File :-(, x, )
Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
Guys, I can't remember why we hate the 18-200. I realize its mostly because rockwell is a tool, but why does this lens suck again? And are the abberations too bad to be shooped out with a PS action?
Pic blatently stolen from flickr and taken with the 18-200
>> Anonymous
Distortions and CA. Shots will require post-processing.
>> Anonymous
That shot looks fucking sweet. I wish I had this 18-200
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
Look at those wine glasses. This person doesn't own a cat.
>> Anonymous
thats an awesome shot except for the thing on the right that is out of focus. it totaly jars with the rest of the picture. damn that thing, damn it to hell.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
Woah you guys like HDR now?

I have a sigma 18-200, it sucks ass, but half of my best pics are taken with that lens because it goes where other lenses can't (aka skiing)
>> Anonymous
I have Nikon's 18-200, and they are quite an amazing lens.
>> Anonymous
>>121768

Was a sharpening filter run on this? I perfectly understand the important of post processing, but it gets bothersome if it can be noticed.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
This is a pretty decent HDR shot. Just subtle enough not to be over the top, but still obviously HDR.

The main reasons why i hated the 18-200 was the CA and almost inability to use the lens beyond 135mm. But my copy could have been bad.

I was also double pissed i paid an extra premium (unknowingly) thanks to the likes of Crockwell hyping it.

It's a nice general purpose lens. But it's not fast enough. the 18-70 out shines it in the same range.
>> Anonymous
>>121771
Every shot requires post processing.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
I can deal with the post stuff, I always shoot in raw and go thru lightroom and PS. Any other owners wanna chime in? Hows the build quality?
>> Anonymous
thats a really cool picture except the camera seems tilted ever so slightly and it bothers me
>> Anonymous
I got one used a few weeks back and have been having nothing but good times with it =\
The distortions a little steep but the CA isn't as bad as you guys are making it out to be. Build quality is top notch aside from a creeping issue. Mine only seems to creep after 135 and when im looking directly down though so not really a big deal. It's great at doing what it's meant for. It's a walk around lens for those to lazy to change lens or too cheap to own a bag of glass. The amount of shots I would have lost changing lens which instead I captured make it worthwhile in my opinion

lolgear
>> Anonymous
If you need a 11x zoom, it's a superb lens.

Otherwise buy something else (and cheaper :-)
>> Anonymous
>>122005
I have the VR version. It works for what I need it for. I am a newbie at SLRs, and got a DSLR to facilitate learning faster. It is a decent all around lens, but not super fast.

As far as build quality:
-Inconsistent resistance pending how zoomed you are
-Some creep around higher lengths

Have yet to drop or damage it, but I also own no other lenses.
>> Anonymous
I was thinking of getting the 18-200 vr or a combination of the nikon/tamron f/2.8 17-50 & the nikon 50-200. Any opinions if I should get the 18-200 vr or the combo. Also if the combo, should I get the nikon 17-50 or the tamron 17-50 ?
>> Anonymous
obliviously that lens doesn't like high contrast :/
>> Anonymous
yeah, weird shit in high lightning
>> Jeremo
The Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 is a brilliant lens. Super sharp high quality photos with nice dof control.

Flares quite easily though and is expensive as heck... built like arock and will hold resell value quite well.

The Tamron 17-50 is a shitty plastic lens but with almost the same Image Quality as the Nikkor... also 1/3 of the price

If you're happy to save money, get the Tamron. I went crazy and got the Nikkor.

If you get the 55-200 make sure it's the VR version, better yet, just grab the 70-300 VR, it's a great telephoto zoom.

The 18-200 is nice, but for the price you can grab the Tamron and another lens or external flash.