filter. If you're planning to spend many hundreds on a lense, please, don't forget to buy a good protective filter. Something like UV(0) or clear glass. Once you try to wipe out the glass on the lense, the microscratches on surfice will cause all kinds of image defects so you should never ever touch the lense glass. The filter is way more forgiving and it can be replaced easily. A bad filter can ruine the quality, so don't be cheap, plan to spend somewhere in $50-90 range.
And finally, why would you not buy this lense?
1. Price. Most people say this lense is nice but too expensive. Since there are new better camera bodies for the same price coming out pretty much every year and the lenses hold value very well I'd suggest you to consider buying the best lense you can afford and maybe saving a bit on a cheaper body. The lense will likely outlast the camera.
2. Weight. This camera is heavy. No DSLR will fit in a pocket but this lense on a camera will require fairly large bag to carry and holding it on your shoulder for a day could literally be painful.
There could be some other reasons like if your requirements are very high and you need some specialized or professional grade lenses but if you're requirements are that high, I don't think that review will open your eyes anyway.
Hopefully this review will help you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
223 of 231 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Very Good Intro Lens, December 1, 2009
This review is from: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DX-Format Digital SLR Cameras (Camera)
I've used this lens and its predecessor extensively and I've been happy with both. They are clear, accurate, and focused. You can find a zillion reviews talking about how awesome this lens. I'm going to highlight the lens' shortcomings. This is not a be all, end all lens. Don't get me wrong, this is my walkaround lens and it stays on my camera 75% of the time. But it's important to know what this lens won't do.
1. Low light. This is a problem that plagues any reasonably priced long-range zoom. If you're going to be doing much shooting indoors, at night, or twilight with this lens, invest in a good quality flash.
2. Bokeh. The majority of the out-of-focus fields look great. However, if you're shooting wide open (low f stop) and there's a lot going on in the background (long grass, trees, etc) some of the finer details can be blurred or occasionally have a weird halo look to them. It's not that big of an issue, but it does happen from time to time.
3. Distortion. Very manageable and hardly noticeable for the most part, but when you shoot things that are obviously supposed to be very straight (buildings, roads, etc)at less than about 50mm there is some pincushioning. This is easily correctable in photoshop.
4. Light falloff. In low-light and long-exposure pictures, you can clearly see some falloff in the corners. Again, hardly a big deal for most photography.
5. Weight. If you're not used to big lenses, this will take some getting used to, especially if you're upgrading from a kit lens.
6. Filters. The 72mm size is getting more popular, but there still aren't nearly as many filters available as some other sizes. There are resizing rings to compensate if you already have some larger rings, or are eyeballing something in particular.
Ok, this was not meant to turn you off of this lens, only to give you a grounded sense of what this lens has to offer. It is a great walkaround lens for everyday use. It is also a great lens for people looking to get their foot in the door with high quality lenses without having spend too much. This won't replace prime lenses, fast lenses, and superzooms. This is a perfect lens to buy if can only afford, or only want one lens. I would still hate to be without this lens. Highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
