-4°
EXPIRED
Nikon 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR II DX Lens @ Amazon £499.97
Nikon 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR II DX Lens @ Amazon £499.97

Nikon 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR II DX Lens @ Amazon £499.97

Buy forBuy forBuy for£499.97
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
Nikon 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR II DX Lens @ Amazon. Was previously £517.

7 Comments

Comment withdrawn - earlier model available more cheaply elsewhere.
Edited by: "Bertt" 22nd Oct 2010

Cheapest available, although variable f-stop lenses are no longer tolerated in my kit-bag. I had the first version of this lens at one point, and it was nowhere near Uncle Ken's claims. Wide open was slightly soft and sharpness varied across the image (not just at the edges). Not worth £500 outlay imho.

I think each type of lens has its place, I have the Nikon 24-70/70-200mm F2.8 lenses and while they're superb optically and fast they're bulky lenses and inflexible. That setup is just too heavy to carry around for the day on my back so I've just picked up the new Nikon 28-300mm lens as a walkaround lens. Yes it's not as fast optically nor is it its image quality as good but it's still capable of decent photos and better than my normal walk around combination which is the GH1 + 14-140mm. The beauty of an interchangeable lens system is that I can change to the fast F2.8 glass when I need their image quality and apertures.

John

Yes, I have the same two thirds of the holy trinity, but take a different view these days after experimenting with pretty much every lens available, including some great quality mf glass (soon to be listed fs). The weight is worth suffering imo.

With the 70-200mm 2.8 in particular, I can capture images of everyday scenes and people that just aren't possible with the 18-200mm. And as you'll know, it's not just the discerning eye that will notice the difference. The bokeh alone on the 70-200mm can make an otherwise ordinary image striking.

It's the best price for this lens. It might not be the best of lenses, but it's not bad for an 11x super-zoom. It's hard to make a range as big as that without come compromises. It's reasonably compact for an all in one lens. It obviously won't suit everybody, but if it's the right combination of range/size/weight for what you want then it's a good price.

Liddle ol' me

Yes, I have the same two thirds of the holy trinity, but take a different … Yes, I have the same two thirds of the holy trinity, but take a different view these days after experimenting with pretty much every lens available, including some great quality mf glass (soon to be listed fs). The weight is worth suffering imo. With the 70-200mm 2.8 in particular, I can capture images of everyday scenes and people that just aren't possible with the 18-200mm. And as you'll know, it's not just the discerning eye that will notice the difference. The bokeh alone on the 70-200mm can make an otherwise ordinary image striking.



The problem is it's not just the lenses though, if you're going to take limited zoom ranges it means multiple bodies otherwise you miss shots and having damaged my back three times in the last year my days of carrying 10Kg+ camera equipment for extended periods are long since over. The 28-300mm is providing solid results even to the discerning eye and I can see it getting plenty of the use when the 24-70/70-200mm are not options. Also the massive 70-200mm is not a subtle lens unlike the more discrete superzoom lenses which can also be an issue. I don't think the superzoom lenses are anything as bad as people make out, as with any lens they have strengths and weaknesses.

John
Edited by: "Johnmcl7" 22nd Oct 2010

not to mention costs.
f2.8 glass is great, but pricey
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text