Topic: Nikon 18-200 VR Lens?

[Sanjay]

I'm thinking of getting rid of my nikon 80-200 non VR lens and picking up one of these.  Has anyone tried any low light photography with them?  Does their claim of being able to shoot 4 stops faster hold true?  I'm going to be shooting everything from concerts to landscapes.

I currently have/will have all of the following
Sigma 28-70 2.8
Nikon 80-200 2.8
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Sigma 20mm 1.8

Is it logical to think that I can replace all of these with this lens and still photograph at the same quality?

Thanks in advance.

[Ed.]

You'd be giving up some focal range but I'm sure you're aware of that.

One thing to consider, the VR lens will help camera shake but if you're shooting a bunch of moving objects, you're still going to need a fast shutter, or they'll still be blurry.  You might be able to get a sharp picture shooting at 1/6 a second, but if the bass player is pogoing up and down, he's still going to be a blur, the background will be sharp though.

[Sanjay]

Good point.  I think i was just thrown off by the fact it claimed 4 stops are gained  by using the VR.   I found a thread that talks about almost my exact same quandry and people claim the 18-200 just does not cut it. 

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GcRI

[Sanjay]

I ended up ordering the 55-200mm f4-5.6 VR for $250 (a steal I think), in order to experiment with VR. 

I think this will become  my walkaround lens.  I really don't need the wide angle per say while doing that.  However I do alot of dusk shots and traveling while im photographing still items where this could prove very useful.  This way I can also keep my 80-200 2.8 lens for concerts and not have to sell it.

[Ed.]

You'd be giving up some focal range but I'm sure you're aware of that.

I don't know what I was talking about here.  I think I read the 80-200 and forgot about the 18-200 in the subject line.  But yeah, I don't know on a nikon standpoint, but I had the sigma 18-125 and it was soft.  It was manageable, I just had to touch up the sharpness in photoshop, but still wasn't fun.  I'm sure since it was a nikon the quality would be good, but thats still a HUGE focal range to cover.

I was wondering the same thing awhile back when I was considering the canon 24-105L IS but its just to slow for concert work and I didn't want to give up my wide angle.  It'd be a great walkaround lens though!

[Sanjay]

You'd be giving up some focal range but I'm sure you're aware of that.

I don't know what I was talking about here.  I think I read the 80-200 and forgot about the 18-200 in the subject line.  But yeah, I don't know on a nikon standpoint, but I had the sigma 18-125 and it was soft.  It was manageable, I just had to touch up the sharpness in photoshop, but still wasn't fun.  I'm sure since it was a nikon the quality would be good, but thats still a HUGE focal range to cover.

I was wondering the same thing awhile back when I was considering the canon 24-105L IS but its just to slow for concert work and I didn't want to give up my wide angle.  It'd be a great walkaround lens though!

I figured you were talking about sharpness, I guess I just read quickly and made sense of that.

We'll see how this 55-200 works.  I'll write a review when I get it.  I think its an incredible value, a nikon VR lens for $249.  Even if I don't like it for anything else it'll still be a better walkaround lens than using my 80-200 which weighs a metric ton.

[phanophish]

FWIW.  I've heard good things about the Nikon 18-200 but as others mentioned the VR does not make up for subject movement.  I've got the 80-200 VR as well as the 24-120VR and really like both lenses.  Obviously the 80-200 gets the most use for concert shooting since it is faster. But the 24-120 is a great walk around lens if I don't want to carry a bag or a boat anchor. Even then in small clubs with crummy lights getting a good shot with the 70-200/2.8 can be tough.  Don't ever give up your 50/1.8, sometimes it will be the only thing fast enough to get the shot. 

[Sanjay]

Here's my mini review:

got this lens last night around 6:30 PM, so I grabbed it and my 80-200 2.8 for comparison and headed down to the tidal basin to take pictures of cherry blossoms. But before I did that I took a picture zoomed in of my stereo from across the living room, one with the 80-200, another with the 55-200 with VR on, no flash in a room with a single lamp on. I have relatively unsteady hands so it would be easy for me to test VR. The 80-200 at F2.8 with a quick snapshot was a bit blurry, while the 55-200 at f5 was sharp. So far I like the VR.

Down at the Tidal Basin I managed to take some great pictures of the sunset and crowds. The lens has fantastic sharpness for a consumer grade lens, the VR lets you not worry so much about being careful about movement in dimming light, instead just take the picture and get on with it. It was pretty quick to focus and didn't seem to hunt as much as the kit nikon lens, but obviously less than the EX 2.8 lenses. I shot some really fantastic pictures with this.

Once night fell the lens was fairly useless. So this proves the point which I didn't get that the lens although it says you can shoot 4 stops less it does not mean you'll be able to take night pictures without a tripod. I mostly used my 1.8 for the night shots. However at the base of the washington monument I zoomed into the Capital and tried to take a night picture of it using the VR to stabilize. I don't remember the exact settings but at f5, I had to have the shudder open for a ridiculously short amount of time to get a sharp photo, the result of this the only thing that was even close to being exposed correctly was the dome since it has light pouring on it.

Overall I'm still very happy with my purchase. A bargain I think for $250, it destroys the kit lens. If I shot photographs during daylight hours outside or just needed a light cheap lens to take on vacation I would take this. Anyone who is looking for a zoom that doesn't need to do lots of night photography should pick this up. There is nothing else comparable in it's price point at all, Canon does not make an IS lens in the same price range. It has made me want to buy the 70-200 2.8 VR now. So I might be selling it soon along with my 80-200 2.8, and 180mm 2.8 and buying the 70-200 VR.

Now Nikon needs to come out with a 24-70 2.8 VR and i'd be in heaven.

Now I really see how bad this would be for concert pics...  I don't think i'll hold onto it that long. 

What do you think of this as an all around setup, this is what I think i'm going to go for.

Sigma 20mm 1.8
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR   

I know I'm missing some focal range in the lower end but I feel like two 1.8's would be better than a 50mm 1.8 then a 24-70 2.8.   Thoughts?

[Sanjay]

....and I'm not keeping it.  If anyone wants it for $250 its theirs or it gets returned.

Great fun lens.  But I have really no use for it. 

on to the 70-200 VR eventually. 

[Ed.]

SLUT!
 

[Sanjay]

SLUT!
 

Only a slut if i'm replacing it with something immediately.   

[Ed.]

hahahaha

[mizary]

I've played with the 18-200mm vr...  it's very nice.  4 stops might be a bit of a strech.  2 def. 3 maybe. 4 if you are lucky.

Best of all it's a great one lens solution.  I have a 18-55mm a 50/1.8 and a 70-300mm, but most of the time I pick the 18-55mm and run with that.  There are always times I wish I had a longer zoom, but 70mm is too long for many shots - so you miss out on shots - or are constantly switching lenses.  Both bad.

I'd never noticed the 55-200 vr.  $250 is a steal compared to the 18-200 @ $800-900

Also 55 is alot less than 70mm (compared to my 70-300mm), that makes the 55-200mm more usable at closer distances, and gives it a more usable zoom range.  I've shot a couple kids b-day parties and always used my 18-55mm, but if I had the 55-200 I'd use that.  I can easily get back far enought to use the 55mm and the longer zooms will allow me to get close ups from a distance.

I've been thinking about trying to sell all 3 of my lenses and buy the 18-200mm vr, but the 55-200 gives me something to think about.

--mizary