18-200mm lenses

[carolina_yankee]

Fred Miranda's site BoBQuincy referenced is an excellent resource. If you have time before your trip, I'd explore other lens alternatives and see what your goals really are for photography. The XT's kit lens (18-55) isn't bad for what it is.

My first lens add-on was the Canon 70-300 with Image Stabilization. It's hard to find right now, but it has gotten rave reviews and I really appreciate the reach it gives me as well as the IS.

I struggled with replacing the kit lens the EF-S 17-85 with IS, but it just gets too many so-so reviews, so I decided on the Tamron 28-75 2.8. This gives me a little more longer reach than the kit (which I appreciate) and a constant 2.8 aperture which means it's a great lens for low light setting. The drawback is that it's not as wide as I sometimes need, but I can switch off with the old kit until a spring for something in 10 (or 12) to 20 (22 or 24) range. The Tamron is $330 with rebate from B&H Photo video. (A great website by the way. www.bhphotovideo.com )

To be honest, if budget is an issue - I'd really recommend working with the kit lens and then figuring out where you need to add on based on your style of photography.

Dirk

 

[carolina_yankee]

By the way - here's another good camera lens review site:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

[boBQuincy]

A most interesting survey!

It appears that two lenses in the range of 24-70 and 70-200 would cover almost everything *except* the 18 mm. My guess is that since there are so many hits at 18 that it's because we just can't get back far enough, and could really use something shorter.

I have a 24-105 and 70-200, which in fact does seem to cover almost everything I want to photograph except the wide end. My next lens may well be Canon's 10-22.

As a confirmed geek (and proud of it) I would like to see how my focal length use stacks up. How did you compile the data?

I guess I was off when I said I mostly used my lens at 135 during our trip. I must have been using too small of a sample.
I just graphed my focal lengths using a sample of almost 1800 pictures from our vacation and this is the result;

I would have bet anything that I had used the longer focal lenghths a lot more than I did. But I guess the exif data would have no reason to lie.

I have no idea if your shooting style or requirements are anything like mine, but it seems that a sharper, faster lens at the expense of a shorter zoom might have been a better solution for me.
Live and learn I guess.

 

[extreme8]

I do find the 18 to be really useful. The 1.5 or 1.6 crop factors of most Dslr's makes it a necessity as far as I'm concerned.
I also have a Tamron 28-300 did was rarely on the camera. The wide end was just not enough for the shots I was taking.
I do have several shorter zooms of much better quality that would fill the ranges I've documented, but the question is will the right lens be on the camera when it's needed? When I'm traveling with the family their patience runs short when I need to keep stopping to change lenses to fire off a quick shot I think might be interesting.
Add in the additional opportunity for dust infiltration and I think the 18-200 is a pretty good comprimise for a walk-around lens even with it's optical deficiencies (on a Minolta - Canon is a whole different beast with this lens).

The software I used is a free app called ExposurePlot and can be found here http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/
It also charts ISO, Aperture & shutter speed.
If anyone else uses the software to analyze their Disney photos I'd really be interested to see their charts - I wonder how typical my results are?

 

[boBQuincy]

The software I used is a free app called ExposurePlot and can be found here http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/
It also charts ISO, Aperture & shutter speed.
If anyone else uses the software to analyze their Disney photos I'd really be interested to see their charts - I wonder how typical my results are?

This chart is from a day at Animal Kingdom.

I used my 24-105 on the safari (for it's IS) instead of the usual 70-200. 105 is not really enough for a safari, thus the heavy use of 105 mm.

Some of my days at other parks show a lot of use at 24 mm, apparently I need a shorter lens. We have a 18-55, maybe I will modify it to fit the 10D.
Interesting to see what we really use and need compared to what we think we need!

 

[TomPokNY]

As I'm now pretty committed to buying the Rebel XT, I'm spending more time going around in circles for which lens to purchase as my walk around. For now, budget wise, I can only get one lens, so I want to get this right.

I keep reading about the Sigma 18-125, but what about the 18-200? Why isn't this one as popular?

What other options should I consider?

Help!

I struggled with this same decision last month, and finally decided to go with the 18-200mm. I had read on this board that the two lenses behave comparably in the 18-125mm range. and the extra zoom capability was just too tempting to pass up. I figured that worst come to worst, I could try to stay below 125mm for pictures that really matter. I have not yet noticed any problems with focusing at the 200mm end, but it is possible that I just haven't tried taking enough pictures at that end in low light conditions. I used it on a recent trip to Baltimore, and was satisfied with the results. (Here are some photos from a tour of Camden Yards: http://www.pbase.com/tominpok/camyds2006 .)

 

[jann1033]

I do find the 18 to be really useful. The 1.5 or 1.6 crop factors of most Dslr's makes it a necessity as far as I'm concerned.
I also have a Tamron 28-300 did was rarely on the camera. The wide end was just not enough for the shots I was taking.
I do have several shorter zooms of much better quality that would fill the ranges I've documented, but the question is will the right lens be on the camera when it's needed? When I'm traveling with the family their patience runs short when I need to keep stopping to change lenses to fire off a quick shot I think might be interesting.
Add in the additional opportunity for dust infiltration and I think the 18-200 is a pretty good comprimise for a walk-around lens even with it's optical deficiencies (on a Minolta - Canon is a whole different beast with this lens).

The software I used is a free app called ExposurePlot and can be found here http://www.wega2.vandel.nl/
It also charts ISO, Aperture & shutter speed.
If anyone else uses the software to analyze their Disney photos I'd really be interested to see their charts - I wonder how typical my results are?

that is a very cool tool...i have no disney shots though

 

[campinggal]

Well, I'm headed to the World tomorrow with out a new lens ...but hey, it is probably best as my DD (age 9) would get really frustrated waiting for me as I stopped for more photos than usual just to put my new lens through it's paces!!

Any of you interested in the new Nikon 18-200 VR lens- be prepared for a very, very long wait. I remember another poster mentioning this earlier in the year and I think it took her 8-10 weeks. Well, I'm now at week 16 in my wait for my lens...

I knew this lens was in high demand and in limited supply but this is pretty crazy. Any of you even contemplating this lens- best get one on order if you want it next year!

Gee...guess I'll just have to plan another trip to the World after my lens finally does arrive!!!

 

[extreme8]

Not to be contrary or rub it in, but I was in a local photo store last friday and they had one on the shelf for $749.
I had heard stories about how difficult they were to get so I bought it then and there, and I don't even have a Nikon body yet!
I'm waiting for my buy back check from Sony because they couldn't fix my KM 5D. As soon as it arrives I'll be picking up the D200.
Hope yours arrives soon.

 

[safetymom]

I have mine and I love it. I waited 5 weeks. The Nikon rep I was talking with said a lot of dealers are selling their stock on EBay since they can make more money.

 

[campinggal]

Not to be contrary or rub it in, but I was in a local photo store last friday and they had one on the shelf for $749.
I had heard stories about how difficult they were to get so I bought it then and there, and I don't even have a Nikon body yet!
I'm waiting for my buy back check from Sony because they couldn't fix my KM 5D. As soon as it arrives I'll be picking up the D200.
Hope yours arrives soon.

Smart move!!! I'm in the boonies of NH with very few decent local photo shops in the area so I have to rely on my friendly reputable internet photo site.

Enjoy!

 

[campinggal]

I have mine and I love it. I waited 5 weeks. The Nikon rep I was talking with said a lot of dealers are selling their stock on EBay since they can make more money.

Ahh- I think it was your post I remembered getting it around April- or you ordered it around April. So I ordered mine in July thinking that 5 weeks I would have it for our end of August vacation...yeah right. Then I kept hoping it would arrive for this trip....yeah right again.

Dang those dealers selling them on Ebay!

I'll just keep waiting...or maybe I'll stumble across one if I'm in the vicinity of a local shop.

Glad to hear you are lovin' your lens...I'll be joining you in that sentiment some day!

 

[Ratpack]

Currently I have the 18-55 and 55-200 that came with my D50. I am wondering if I wouldn't be better to trade the two in for the one and not have to switch lens to obtain up close shots and zoom. Opinions?

 

[garris3404]

Go for the 18-200 VR! You don't need to change lenses and the VR is great!

 

[Ratpack]

I am trying to determine if this is the lens for me. Can I please see some photos taken at 18mm and some taken at the 200mm range? Thanks for all your help!!

 

[handicap18]

It probably is a good idea considering the range you already have. Keep in mind, however, that finding a Nikon 18-200 is no easy task and when you do it is a lot more expensive than the 2 lenses you already have. I'm not trying to bust your bubble or anything, just want to give a realistic view. This is a VERY sought after lens. Cheepest I've seen it on ebay is $840. Amazon is $999.

With that being said, your best bet is to find a local camera shop. See when they might be getting some copies in. They should sell it for regular retail of about $750. There was a post on the nikonians board 2 days ago that a shop in PA was getting a shipment of about 6. So check your local stores and see what they have. You can also get lucky with Best Buy and Curicut City, they've been known to have some copies as well.

 

[tinksdad]

Both your present lenses are not of the best quality glass. Not bad, but you get what you pay for.

Most zooms are worst at far extremes in the focal length and aperture range than primes. That said, the 18-200mmVR is one of the better zooms that Nikon has put out. Good to very good in most of the reviews I've seen and works very nicely in the field, especially for a one lens travel setup!! I've been using mine since March have been extremely satisfied with it's general performance!!

I found mine at BestBuy, just happen to go by the camera dept after picking up some other merchandise. The credit card got some exercise that day......

 

[Ratpack]

Yeah, I realize it will be more expensive, but I am in no hurry, so I can wait until the local shop gets one in. My biggest concern is whether the picture quality at 18mm is as good as the 18-55 and the picture quality at 200mm is as good as the 55-200. If it is, then I can swallow the higher cost to not have to switch lenses alll the time. If you have this lens, I have added a thread to see photos taken in order to judge the quality, post some up and thanks for the info.

 

[Charade]

You will probably find that the 18-200 is better than both those lenses and with the VR, it's a no brainer (if you have the money). I have the 18-200 and I like it. That said, I'm in the process of selling my Nikon 18-70 kit lens and my 70-300 Sigma.

 

[ndelaware]

Here is an album of images taken with a Nikkor 18-200VR. There are over 20,000 images there using this lens.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/18-200_35-56g_if_ed_afs_dx_vr