DSLRUsers.com

anyone have some reviews of it yet?

I know nothing of it yet, but am watching keenly, it's focal length is very nice, the VR function is handy, and I'm hoping that becuase it's nikkor it will be sharp enough also.

Would be a good addition to the D200 and battery grip I want....

Ken Rockwell's OMG HAY GUYS I ACTUALLY USED THIS ONE review.

MCWB wrote:Ken Rockwell's OMG HAY GUYS I ACTUALLY USED THIS ONE review.

I think KEN was dreaming as per his remark actually holding it. Unless he held one in a store for a minute.

I am not always sure where the boundary between his reality start and his vivid imagination goes amock.

Though to be fair I should read his review first

You can see a few samples and opinions on dpreview. To me it seems to be another 24-120 equivalent in quality...
Cheers,
Gerard

So far it's not much better than the 24-120VR

ipv6ready wrote:

MCWB wrote:Ken Rockwell's OMG HAY GUYS I ACTUALLY USED THIS ONE review.

I think KEN was dreaming as per his remark actually holding it. Unless he held one in a store for a minute.

I am not always sure where the boundary between his reality start and his vivid imagination goes amock.

Though to be fair I should read his review first

Just read it. I am selling all my lenses as soon as get this lens

only one i will keep is the 200-400mm sigma. and buy a 12-24mm

Birddog114 wrote:So far it's not much better than the 24-120VR

""" Streuth """"it couldn't be worse LOZ

Does anyone have any idea what the price will be in Australia? ballpark?

Edit - I am sorry - used the search tool (as I had origianlly but not well enough obviously) and found a price.

i saw one at Fletchers at Castle Hill 2days ago for $1399 IIRC.. certainly looked tempting to bring in my 18-70 and do a lil switcheroo... esp considering theyre all pretty thick- they told me a few weeks ago that there was no such thing as a EN EL3a =\

regards
Julian

ECS (European Camera Specialists) are quoting $1095 inc GST, Birdy will probably match and better that. Phil at ECS said they evaluated a pre-production model and weren't overly impressed with it saying the pics were a bit soft.

Bob.

.

Listen and repeat after me:

It's worst than the 24-120VR, 10 times please!!!!!!

I had one for 3 days (sold unit) and I hold the delivery for 3 days for my own tries uphere last week.

Never look back into it again.

Save up your $$$$ for the soon coming 70-300/ 2.8 VR II. For sure it'll be .

I have had this lens for 3 weeks now and am very impressed.
It is at least the equal to the 18-70 kit lens in all respects.
VR works very well, it is sharper than the kit lens in my opinion(on a D70) and the 18-200 focal length range is very versatile.
Perfect all in one walk around lens in my opinion.

I was at my cousin's place in Singapore last week. Hadn't seen him for about 12 years, but as soon as I pulled out the D70s to take some group photos, he hurried off into the other room and brought back a D200 and 18-200! I had a bit of a play with the 18-200, and I liked it. Took a few photos, but I haven't really had a chance to evaluate them yet (to my limited knowledge anyways). The VR is great, I was hand-holding shots down to about 1/15 @ 200mm, and I was getting some okay shots. I'll check out the photos when I get home to Sydney tomorrow and post some up if they're not too embarrassing......

So far, my impression is that it's about as good as my kit lens (18-70) in terms of sharpness and quality, but with extra reach and the added sexiness of VR. I'll wait till I can see the shots at 100% though.

Birddog114 wrote:Save up your $$$$ for the soon coming 70-300/ 2.8 VR II. For sure it'll be .

God damn it birdy, quit putting ideas in my head, I already need a D200, now a 70-300mmVR, you're a bad bad man!

Does anyone know what is the diff between VR I and II? Is it marked on the lens letters?

I still want an 18 to 70 f2.8 or something similar.

Dug wrote:I still want an 18 to 70 f2.8 or something similar.

Yes an extended version of a 17-35 2.8 AFS (pass the 17-55 DX len) will be brilliant.

Birddog114 wrote:Listen and repeat after me:

It's worst than the 24-120VR, 10 times please!!!!!!

10 times worse than my silliest ever purchase? Perhaps it is made on contract by Sigma?

Birddog114 wrote:Save up your $$$$ for the soon coming 70-300/ 2.8 VR II. For sure it'll be .

At a truly scary price perhaps?

nito wrote:Does anyone know what is the diff between VR I and II? Is it marked on the lens letters?

It isn't marked on the lens whether it is VR I or II, just has the usual VR letters in red.

I think VR II is supposed to allow up to 4 stops slower shutter speeds than you would normally do without VR, whereas the original VR was said to allow up to 3 stops.

From Gooseberry's post: VRII works 1 stop better - 1 stop is twice or half the amount of light, therefore by the highly insightful deductive powers I have from my prestigeous Bachelor of Deduction™ (gained from the Institute of My Anus®, naturally), VRII is twice as good as VR - just as the marketting nomenclature implies.

Onyx wrote:From Gooseberry's post: VRII works 1 stop better - 1 stop is twice or half the amount of light, therefore by the highly insightful deductive powers I have from my prestigeous Bachelor of Deduction™ (gained from the Institute of My Anus®, naturally), VRII is twice as good as VR - just as the marketting nomenclature implies.

So Chi are you saying that its impossible to tell the two apart and the VRII adds little to the original VR system.

I don't think for that price that lens is worth it... Maybe a couple of hundred less than yeah, but not for that price...

Birddog114 wrote:Listen and repeat after me:

It's worst than the 24-120VR, 10 times please!!!!!!

I had one for 3 days (sold unit) and I hold the delivery for 3 days for my own tries uphere last week.

Never look back into it again.

Would it be possible please to ask "what" is bad about it?
My wife now wants one for her D70 and frankly I think it would suit her style of photography. One lens with that much zoom range. But having discussed this matter elsewhere and also here, I am having some doubt.

Birdy you seem fairly definite - can you please expand on what is bad about it?
Anyone else?

Tasadam, I'm just as curious as you. My guess is that its versatile focal range comes at the expense of sharpness, although Ken Rockwell just about melts into his keyboard rhapsodising about how good it is.

I bought the 24-120 VR over a year ago but find I haven't been using it all that much as it lacks sharpness and detail especially at the wider end. Has anyone here been able to directly compare this against the 18-200? I'm all ears!

Onyx wrote:... gained from the Institute of My Anus®...

I'm sure half my staff hold doctorates from that very same establishment....

I am very interested in the 18-200 too. We will be travelling overseas next year, and I want a lens to cover it all. The 18-200 VR is absolutely ideal in terms of focal lengths and with VR thrown in.

Obviously, it will not have the quality of a 70-200 VR for example, no-one would expect that.

However, having handled the 18-200, it is solid, perfect size etc, the only question is whether the picture quality is equivalent to, say, the kit lens.

I'm purely interested for the same reason. It may be considered a "toy" lens but travelling last year with my 70-200 VR, plus the kit lens and 24-120 VR made me seriously consider looking for something more suitable for long hikes. I'd bought the 24-120 for that purpose but realised I needed the extra focal length, and there's a huge difference in image quality.

If the 18-200 produces a similar image quality I'd take Birdy's advice and give it a miss, but would like to test one sometime.

timbo wrote:travelling last year with my 70-200 VR, plus the kit lens and 24-120 VR made me seriously consider looking for something more suitable for long hikes. I'd bought the 24-120 for that purpose but realised I needed the extra focal length, and there's a huge difference in image quality.

Having not even seen one, what's wrong with the 24-120? Is it too soft? CA (Chromatic Arberration)?
And Birdy says this 18-200 is 10 times worse... Most concerning.

EDIT - Just saw the price of the 24-120VR. Say no more!

I have learnt all about the reviews Ken Rockwell does, and have to take them with a grain of salt (or a shovel of).
But there are others such as DSLRPhotography here who refer to a bit of a review of the lens here.

And then we learn it is in short supply, even more critical than the D200 - here.
Can that many people be wrong, or are there that many amateurs out there that are prepared to put up with the "faults" of this lens for the sake of its versatility? Or am I believing too much marketing hype?

I see my options clearly. Either an 18-200 or two lenses - a 17-55 and the 70-200. Bit at nearly 5 times the price (and weight) for the two great lenses, I will be getting the 18-200 for my wife on the D70. Let's face it, it has to be better than the Olympus C770 P&S she has been using. I will use the 18-70 kit lens on the D200 with the 80-200 f2.8 we have a loan of. And we have the Nikon 105 macro lens now thanks Birdy and Poon.

I will keep saving and get either the 70-200 or the 80-400 down the track - need to decide whether I will be better served with a 70-200 plus teleconverter, or an 80-400.

And if the 18-200 doesn't do it for us, then we can save and when in a position we will sell it and buy something better.
I have one put aside in a store we will visit next week, and they price match!! Thank you ECS for publishing your price

I think Birdy was saying "say it 10 times" rather than it's 10 times worse, but I could be wrong

My main complaint is that it 'hunts' more slowly for focus than the kit lens and (goes without saying really) positively crawls compared to the 70-200 VR, even with the 1.7 teleconverter attached. Can't really compare it with the last because they're designed for different purposes and price brackets, but it's also quite a bit slower than my AF prime lenses - 60mm f2.8 micro Nikkor, 50mm f1.8 (admittedly, no contest here once again), and 24mm f2.8.

I've also found its performance in low light disappointing. The VR is very handy for capturing still images in low light, but as Thom Hogan has said elsewhere it won't help you if the subject is moving. There's simply no substitute for a wider aperture as we all know from experience. I shot a Christmas party in a dimly lit bowling club and what with the lens hunting for focus and subjects constantly moving, I didn't end up with many sharp shots at all, despite keeping the aperture as wide as she goes. I haven't yet found CA to be a big issue and it does have a handy focal range so shooting with flash or in decently lit environments is not too bad. But for candid portraits in low light, best be happy with soft shots at best: that is if the subject hasn't shot through before you've finished focussing

I guess I've been spoilt by the 70-200 VR. Thanks again Birdy!

timbo wrote:I think Birdy was saying "say it 10 times" rather than it's 10 times worse, but I could be wrong

My main complaint is that it 'hunts' more slowly for focus than the kit lens and (goes without saying really) positively crawls compared to the 70-200 VR, even with the 1.7 teleconverter attached. Can't really compare it with the last because they're designed for different purposes and price brackets, but it's also quite a bit slower than my AF prime lenses - 60mm f2.8 micro Nikkor, 50mm f1.8 (admittedly, no contest here once again), and 24mm f2.8.

I've also found its performance in low light disappointing. The VR is very handy for capturing still images in low light, but as Thom Hogan has said elsewhere it won't help you if the subject is moving. There's simply no substitute for a wider aperture as we all know from experience. I shot a Christmas party in a dimly lit bowling club and what with the lens hunting for focus and subjects constantly moving, I didn't end up with many sharp shots at all, despite keeping the aperture as wide as she goes. I haven't yet found CA to be a big issue and it does have a handy focal range so shooting with flash or in decently lit environments is not too bad. But for candid portraits in low light, best be happy with soft shots at best: that is if the subject hasn't shot through before you've finished focussing

I guess I've been spoilt by the 70-200 VR. Thanks again Birdy!

Hi timbo, sorry, I'm a little confused, are you talking about the Nikon 18-200 VR here ? It's just that two posts earlier (a few hours earlier) you mentioned that you would like to test out the lens.

Anyway, I recently got the 18-200 VR a couple of weeks ago - mainly to use just for travelling. I wasn't expecting too much from an 11x zoom, but I was pleasantly surprised. I haven't done much testing, but will be taking it on a trip for the next two weeks, will post and give my experiences with the lens.

So far, it seems to be as sharp as the 18-70mm within that range - I can't tell the difference, but then I'm not really experienced at lens testing.

AF-S on the 18-200 works just as well the 18-70 within the same range, at 200mm in low light on a D70 the focusing is a little slower because the max. aperture at this focal length is f/5.6.

Here's a quick sample shot from this lens. It seems quite adequate for my intended purposes of the lens.



Will post more thoughts on using this lens for travelling after my trip.

I would still like to try it: I was saying that if it's similar to or worse than the 24-120 I wouldn't buy it. I have read elsewhere that it's much better than the 24-120, and if so I'd grab it for a travelling lens and sell the 24-120 in a flash.

If it's as good as the kit lens, it's worth buying for the range in my opinion.

I'd consider the 28-200G if you wanted a 'travelling lens', and can live with the lack of VR and AF-S. Teamed up with a wide landscape zoom (12-24), the coverage from 2 lenses would probably still be less than the cost of the 18-200. IMHO it's a little highly priced for what it is - only a few hundred shy of the "pro grade" 17-55, but twice the price of lenses I would consider to be its peers - ie. the 18-70, 24-120VR, etc.

Onyx wrote:only a few hundred shy of the "pro grade" 17-55

FYI, ECS are quoting $1095 for this lens, which is about $800 less than the October price of the 17-55.
As far as a travelling lens (bushwalking) goes, I think the 18-200 will do my wife nicely on the D70. And if it does do the job for her, no new lenses for her and I can save for the 17-55 and a tele zoom for my new D200 (on its way)
And a better tripod, and a flash, and the WT-3 wireless, and the MB-D200 battery holder, and the 50 F1.4, and a teleconverter, and......  BTW Onyx there's something wrong with your applet. A file gone missing?

gooseberry wrote:

The distortion is quite evident, just being picky.

Hi Guys,
Here's the statement from Nikon about their new products of D200 & 18-200VR (In shortage/ 1st Feb)

http://www.dslrphoto.com/index.php

As I said earlier, I had tried one and I'm not happy with it = with the money which we are going to pay for. While a little bit extra of $$$$$ you may get some other decent lenses.

You have your own choice, get out and go to the stores, grab it and try it by yourself, lot of people are happy with the 70-300G and some are not, same as the 24-120VR.
By the end of the days, both the 24-120VR & 18-200 are with mixed reviews.
With me anything over 3x zoom, I don't rate it as a nice lens to keep in my bag, it can be handy, suitable with your pockets, your cases, your wishes.
Finally, I don't know, who's Ken Rockwell????? and tell me please, what's his doing?

Ken Rockwell is a professional photographer whose site gets a lot of attention due to his lens and camera reviews. Some would tell you he is a Nikon guru and every word from his mouth is gospel and must be heeded. Other will tell you he is a Nikon snob who has no regard for other manufacturers products. I find him mildly entertaining, mostly due to his writing style.

His site is here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/
and his test reports are here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

cameraguy21773 wrote:Ken Rockwell is a professional photographer whose site gets a lot of attention due to his lens and camera reviews. Some would tell you he is a Nikon guru and every word from his mouth is gospel and must be heeded. Other will tell you he is a Nikon snob who has no regard for other manufacturers products. I find him mildly entertaining, mostly due to his writing style.

His site is here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/
and his test reports are here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

Does he own the equipments and use those equipments professionaly before putting his words on his reviews of the equipments?

Birdy, any idea what price you will have on the 18-200?

Does he own the equipments and use those equipments professionaly before putting his words on his reviews of the equipments?

As I recall he does buy his own lenses or borrows them. He claims that he has no personal or professional affiliation with Nikon.

cameraguy21773 wrote:Ken Rockwell is a professional photographer

I think birddog was being a little sarcastic cameraguy... Ken Rockwell is well known here... His reviews are taken with a large pinch of salt as he is well known for reviewing items without actually laying hands on them...

Birddog114 wrote:Hi Guys,
Here's the statement from Nikon about their new products of D200 & 18-200VR (In shortage/ 1st Feb)

http://www.dslrphoto.com/index.php

Thanh,

Interesting link, with some very interesting other articles. The exhibition at JCII looks to be very interesting to those of us who have been taking photos for a year or 30 or so ...

and this one on the Olympus E330 with it's live digital viewfinder feed is also most interesting, and shows one way for a manufacturer to compete in this cutthroat industry.

I wouldn't call Ken Rockwell a Professional photographer - more a part time professional. If you read his bio you will find his real job is in Hollywood within digital film processing (which he has done for over 20 years). These Hollywood contacts obviously partly help in his photo assignments

At lot of his articles take the mickey. See his photo in the main web page. Note the "left hand" F100. Read his explanation of it. This is probably one reason why some of his reviews must be taken with a grain of salt.

A lot of people don't like him because his sarcastic/tongue in cheek article on the 7 levels of photographers apply to these same people and they take offense.

Most of the photos on the web site were done with medium amd large format cameras - not digital. He is a Nikon Fan because he started with a Nikon Film camera and has a lot of Nikon system accessories. If he had started with a Canon film camera and stuck with the Canon system, he would be a Canon digital fan. - he says this.

Also he makes money from legal infringements. Those that copy his copywrited web pages and articles are whacked. He recently did a raid on Ebay Australia.

Grev wrote:The distortion is quite evident, just being picky.

Hi Grev, when you say distortion, which part of the image are you referring to ? Just wanted to see if I'm on the same wavelength.

Here's an original file I found on Flickr by the 18-200. It'll take a couple seconds to load, but the detail this guy got was really sharp.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=87032538&size=o

birddog, that is a very interesting link. Didnt know the 5D had banding issues too. So its not isolated to early nikon *d200* *cough* *cough*.

For potential purchasers:

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID6/16650.html

Geeze........... After seeing that pic, boy am I glad that I opted for the 70-200VR. My first thoughts were, "You get what you pay for" and, "Mmmm, the VR is not as heavy as I first thought"!

That's scary stuff!

That sort of thing would evoke the fury of the other half real quick.

Forgot to say....... Don't tell Birddog !