18-200mm VR, any experience?
 

I've been finally looking at new lenses since, as some of you know, I've been using film lenses that aren't ideal for digital cameras. Originally I was just going to buy the $800 18-200mm VR because it seems so versatile, and, for what it is it's not too badly priced.

While I was in the local camera store I saw that I could get a kit lens (18-55mm) for $130 and the 55-200mm VR for $250. Obviously I don't get VR with the kit lens, and more importantly the convenience of not switching lenses, but I can't help but thinking saving $420 might be worth it... which is almost the price of the Sigma 12-24mm that Barry loves.

So... does anyone have the 18-200mm VR? And if so do you really, really love it and think I should spend the extra cash or just save some money?

This is the second to next lens I'll be picking up one day. Wanna get the 70 - 300mm VR next.

Anyway back on topic. I've read that its a great lens only problem is that in a certain zoom positions the lens creeps. That probably is only on a few of them. Cause it seems like a isolated problem.

Anyway here is a link to Pbase on that lens. Shows some photos that where taken with it and some reviews.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/1...f_ed_afs_dx_vr

Yeah, the 70-300mm is cool but I don't have much need for it. Even when I do sports (football, soccer, etc) for the paper I don't think I'll need more than 200mm.
I'm going out to buy something on Friday, but I might not even make a decision until then, haha. You have a 55-200 and 18-55... do you find yourself wishing you didn't have to switch lenses or that you miss certain shots because of it? I've never thought that before, but now that I have the option I'm not sure.

if it were me, i'd definitely go with the 18-200 just for the ease of use. switching lenses is a huge pain in the ass, specially in the heat of a soccer game or something where there is constant action. find out if there is a return period on it, buy it, go shoot a game or two, and if you find that you can swing having two lenses then go that route. otherwise, just for the simple fact that changing lenses is super annoying i'd get one comprehensive lens

Yea some times I wish I had a lens like the 18-200 or even the 18-135. Cause when I'm say at a car event I use the short lens for the show and the other for what not. It does get a pain in the ass after a while.

So 97TurboDSM and I both agree that you should look into this lens just for the ease of flexablity. Since you don't have to switch lenses all the time.

Now if you get this lens and you say, you go to a drift meet or something, then you'll wish you had a longer lens. What I felt like after D1 this past year.

so it looks like hes gonna need two lenses either way if he starts doing car events. that makes the decision a little easier i think. although i have an 28-135 and its a bit short shooting soccer games. i wish i had a longer lense for that.

200mm will do fine if you get close enough to the action for car events. But yea you might find that after a few months that you want something with a bit more reach.

Just bought the 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR. I decided the extra $400 for the 18-200mm was better spent elsewhere, even though it's really convenient. I leave for vacation next week, so hopefully I'll come back liking the combo :)

edit: first impressions. For the price, this should be an excellent combination. After just messing around for half an hour, I'm glad I didn't spend the extra $400... but we'll see if that holds up when I'm switching lenses around. I've never had a lens with VR and I'm pretty excited about it... I think i'm going to like this 55-200mm, what a bargain.

On the flip side, the kit lens feels CHEAP!! haha, i knew that going into it, but yeah... the little focus rings on these lenses feel so lame. But it's amazing to finally have something relatively wide on a digital! I'm excited to have digital lenses.

For the sports events on larger fields, such as field hockey, soccer, football, rugby.. you will need more than 200mm to get the tight crop shots, which is what you want for sports photography. You can use a 1.4x teleconverter, but ideally you will want either a 300mm or 400mm telephoto lens for those sports events. The 200mm is usable for baseball (infield shots), basketball (although a faster lens is preferred), volleyball (fast lens preferred, but f/2.8 lens is capable at iso 1600 or 3200), swimming, etc.

dont know what the situation with returns/exchanges/upgrades, but i believe that the 18-70mm lens is much better quality than that 18-55... i know it also costs more but as a 'normal' lens it will probably spend a lot of time on your camera and be well worth the extra cost.
when choosing lenses remember its not all about focal length and cost... also factor in max aperture, focus speed, and very important is glass quality... read reviews and pay attention to those who sound like they know what they're talking about, you'll quickly be able to separate the good from the bad.
unfortunately you generally get what you pay for with glass, so dont be fooled by 'bargain' lenses.

Good insight. I will probably end up buying a longer lens when I start shooting more sports... in the past I've borrowed lenses for football games, but I didn't think I was using all 300mm. I'm probably wrong and was maxed out the whole time, hah
From what I read and from when I had both lenses on my camera in the store, the 18-55mm does everything the 18-70mm can do (except that extra 15mm obviously) for almost a third of the cost. They're just as fast... actually I should probably say they're just as slow as one another (f3.5-f5.6). Trying to say they're good lenses is a losing battle since they are obviously not. They're cheap. But cheap glass these days isn't really all that bad. For what it's worth, my uncle is a very experienced professional phtographer and advised me to save my money. With the money I saved I can spend some time, go places, and improve what's going on on the other side of the camera :)

All the things you said about quality are definitely true, but I had to weigh my priorities. I did do a good amount of reading and, since I'm on a budget, I think I got way more than my money's worth. One of these days I'll man up and get nicer lenses... for now I'll make due.

If you want a good affordable every day lens, the Tamron 17 50 f2.8 is a good bargain at ~ $400. Sharp, fast, good color replication, decent AF system.

my cousins husband has a 18-200 and its extremely sharp for such a zoom.

also the 18-70 has a noticable difference from the 18-55, including build quality, even though the 18-70 isnt the best built lens.

Yeah, couple month old thread, but I've spent a lot of time behind these lenses and I can say I'm happy with what I bought. Next summer I will probably move up to much nicer glass but for the shooting I've done this year these have been great. The main thing I want now is more speed... covering concerts and dusk/night events has been a pain, and at anything above 800 ISO my D70 is quite noisy.

As for the 18-200 VR, I'm so glad I opted for my current combo and saved my money. If I cover events like sports where I need some range I strap on the 55-200mm, otherwise the 18-55mm does the job. It's a real deal for a <$100 lens.

so what did you buy? if it's above, i apologize. im not in the most curious state

haha i hear what 97turbo is saying...but if you went with the two lens combo, good call. personally though i wouldnt want to carry an extra lens if i didnt have to.

he bought the 2 instead of one

did you know about this chris?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm

These are the same lenses that came with my camera. They seem to work well. I'm shaky as .... and the lens seems to compensate for this problem.

the 18-55vr came out after he started this thread

I always carry my bag around with me when I'm shooting so it makes no difference. I need to carry an extra battery and card with me all the time, and honestly usually don't even notice the weight of an extra two lenses on my back.
If I were just carrying my camera around all the time I'd definitely agree with you, though.

I didn't even know that existed! Thanks for the heads up, for that little money I might buy one for next semester and trade in my 18-55. VR makes a big difference... still no substitute for a faster lens, but it helps.

My friend's dad shoots with the Sigma 18-200 and its SUPER crisp, and somewhat less expensive than the Nikon Lense. I know the aperture isn't quite as large at max focal length, but it may be something to deal if you are looking to cut cost. he uses it to shoot weddings and his pictures are absolutely gorgeous. I am actually thinking about picking one up myself, after I get my new printer and possibly another body.

If you do alot of sports, you may want to look at a 70-200 2.8 AF-S VR. It is a bit pricey, but it focuses lightning fast and the VR can help with hand holding shots at slower shutter speeds.

plus it has a constant max aperture of 2.8, which is needed for low light when shooting sports photography.

just remember that VR doesn't have any effect on eliminating motion blur; VR is only for hand/camera shake. The only way to get rid of motion blur is a fast shutter speed, generally 1/250 or faster for sports photography.

it also has a lower apature at 70mm then the 18-55 does at 55mm