Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer
it seems somewhat pointless to use when there are so many lenses available with fewer optical compromises, unless one needs to avoid changing lenses at all costs.
I find the most valuable thing about equipment is having the right lens at the right time. Many pictures last for only a second. If you have to reach in your bag and swap lenses, a lot of them would be gone. I can see avoiding the 18-200 for studio portrait work or architectural or wide landscapes you shoot on sticks, but for a ton of purposes beyond that, it's invaluable. I can't see any difference between primes and zooms unless I shoot grids and blow them up huge in photoshop. (I admit, I don't do that a lot.) With normal photos printed out at normal sizes, there's absolutely no difference at all.
Personally, I wouldn't be without my point and shoot Olympus 3030 either. There are certain situations where a tiny difference in optical quality isn't as important as being able to quickly and inconspicuously get a shot. The equipment has to serve me as a photographer. I'm not interested in coddling equipment for the sake of stuff you can't see unless you really look for it. If you have an 18-200 and you aren't using it, sell it, because there are plenty of photographers who will get great use out of it.
That said, I have seen some bad lenses. My old 43-86 is a mess. But the 18-200 is one of the best designed zooms I've ever seen. I haven't been as excited about a new zoom since the old Vivitar series one 70-210 macro back in the late 70s.
See ya
Steve