# Is this a good Nikon lens?(Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom)



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

UPS tracking says it's out for delivery since 4am today.
I'm home, waiting for the UPS truck. :tapfingers: :eeps:


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Both at 200mm, f/5.6, 1/25 sec, hand held.
1) VR off
2) VR on
Impressive.
:guitar::banana::supdude:


----------



## RDobie (May 26, 2007)

I own an 18 - 200 Nikon VR Lens and it is the best "traveling" lens I have ever used. Approximately 80% of all photography is shot within this lens. It is the lens I take when I travel for pleasure. 

However, the lens still does not have the "speed" possessed by most fixed lenses. When I am serious about a shot, I try to use a primary lens to be able to provide a sharper depth of field.

Also the Nikon D200 is a fantastic camera, I have use Nikon (and Nikonos for underwater) cameras and Nikkor lens for over thirty years with great success. The D200 may have me buy my first underwater housing for a surface camera. 

I never can understand why my Canon friends still argue with me. LOL


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Do other 18-200mm VR owners experience the zoom creep to 200 by itself when the lens is pointed down, and the reverse motion when pointed up?
If I put the camera strap on my shoulders, the weight of the lens makes the whole camera point down. Just walking around is enough to extend the zoom by itself. 
Is that a defect? :dunno:


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Boile said:


> Is that a defect? :dunno:


Design flaw, more likely. I've had zooms that did that before.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Boile said:


> Do other 18-200mm VR owners experience the zoom creep to 200 by itself when the lens is pointed down, and the reverse motion when pointed up?
> If I put the camera strap on my shoulders, the weight of the lens makes the whole camera point down. Just walking around is enough to extend the zoom by itself.
> Is that a defect? :dunno:


Mine does that too. It's like a teenage boy in French class.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

Boile said:


> Do other 18-200mm VR owners experience the zoom creep to 200 by itself when the lens is pointed down, and the reverse motion when pointed up?
> If I put the camera strap on my shoulders, the weight of the lens makes the whole camera point down. Just walking around is enough to extend the zoom by itself.
> Is that a defect? :dunno:


I've read about this in various posts, and it's common.


----------



## RaceTripper (Apr 12, 2002)

The creep is very typical of this lens. Mine didn't do it for a couple months and now it does.

I have this lens, plus the Nikkor 300/4 AFS and the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro. I'm getting close to selling all three of these and going with the Nikkor 18-55/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 VR with a TC14E-II. The 18-200 VR is also not as sharp as I'd like it to be.

Now that F1 is gone, I don't really need the 300/4 as much. The 70-200/2.8 VR with TC will be great for ALMS races.


----------



## Guest84 (Dec 21, 2001)

There is an easy fix for that lens creep. It involves buying an 0-ring from a plumbing store of the same size as the barrel. Google 'Lens creep O-ring' and I think you might find a link to it.

Personally, I'd be very pissed if I spent that kind of cabbage on a lens like that and have lens creep.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

I've owned the 18-200 VR since 3/06 and the lens creep has been there since day one. I've read many posts regarding lens creep and I'm amazed how upset people get about this. It may be a little annoying, but the lens performs flawlessly. I've taken many photos at the 2006 & 2007 Canadian Grand Prixs and they look great. BTW, I just sold my Nikon D200 and waiting to order a D2Xs. I'm waiting to see if Nikon makes any announcements at their meetings next week that might affect the D2Xs price.

Regards...JL


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Brian said:


> There is an easy fix for that lens creep. It involves buying an 0-ring from a plumbing store of the same size as the barrel. Google 'Lens creep O-ring' and I think you might find a link to it.
> 
> Personally, I'd be very pissed if I spent that kind of cabbage on a lens like that and have lens creep.


I'm not sure how that would solve the problem, which is usually that the lens extends all the way when it's pointing down. That o-ring would have to go inside someplace, and yours are bigger and brassier than mine if you're willing to open up a lens to make that happen.


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Brian said:


> There is an easy fix for that lens creep. It involves buying an 0-ring from a plumbing store of the same size as the barrel. Google 'Lens creep O-ring' and I think you might find a link to it.
> 
> Personally, I'd be very pissed if I spent that kind of cabbage on a lens like that and have lens creep.


No creep in mine so far. It is much better than my 70-210D push pull zoom. Time will tell.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

So, isn't lens creep a function of physics (a.k.a. deal with it!)?

The lens is heavy because it can traverse an incredible range, and thus has lots of glass and components. Yet, the zoom action is light for quick and responsive changes when you're gripping it, right?

Put weights on the body so it stays upright.  :dunno: (Or maybe a battery grip?)


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

I still have trouble getting my shots level with this lens - if I'm not really careful my shots can come out slightly tilted. 

I found the VR worked great taking night shots in Shanghai.


----------



## RaceTripper (Apr 12, 2002)

Well, I did it. I sold my 18-200 VR (along with my 300/4 AF-S and Sigma 150/2.8).

I am now the proud owner of a 70-200/2.8 VR, and I have a 28-70/2.8 (The Beast) and a TC14e on the way (delivery on Friday). Can't wait to try out the new glass. I smell a Zoo safari this weekend. :thumbup:

Can't wait to shoot PLM.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Another shot with this lens, taken on Curacao. These buggers were actually really hard to get pictures of, they see you from 50 feet and disappear down the cliff in a second.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Very nice. :thumbup:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> Very nice. :thumbup:


With that cliche respond you basically killed this thread.


----------



## elcamino (Jun 27, 2008)

thank's


----------



## dadtorbn (Oct 3, 2003)

Chris90 said:


> Another shot with this lens, taken on Curacao. These buggers were actually really hard to get pictures of, they see you from 50 feet and disappear down the cliff in a second.


I see your iguana and raise you one. This one shot with a 70-200mm 2.8F IS lens (with a 1.4tele converter I think). This was shot in Tortugeuro, Costa Rica about 2 weeks ago.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

That's sweet! But can your Costa Rican iguana do this? 

To speak about the 18-200 VR lens though, I still think it's not that sharp on the telephoto end.


----------



## dadtorbn (Oct 3, 2003)

Chris90 said:


> That's sweet! But can your Costa Rican iguana do this?
> 
> To speak about the 18-200 VR lens though, I still think it's not that sharp on the telephoto end.


Cool! Nah. The iguana never stood on one fin. But I think my croc could eat your seal. 










I had a heck of a time getting shots of humming birds w/o the darn feeder.










I just wasn't patient enough!

Both were shot with Canon.
The previous Iguana did not have the tele extender.
The croc does have the 70-200 and a tele extender and it was cropped. We were pretty far away. The humming bird was with the 70-200mm @ F4 ISO 1600 to freeze the wings.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

This thread was about the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom.
That lens could never do the shots you guys are gloating about.
So we've moved on to showing off what we can shoot, no matter what lens? 

:thumbup:


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Boile said:


> This thread was about the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom.
> That lens could never do the shots you guys are gloating about.
> So we've moved on to showing off what we can shoot, no matter what lens?
> 
> :thumbup:


All my shots are with the Nikon 18-200.


----------



## dadtorbn (Oct 3, 2003)

Chris90 said:


> All my shots are with the Nikon 18-200.


Mine aren't. I suppose I'll fade away...:bawling:

I'll start a new thread to share my CR pictures. You guys are welcome to thread jack it too.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

dadtorbn said:


> Mine aren't. I suppose I'll fade away...:bawling:
> 
> I'll start a new thread to share my CR pictures. You guys are welcome to thread jack it too.


We're like the only ones posting in this thread!

And your pics of similar subjects are a nice way for prospective lens buyers to compare.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> This thread was about the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom.
> That lens could never do the shots you guys are gloating about.
> So we've moved on to showing off what we can shoot, no matter what lens?
> :thumbup:


AF Nikkor 70-300 1:4-5.6 ($125 lens) No post processing.


----------



## BahnBaum (Feb 25, 2004)

Dave 330i said:


> AF Nikkor 70-300 1:4-5.6 ($125 lens) No post processing.


Ehhh.

A p&s could have taken those shots.



Alex


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

BahnBaum said:


> Ehhh.
> 
> A p&s could have taken those shots.
> 
> ...


 OK, add a little motion...


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

I want to ditch this lens, just not sure what to replace it with. I want a 70-300 mm VR, since I don't carry a tripod, but what to match that with I'm not sure.

The 18-200 VR just doesn't take very good telephoto shots, so I'm not sure there's much point to it.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Chris90 said:


> I want to ditch this lens, just not sure what to replace it with. I want a 70-300 mm VR, since I don't carry a tripod, but what to match that with I'm not sure.
> 
> The 18-200 VR just doesn't take very good telephoto shots, so I'm not sure there's much point to it.


Sorry to hear you don't like the 18-200 VR. My copy is very sharp.

I also have the 70-300 VR and it is a verty good lens. If you sell the 18-200, you'll need two lens to fill the void. You can pick up a 18-70 and the 70-300 VR or the 18-55 and 70-300 VR combo. I've owned all the lenses mentioned and highly recommend them.

Regards...JL


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

SRFast said:


> Sorry to hear you don't like the 18-200 VR. My copy is very sharp.
> 
> I also have the 70-300 VR and it is a verty good lens. If you sell the 18-200, you'll need two lens to fill the void. You can pick up a 18-70 and the 70-300 VR or the 18-55 and 70-300 VR combo. I've owned all the lenses mentioned and highly recommend them.
> 
> Regards...JL


Do you find the 70-300 is sharper than the 18-200, or not much?

I love the convenience of the 18-200 VR, it's why I'm still using it.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

The 18-200 is not a bad lens. 
You just need to know how to use it.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/page3.asp

For example, never go wide open. Always 2 or more stops down.
If you must use 135mm, use only F11 and F16.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Yeah, it's not bad, it just has a lot of little annoyances. For maybe $100-200 i could trade it for a 70-300 VR and a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I'm not sure how worthwhile a trade that is. 

And I also want the new 35mm f/1.8 Nikon prime. I might just get that instead and live with the 18-200.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

The 70-300 VR is similar to the 50mm & 85mm f/1.8 lenses - biggest bang for your buck. It is a sharp lens and you can use a Kenko Pro 300 DG TC with it if you want extra reach. The Nikkor TCs will not work with this lens.

Here are three links that rave about the 70-300 VR:
http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=222440

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=221647

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=180440

Hope this helps...JL


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

SRFast said:


> The 70-300 VR is similar to the 50mm & 85mm f/1.8 lenses - biggest bang for your buck. It is a sharp lens and you can use a Kenko Pro 300 DG TC with it if you want extra reach. The Nikkor TCs will not work with this lens.
> 
> Here are three links that rave about the 70-300 VR:


Thanks - you seem to need to register to see them, I'll do that.

Here's barrel distortion on the 18-200 VR at 18 mm. Buildings taken at 18 mm look rather cartoonish I noticed!


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

I got the 70-300 VR, but for now am keeping the 18-200 VR. This week in Yosemite, I got some nice shots with both, using a mini tripod the 18-200 did great.

All are handheld, no post processing yet.

70-300 VR shots from Yosemite:

125mm f/8










300mm, f/7.1, propped against a tree, 50% crop










And with the 18-200 VR, 120mm, f/7.1


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

except at the 200mm end and low light im hard pressed to tell my 80-200mm f/2.8 nikon from marilyns 18-200mm in 99% of our images....try try try at 100% crop i just cant see much of a difference


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

300mm is nice, for capturing those special moments. 

From Point Reyes National Seashore. Had no idea what the elk were up to until I opened the photo back home on the big monitor. :biggrin:

300mm, iso800, f/6.3


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Boile said:


> The 18-200 is not a bad lens.
> You just need to know how to use it.
> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/page3.asp
> 
> ...


I think you're right, I had a lot of room to improve with this lens. On our trip to Yosemite, I got much better pictures from the 18-200 (and my camera) than in the past, by the following:

- using f/8 to f/11 alot (the sweet spot)
- using exposure compensation- removing UV filter
- using a mini tripod and timed shutter release for some landscape shots
- using NEF instead of JPEG Fine, and Capture NX instead of PSP 8.0 (which I see now is crap)
- removing the UV filter and using lens hood instead

Was quite happy with the results. However I might still trade it for a 16-85 VR, since I didn't use the 100-200mm range that much (instead swapped it for the 70-300).


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> Some pics I took the other day with the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED.


How come you're not on the field? That lens of yours is too expensive for me. The 70-300 VR is ok if I crank up the ISO to H1 in the D90.


----------

