Nikon 18-200

Read a review and also saw a video review at http://www.cameralabs.com/
on the Nikon 18-200 VR DX lens.

Basically they noted that the lens is an ok lens but it is not as good as
other Nikons optically. They also noted lens creep when held vertically
either up or down and they further noted that this does not occur on
other Nikon lenses.

I have read other reviews on this lens where the summary results is that
the lens comes in optically as fair. These reviews also noted that the
new Canon counterpart is about the same and not the greatest.

However Ken Rockwell claims that the lens is optically real good and he
prefers that lens on his DX cameras over any other. He claims that he
tested it and optically is matches well against the 16x85mm. He says the
lens is so flexible that maybe the only other lense one would need is a
wide angle zoom and a macro like the 1055mm micro.

My question to you readers is have any of you who own or used this lens
compared the results both on a monitor and in print (12x18 or larger) it to
other Nikon or even Canon lenses of various zoom ranges?


Another thing; I am looking at the entire Canon (IS under $1500) lens
line against the Nikon comparable lens line. While the jury is still out
it at first glance that Canon has more offerings at reasonable prices and
that after reading review summaries appear to have an optically stronger
lineup. Curious about other opinions.

Basically, I seem to favor the Nikon D90 body over the Canon 50D because
of the way the controls are placed and the way it feels even though the
Canon 50D is built better and may be a little better but the Nikon it
built good enough and I do take care of my stuff.

On 2009-01-08 17:05:17 -0700, measekite said:

> My question to you readers is have any of you who own or used this lens
> compared the results both on a monitor and in print (12x18 or larger) it to
> other Nikon or even Canon lenses of various zoom ranges?

Lenses such as the 18-200 can never be as good optically as other
lenses with today's technology. But who knows? Once upon a time all
zoom lenses compared rather unfavorably with fixed lenses, but now they
are mostly pretty good.

The problem with zoom creep is not really that much of an annoyance. I
really have to think that the people who complain about it are severe
wimps. I mean, my goodness, you have this technological wonder that was
practically undreamed of a few years ago and you worry about zoom
creep? Get a life.

The 18-200 lenses perform well enough that for handheld photography
they are indistinguishable from even the very best lenses. You have to
get the camera up on a tripod, lock the mirror, and trigger the shutter
with remote before you can begin to really see much of a difference on
anything but the finest of test patterns.


>
>
> Another thing; I am looking at the entire Canon (IS under $1500) lens
> line against the Nikon comparable lens line. While the jury is still out
> it at first glance that Canon has more offerings at reasonable prices and
> that after reading review summaries appear to have an optically stronger
> lineup. Curious about other opinions.

The fact that Canon has more cameras or lenses only matters if you are
a collector. In that case, you might prefer the manufacturer that
offers fewer models.

I would be interested in seeing any photography application where the
optical differences between lenses made by any of the top manufacturers
was actually important.

>
> Basically, I seem to favor the Nikon D90 body over the Canon 50D because
> of the way the controls are placed and the way it feels even though the
> Canon 50D is built better and may be a little better but the Nikon it
> built good enough and I do take care of my stuff.

Both cameras are built very well. Stop worrying about it. It is not as
if they were going to fall to pieces in your hands after a few hundred
photos.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor