-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is your non-negotiable item, device, or app for international travel?
Nikon 18-200mm vr
- Thread starter oomjan
- Start date
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
That depends what your expectations are, and possibly what you're used to right now. The Nikon 18-200mm VR is considered one of the best in this class of lens, but getting 10x zoom out of an SLR lens comes with compromises.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
btw, it's just over 8k at orms.
I've also looked at this lens. I get a bit tired of switching between my 18-55 and 55-200 lenses.
The one thing that people warned me about the 18-200 is that there tends to be a bit of distortion at the long and short ends.
Haven't seen it for myself yet though because I haven't actually gotten to play with one of them.
Also, don't discount Sigma and Tamron lenses. They tend to be a bit cheaper than the Nikon-branded goods, and the quality is still good. Nikon vs Generic - each has it's pro's and cons. Just google for reviews - there's hordes of them available from the folks who know what they're talking about. In the end you gotta choose the brand that suits you best in terms of quality and cost.
The one thing that people warned me about the 18-200 is that there tends to be a bit of distortion at the long and short ends.
Haven't seen it for myself yet though because I haven't actually gotten to play with one of them.
Also, don't discount Sigma and Tamron lenses. They tend to be a bit cheaper than the Nikon-branded goods, and the quality is still good. Nikon vs Generic - each has it's pro's and cons. Just google for reviews - there's hordes of them available from the folks who know what they're talking about. In the end you gotta choose the brand that suits you best in terms of quality and cost.
zamicro
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,823
- Reaction score
- 5
I have the Canon version, and I must confess: This is the lens that is most on my camera. For everyday use, it is very nice, as I do not need to carry other lenses with me.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
I won't disagree with you. But I'll add that I had the Canon 18-200mm IS, and I sold it. It was on my camera most of the time, but the compromises were too big for me, and I ended up buying a 24-105L again. I considered keeping the 18-200 as a long lens, since it's fairly compact and has IS. I also had a Sigma 28-300 and Sigma 70-300mm APO, but I considered the 18-200mm to be a better option since it's more compact and has IS. But after doing some comparisons I was stunned to find that the Sigma 70-300mm was much sharper and had much less vignetting and colour fringing.
I agree. Usually the longer the focal range of the lens the more compromises there are in image quality.
The image quality of the Nikon 18-200mm VR II appears to be very similar to the Canon EF-S 18-200mm lens although the Nikon suffers from a lot more more chromatic aberration compared to the Canon lens, particularly in the 18mm to 70mm range.
What I do find surprising is that the Canon lens is R5400 vs Nikon's R8200.
Why do Nikon charge so much more for a lower quality lens?
<flame suit on>
Edit:
For an extra R3100 you can buy the professional Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM lens which totally blows away the 18-200mm lenses of both manufacturers in terms of image quality at the expense of a bit of range.
Last edited:
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens -> R23500
Maybe this is a better choice:
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR Lens -> R5k
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
It often has more to do with how wide the wider end is. Making wide zooms are far more difficult and complex than long zooms. That's why lenses like the 10-22mm cost about as much, if not more than a 18-200mm.
Actually, the Canon is worse (marginally) in CA, vignetting and barrel distortion. The Nikon is also a fair bit sharper. See the photozone reviews: Nikon Canon[/quote]
It's built better, it has an ultrasonic lens motor which the Canon lacks.
I'll agree with that. I ended up up buying a second hand 200mm f/2.8 L for around R5000, which blows the socks of anything else I've used.
Last edited:
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Eh?
Oops, typo. Fixed that
Hmmm ... okay that is a better comparison.
Site bookmarked.
I didn't think about that.
So the Nikon is priced more or less where it should be.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Could be "or what" - if it's too good to be true... 
That's pretty cheap for that lens. Second hand normally about 5k.
I have one and I'm very happy with it but I wouldn't know better having not owned or used "L" level primes and the like. I got it to replace my 18-55 and my 28-200. It's a lot bigger and heavier than the 28-200 but I don't have a very steady hand so the VR comes in handy.
I have one and I'm very happy with it but I wouldn't know better having not owned or used "L" level primes and the like. I got it to replace my 18-55 and my 28-200. It's a lot bigger and heavier than the 28-200 but I don't have a very steady hand so the VR comes in handy.
Last week I saw one on Gumtree for R4200 but didn't have the cash. That was a VR II version.
@Koffiejunkie, there are some dodgy sales on that site so that's the "what" part, but I went through with it and got a good clean Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX for cheap, and after testing it for a day, this is a genuine bargain. This guy also had a Nikon 70-300 VR for sale. Gumtree is loaded with Canon lenses, but never any good Nikon ones.
@Koffiejunkie, there are some dodgy sales on that site so that's the "what" part, but I went through with it and got a good clean Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX for cheap, and after testing it for a day, this is a genuine bargain. This guy also had a Nikon 70-300 VR for sale. Gumtree is loaded with Canon lenses, but never any good Nikon ones.
Another option to look at is the new Nikon 28-300 VR 3.5-5.6. It retails for about R9500 and my daughter swears by her copy.
I owned a 18-200 VRI and found it a good all-round lens for general use but preferred my 70-200 VRI 2.8, but obviously in a different class.
I sold all my DX equipment and upgraded to FX.(All secondhand) This is a format to save for.
I owned a 18-200 VRI and found it a good all-round lens for general use but preferred my 70-200 VRI 2.8, but obviously in a different class.
I sold all my DX equipment and upgraded to FX.(All secondhand) This is a format to save for.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
GTI, I'm glad to hear! I have grown very weary of Gumtree over the last few years. For years it was fantastic. But a couple of years ago they started advertising on the Underground, and quite quickly it became swamped with scammers.
Yes, there usually is a noticeable difference in quality between a cheap Sigma or Tamron lens and a much more expensive Nikkor or Canon equivalent lens.
However Sigma do make some decent lenses so it's worth looking for some reviews and comparisons online.
For an amateur you might not mind the lower quality lens.
Barrel distortion for example isn't always that easy to spot unless you're taking photos of geometric shapes like buildings, straight lines, etc.
Chromatic aberration (purple fringing) on the other hand is very easy to spot.
The other thing to worry about is lens and camera body compatibility.
I'm not sure if the Sigma/Nikon lens combo's are as much of a problem as the Sigma/Canon combo's but the problem is if you upgrade your camera body you have no guarantee that the lens will continue to work correctly on the new body.
The main issue seems to be that the auto focus stops working. If future compatibility is not a concern to you then best thing to do is take your camera body with you when you go shopping for lenses and try them out on the body to make sure they perform as expected.
Last edited: