File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/'s experience on the 18-200mm?
>> Anonymous
in b4 Ken Rockwell.
>> Anonymous
Good if you prefer versatility to quality.
>> Anonymous
>>141038
An f/3.5-5.6 lens is not versatile. A range of focal lengths doesn't automatically make a lens versatile.

There are people who have use for a lens like this, but if you don't know an exact reason why you need it you're not one of them. Going out and buying this is like buying a tilt-shift lens because it looks cool.
>> Anonymous
>>141044
and fast lenses arent automatically versatile either.
>> Anonymous
>>141044
It does make it more versatile than a lens with a lesser range of focal lengths.
>> Anonymous
>>141045
True, but a fast normal lens will do you in many more situations than a slow lens will. It's at least usable for every type of photography, except tight sports and wildlife shots.
>> Anonymous
>>141048

Huge focal range + VR is going to cover more possibilities than a fast lens with a small focal range. The 18-200 has many compromises, but it's very good at being versatile.
>> Anonymous
>>141048
Except it will require you to run around to frame your shots (not to mention the perspective will be fixed), and most people buy superzooms like this for outdoor shooting where large aperture isn't relevant.

In b4 idiots arguing that a Real Photographer doesn't need zoom, IS and AF.
>> Anonymous
So, does that mean that the 18-200mm is enough for indoor/outdoor events and normal everydays?
>> Anonymous
>>141057
18-200mm VR is the best all-round lens ever made for Nikon. I <3 mine and use it 80% of the time.
>> Anonymous
>>141058

Im returning my 18-70mm, get a 50mm f/1.8 for the moment, then save up for the 18-200mm. Good idea?
>> Anonymous
>>141057
Outdoor, yes.
Indoor, only if you shoot with a flash.
>> Anonymous
>>141067

My plan will proceed then, thanks for clearing it up anon.
>> fire !!Polqr6xE+Wl
>>141058
the only lens you'll ever need for 909 of non-pro work.
>> Anonymous
I use it for outdoor shooting all the time. It's marvelous provided you have enough light.

Also, if you have studio with backdrops and speedlights etc, you'll be shooting at something like f/8 anyway with most of the lenses (well, maybe not with 50mm f/1.2 ais wich is best at f/2 and less light), so if you're "poor" or lazy and need something to use with controlled light you can use this one as well
>> Anonymous
Dude, if you want substandard choices, go for the gold. Get the digital-only lens or the Sigma that'll start having problems in six to twelve months. I understand that my view isn't held by all, nor should it be, I suppose. It's just a product of necessity.
>> Anonymous
>>141124Dude, if you want substandard choices, go for the gold. Get the digital-only lens or the Sigma that'll start having problems in six to twelve months. I understand that my view isn't held by all, nor should it be, I suppose. It's just a product of necessity.

ahahahahaha, fucking great

i should save that actually
>> Anonymous
>>141124
>>141131

uh, wat?
>> Anonymous
lulz 70-200 2.8 anyone?
>> Anonymous
bump for real opinions
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
copy pasta from another thread

Too expensive
IQ was not great for the price
Terrible Distortions at the wide end
Soft beyond 120mm
Barrel creep
Slow compared to comparative lens in the range eg. 18-70

But like i said, the issue i have with it is actually Crockwell. That cunt essentially sold the lens for me saying how it was the shit and didn't need anything else.

His review of that lens was just ridiculously biased, and I was starting out at the time looking for some decent advice... unfortunately i took his word.

.... but if your'e going in aware of the limitations, you'll do fine with it.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
here's a real opinion:

zoom on a camera lens is basically a system of compromises. the wider a range of focal lengths a single lens covers, the more you have to compromise image quality. ergo, you can read this as: primes are the best, followed by pro zooms that cover only a limited range (wide, normal, telephoto), followed by consumer zooms that cover the same range but smaller apertures, with "super zooms" (18-200 dx, 28-300 35mm) coming in dead last.

this isn't an absolute guaranteed rule (nikon's new 14-24 is sharper than pretty much all of their wide primes, etc), but it's a good rule of thumb.

ergo, the 18-200 sucks for everything except extreme versatility.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>141386
According to dpreview, the softness goes away when you get closer to 200. Basically, they optimized the lens for the wide-normal range and the far end of the tele, and something had to give. That something was 135-199mm.
>> Anonymous
so, for one lens, it's still good?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>141391

It doesn't, it got worse on the copy i had.

>>141395

it's okay. Honestly, you'd be betetr off with the 18-70 + 70-300 VR AF-S... i also believe that combo is a fair bit cheaoer too
>> Anonymous
>>141397

Please do not feed the trolls.
>> Anonymous
>>141397

Friggin 18-70 VR should come out already.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>141407

NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
>> Anonymous
>>141409

Same price as the 18-200mm. How does it compete with the 18-200mm vr and the 18-70mm? Im too lazy to do my research.
>> Anonymous
>>141407
16-85VR, depending on the IQ, could be great if you've willing to drop the extra bucks.

>>141386
I fukken lol'd, you actually listened to that chucklefuck?
>> Anonymous
best of both worlds

ken rockwell would approve
>> Anonymous
>>141410
If Google is too difficult, then fuck you.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
oh hai, what's up guys?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>141418

That's my baby. Best purchase i've made.
>> Anonymous
>>141418

oh hai there, $1,200 lens.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
photozone review of 16-85 vr

best standard zoom ever

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.5Focal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:14 19:15:26Exposure Time1/3 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Brightness2.9 EVExposure Bias1.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length80.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height585RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>141676
glad to see it's not fail like canon's counterpart. needs more aperture or less price though
>> Anonymous
>>141692

lenses got better in the time of 4 years! who knew!
>> Anonymous
>>141705
4 years isn't much in lens design. It's been almost half a century since zooms were introduced, and they still can't make a zoom lens faster than the original Zoomar, at least not for 35mm SLRs.
>> Anonymous
5 years and we have a $175 kit lens that rivals a $1,000 lens in quality

all it takes is a company to get off their asses
>> Anonymous
Personally I love it. It's a good objective if you don't wanna carry around a whole backpack of lenses, or constantly swap them.

The VR makes it a good objective at night too.

So basically, for me, it's a "4x4" lenses. A lenses I'd pick for a travel, for example.

Don't know why it gets bashed so much, it's not a bad piece of equipment.
>> Anonymous
people nerd rage over 9000 because they have too much pride to use a lens like that

they use FFL and pretend they're doing art, lol