Nikon Lens Question

[droht]

I should just PM Mike on this, but figured I'd post it...

The AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR IF-ED lens
seems like THE choice for a jack-of-all-trades Nikon lens, in it's price class. Is there anything else that I should be considering to use with my D40? Any off-brand versions of that lens even close?

Thanks!

[Mike4AU]

Let me answer by saying that I am headed to the NC mountains tomorrow and I have already put my Nikkor 18-200 VR lens on my camera. I am taking pretty much all my stuff, but walking around, in general, I will use the 18-200 lens. It does a nice job. Sure it won't stand up to a pro lens, like a 70-200 VR, but it also costs about 1/3 of what the pro lens costs.

I have seen some nice pics taken with the Sigma 18-200 OS lens. You should consider the Sigma, but, IMO, only the OS version. Sigma also has a non-OS version (OS = VR).

I will find a link for you to take a look on pbase for shots taken with the Nikkor 18-200 lens and report back to you.

Hope this helps.

Mike

[Mike4AU]

Take a look at these shots:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/18-200_35-56g_if_ed_afs_dx_vr

[Mike4AU]

Here are several shots I took with the Nikkor 18-200 VR lens:

[droht]

Thanks Mike.

I'm still kicking myself for not snagging the 18-200 that came up here in the classifieds a few months back...

[nalby]

I have the 18-200 and it's a great all around lens. it's a little slow for action sports ( trying to catch a bat hitting a ball etc.) but for everything else it's great. Nikon is comming out with a new version that has a zoom lock and they will be charging $150 more, but in my opinion it's not needed so save some money and get the older VR-II

[Mike4AU]

The white water rafting pic above is certainly not capturing speed like in a baseball game, but that raft was moving out pretty good and you can see how it froze the water.

Good luck with your decision.

[BobJoe123]

The 18-105 might be something to consider. I have it on my D90 and while it doesn't reach to 200 I rarely need to go that far. A lot of D90 users upgrade so there are usually plenty of new ones on ebay.

The 18-200 is known to have quite a bit of distortion at both ends. Any lens that tries to do it all is going to. The 18-105 is in the same boat but from what I've read the distortion isn't as bad. I believe the 105 runs half the price of the 200.

My lenses:
Nikon 18-105
Sigma 70-300 APO DG
Nikon 50mm f1.8

With those three I have everything covered well. I pull out the 70-300 at t-ball games, the 18-105 for everyday use and the 50mm for portraits/etc.

[Mike4AU]

The 18-200 is known to have quite a bit of distortion at both ends.

I see that statement quite often, but have yet to see hard evidence of that on the shots that I have taken at both ends. That said, a lens with that range is not going to be perfect, but it does a great job at what it is designed for...a good walk-around lens, an all in one lens, as it were.

Look at it this way. If one is trying out for Nat Geo shots, don't buy this lens. If one wants to cover a ton of various compositions without lugging around an arsenal of lenses, buy this lens. I have some pro glass, like the 70-200 VR lens, but I will use, mainly, my 18-200 lens while playing tourist in the NC mountains for a few days.

If one does not need/want the reach, one could look at the 16-85 VR lens.

It's all good.

Mike

[BobJoe123]

I was just going to mention the 16-85... :)

I personally haven't used the 18-200 but I've read a lot of "issues" with barrel distortion. Maybe it's internet hype, maybe it just isn't all that noticeable unless you are taking photos of graph paper.

[Mike4AU]

I have seen a ton of absolutely great images posted on The Nikonians that were taken with the 18-200 lens. I hope I never get to the point that I can see where the 32nd pixel in the 4th quadrant was bruised...if ya get my sarcasm. There are a lot of folks who put that kind of crap out when they ought to be out shooting.

[m-fine]

I have seen a ton of absolutely great images posted on The Nikonians that were taken with the 18-200 lens. I hope I never get to the point that I can see where the 32nd pixel in the 4th quadrant was bruised...if ya get my sarcasm. There are a lot of folks who put that kind of crap out when they ought to be out shooting.

It is a lot easier for an engineer to take a picture of graph paper and analyze the flaws than it is to learn to compose and capture a good shot. One is science, the other is art. Art is inexact and hard, pass me the graph paper! I can't imagine what some of those guys would do if they were stuck using the "crap" lenses that Ansel Adams, O. Winston Link and others were stuck with in the dark days of the last century.

[Mike4AU]

I can't imagine what some of those guys would do if they were stuck using the "crap" lenses that Ansel Adams, O. Winston Link and others were stuck with in the dark days of the last century.

That is the honest to goodness truth. I have a difficult time dealing with folks who are always *****in' about something!

[BobJoe123]

It is a lot easier for an engineer to take a picture of graph paper and analyze the flaws than it is to learn to compose and capture a good shot. One is science, the other is art. Art is inexact and hard, pass me the graph paper! I can't imagine what some of those guys would do if they were stuck using the "crap" lenses that Ansel Adams, O. Winston Link and others were stuck with in the dark days of the last century.

That is all very true but when dropping $700 on a lens you want to be sure you are getting the best bang for your buck and know what possible issues are. I can easily see how my Nikon 18-105 is vastly superior to my Sigma 70-300 in color, contrast and sharpness without pixel peeping. Every photo out of the Sigma is somewhat drab and needs a lot more editing to "pop". If it were my primary lens I would be very annoyed. The Nikon equivalent is 2x the price and to me not worth the cash for a lens I rarely use.

OP: The Sigma 18-200, Nikon 18-200 or any of the other Nikons are fine. You just need to decide what you want to spend vs the tradeoffs of focal length and raw image quality (not photoshopped to death image quality).