Nikon 18 200mm f 3 5 5 6G AF S ED VR II Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DX Format Digital SLR Cameras
f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX wide-angle to telephoto zoom lens * Vibration Reduction II allows in-focus shots with longer exposure times (up to four stops slower shutter speed) * 35mm equivalent focal length of 27-300mm * contains two ED (extra-low dispersion) and three aspherical lens elements for high resolution and contrast * Silent Wave Motor for fast, quiet focusing *
User Ratings and Reviews
5 Stars Nikon 18-200 VR II, One of Several Very Good, All Purpose, Walkabout Lenses
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and so, I think, is one’s opinion of a camera lens. I’ve learned over the years that lens reviews are helpful, but they are just opinions. Yes, for sure, you generally get better optics with more expensive lenses, but it’s certainly not a guarantee. And for reasons one can only wonder about, oftentimes two copies of the same lens will produce very different results. For example, my friend Sara, who is as nuts about buying (we’re like compulsive buyers) and using Canon lenses as I am about buying and using Nikon ones, has a Canon EF-S 18-55mm kit lens that produces images so tack sharp through its whole range that would make you cry.
And so it goes with super zooms, these wonderful lenses that go from pretty wide to very long. If you look at the reviews of any of them, some people claim horrible results, while others scratch their heads, because they’re just loving them to death.
My first superzoom was a Sigma 18-200 which I got about five years ago and I was blown away with what I could do with just one lens. Plus my shots were pretty darn sharp. The lens was more expensive then, than it is now. It’s still a good lens, it weighs a couple ounces less than a pound and if I only could have been satisfied, I’d have saved a bundle of money. Ah well. Anyway, I had an opportunity to try out the Tamron 18-200 as well back then, but I decided on the Sigma. It was a coin toss. At the time I thought both lenses would be good general, all purpose, walkabout lenses. They wouldn’t be as sharp or fast as primes and wouldn’t be as light as shorter zooms, but heck, one lens which went all the way from 18 to 200mm (okay 27 to 350mm in the real world), such a deal.
Both lenses were five star lenses as far as I was concerned, both still are, because they are what they are, a very good compromise. If you’re expecting a lens that will reach out across a dark night and grab a shot of lovers making out by the beach, then you don’t want these lenses, but if you’re looking for a good general walkabout lens, both will suit you and they won’t break your bank.
But they don’t have image stabilization and when Sigma came out with it, I had to have it. So I shelved the Sigma zoom I had, (thankfully I didn’t sell it) and bought the Sigma 18-200 OS and Sigma’s Optical Stabilizer worked great. I got sharper handheld shots in lower light, but they came at a price, almost half a pound. It doesn’t sound like much, eight ounces (7.6 to be exact), but try carrying it around on your shoulder all day long. I really noticed the difference, especially when I was shooting.
I probably wouldn’t have gone to that auction site with my fairly new lens, if it hadn’t been for Tamron. They came out with their Tamron 18-250 and I had to have it. A bigger reach, the heck with image stabilization. Not only could I go all the way from 27 to 375mm in the real world, but I got back a bit over six ounces, the lens was lighter. So now I had two super zooms, which was good, because I go out people shooting with my sister a lot.
So one would think I’d be satisfied, but when the Nikon 18-200 came out, well Nikon optics in a superzoom. I had to have it, so the Tamron went up for auction (because I just loved the Sigma, even though it didn’t reach as far). The Nikon lens focused faster, but not that much faster then the other two, had image stabilization and was faster at the long end and it took great shots, but it weighed more than the other lenses, coming in at a whopping 20 ounces and it was creepy, creepy, creepy and with no zoom lock. The other lenses had almost no zoom creep and they had a zoom lock, which I never used. Very annoying the zoom creep was, still, great shots from a great lens.
Satisfied, well for awhile, then came 2008 and the Tamron 18-270 with their VC version of image stabilization and up for auction went my expensive Nikkor lens. Yeah, I still hung on the my first super zoom, the Sigma. For sure the Nikkor was a five star lens, but a girl can’t justify more than two super zooms at any one time.
The Tamron lens actually weighed a fraction less than the Nikkor it replaced. It was a bit slower on the long end, was a bit stiff in the zooming, but easy to get used to and almost no, sometimes no, zoom creep and it has a lock. It’s just simply one heck of a lens. Sometimes it’s a bit slow to autofocus in lowlight, but still I think it finds its focus faster than I would, but not as fast as the Nikkor.
I should add here that Nikon has upgraded their 18-200 adding a zoom lock. I’ve played with one and not only have they added that zoom lock, but it doesn’t seem to creep nearly as much, but that could just be the copy I used. I should also mention that Sigma has come out with their Sigma 18-250 OS which I was lucky enough to use for a month. That is just one super fine lens. It focuses fast and I think it finds its focus better in low light than the Tamron 18-270. Also this new Sigma has a super quiet motor, though I’ve never really been bothered by the sound of a focusing lens.
By reading other reviews of these lenses, I’ve learned that they are all subject to zoom creep, so I suppose in the main, I’ve been lucky. All of these lenses are very good, at least all of the copies I’ve used. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend any of them. However, if you go with Nikon, you’re going to be paying an awful lot more. You get a slightly faster lens on the long end and you get Nikon quality, but Sigma and Tamron give quality as well and Tamron warranties their lenses for six years, so they’re pretty confident that they’re building a great product (and now they’re part of Sony).
So through my whole super zoom experience, which one do I wind up using the most? You guessed it, that Sigma I bought five years ago. Like the proverbial Timax, “It takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’.” If the day is bright and I’m going people shooting it’s the one I put on my camera, because it’s light and it’s images are true.
4 Stars Value relates to cost and quality
For the price and the quality given this is a high value lens. So it creeps…big deal. It only creeps when it is pointing down and not being held by your hand. When you’re carrying it over your shoulder just activate the “anti-creep switch.”
I tested the lens at home shooting boxes and other items that contain writing at 15-20 feet. You can read the small writing, enlarged. That’s real-world sharpness.
I bought the lens to take pictures of people in varoius settings. The 18-200mm gives me the flexibility I am looking for…no more changing lenses to get that close-up of a kid laughing.
What finally got me to buy it were the changes made in the VRII and Scott Kelby saying: “Now, you will see some photographers in forums online saying that these lenses (18-200…he had the Nikon lens pictured in the writeup) are basically beneath them, because they’re not as sharp as they could be, or they’re not as rugged as the more expensive lenses, etc. Don’t let that throw you. I don’t know of a single photograper that actually has one of these that doesn’t love it…etc. As for quality, I have a 30×40″ print framed and hanging in my home, Everybody loves it, and it looks perfectly sharp and crisp all the way through.”
Kelby was right.
5 Stars For the most people – the best lense you can get
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.
5 Stars A new improved lense
The main difference I see from the previous version is that this lense has a switch to lock the zoom in its place unlike the older version in which the zoom used to slide out the moment u tilt it downwards.
5 Stars Exceptional All-Around Performer
The 18-200 VR II is an all-around great lens. While it is not “the best” lens available for any single role, it stays mounted on my D90 a large majority of the time. When I don’t want to haul around a bag full of gear, this is the lens I take without a thinking twice. Clearly, Nikon had to make some tough choices in balancing the features of this lens, trying to satisfy a wide range of users and applications. Here is my take on where they ended up.
This lens IS:
- Remarkably versatile with an 11x zoom factor
- Surprisingly sharp at all focal lengths
- Very good for outdoor sports in good light
- Useful for almost-macro close-up work
- Solid enough to not require kid-glove treatment
- Usable in many indoor situations with the VR system
- Reasonably sized, considering the zoom range
This lens IS NOT:
- Very fast, especially racked out
- For low-light sports photography
- A pro-level all-metal “indestructable” lens
- Well-suited for low-light shooting
- Compact or lightweight
As noted by other reviewers, the minor distortion and corner fall-off is easily remedied via post-processing software. While many use Photoshop, I recommend DxO Optics Pro software. It has very effective custom modules for this lens and many Nikon DSLRs that work extremely well.
The most pleasant surprise for me with this lens is how good it works for “almost-macro” photography. I also have the heavy and expensive Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro, which is without a doubt the sharpest lens in my bag. However, some of the best close-up shots of bees, flowers, etc that I have taken came from the 18-200, for two reasons. First, unless I am out on a “macro safari” I don’t generally have the 105 mounted, so it isn’t always “at the ready” for targets of opportunity. Second, with the 18-200 racked out to 200mm, it focuses about 8 inches from the front of the lens (which equates to just over 19 inches from the sensor), which provides a pretty decent close-in range. For lower light or extreme macro situations, the 105 is still the superior lens, but the 18-200 does much better than I had ever hoped for when pressed into macro service.
