[jumpinjohn1234]

I’ve noticed that the Nikon DX VR 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G have always been sold-out on pretty much all online retailers. Some of them allow backorders and ship when Nikon releases a batch of the 18-200 lenses to them. So I wanted to know, If I place an order on backorder form maybe Ritz or B&H photo- any idea on how long it will take to get to me? I’ve been looking around and it seems it can be from 2 weeks to 2 months. Amazon has them but I'm trying to get them for the price of 750.

Thanks

Btw, any thoughts on a Nikon d40 + the 18-200mm VR as my first Dslr? (I'd like some zoom and VR)

 

[Arainach]

It depends on a lot of things.

The most important is how much you pay. If you pay the full price up front, you'll be in the front of the line. If you pay a minimum fee, you'll be in the queue but anyone who later comes along and pays the full price will be put in line ahead of you. If you don't pay anything.....dream on. Also, there's basically no way to find them for less than $800-850 with less than a 3-6 month wait. You either pay a premium price or wait in a REALLY long line.

And what place has 2-week turnaround times? I've never heard of anyone getting one in under a month unless they bought online when a store had some in stock, walked into a physical store and bought one, or bought used.

 

[jumpinjohn1234]

from what I've read, people who got them in 2 weeks paid around 1000 from stroes. Hmmm, ritz camera has them for 750 http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541530721.htm but like you said, I guess I'll have to wait a good amount of time.

 

[majid]

According to my Calumet rep, Nikon even has a hard time filling orders on old standbys like the 50mm f/1.4 AF. It looks like they adopted "lean manufacturing" to reduce costs, at the risk of annoying customers with unreasonable delays.

 

[Arainach]

On the Photo Forums I frequent (most notably http://www.nikonians.org , which caters to Nikon users), the 18-200VR and the high-grade telephotos (300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, 500 f/4, 600 f/4) have been the only reported shortages.

 

[KrooLism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumpinjohn1234 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I’ve noticed that the Nikon DX VR 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G have always been sold-out on pretty much all online retailers. Some of them allow backorders and ship when Nikon releases a batch of the 18-200 lenses to them. So I wanted to know, If I place an order on backorder form maybe Ritz or B&H photo- any idea on how long it will take to get to me? I’ve been looking around and it seems it can be from 2 weeks to 2 months. Amazon has them but I'm trying to get them for the price of 750. Thanks Btw, any thoughts on a Nikon d40 + the 18-200mm VR as my first Dslr? (I'd like some zoom and VR)

Don't get the 18-200 VR lens.

It's not a very good lens at all. The focal zoom length is simply too much. It will shoot very average photos of everything rather than specialising in excellence in one area.

I'm a pro photographer by trade. I use 2 D2Xs' and a D200.
I know a zoom range of 18-200mm (dont forget - 24-300mm on Nikon DX CCD's) will probably account for 98% of off your photo's.
Use two lenses - a 18-70 3.5-4.5 ED as well as a 70-200mm VR 2.8 instead of trying to accommodate it in an all in 1 package.

Even with all my lenses, I use the 18-70 3.5 for over 80% of my shooting.

The VR feature is good, but you should really only use it at maximum zoom when shooting sports at a low shutter speed or in a very dark place. It'll allow you another 2-3 stops but...
If your camera is on a tripod, DON'T FORGET to turn the VR feature off. It's a little too smart in the sense that it'll actually create motion blur if your camera is completely still and image is pin sharp.

When buying a new camera these days, look at the features. Megapixel rating is pretty pointless these days as I have only needed to blow up an image greater than 30" about 3 times in my career. A 30" image you could EASILY do with 6 mg pix. With computer extrapolation, 3 megapixels would also suffice.

I've been requested by clients to use all 12.5 megapixels raw with shooting their photos when I use the D2X. Then they complain that when they load the photo on the screen, at full screen image, it's only at about 6% zoom.

 

[jumpinjohn1234]

Ah thanks great info. The problem is that the 70-200mm VR 2.8 is a bit out of my prive range of $1100. in that case any suggestions then, is the 18-200 that bad?

thanks

 

[wlai]

Kroolism: Yours is the strongest negative feelings on the 18-200mm I've read, and I've researched plenty. Can you give more technical details on what you don't like about it? Sharpness? Distortion? If so, what kind?

It isn't a pro lens and so maybe it doesn't fit your needs, but neither is it priced as such. But as a prosumer level lens, how does it stack up?

Regarding the wait time, I heard it's been getting better, and there are places that you can get it pronto if you look hard enough.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrooLism /img/forum/go_quote.gif Don't get the 18-200 VR lens. It's not a very good lens at all. The focal zoom length is simply too much. It will shoot very average photos of everything rather than specialising in excellence in one area. I'm a pro photographer by trade. I use 2 D2Xs' and a D200. I know a zoom range of 18-200mm (dont forget - 24-300mm on Nikon DX CCD's) will probably account for 98% of off your photo's. Use two lenses - a 18-70 3.5-4.5 ED as well as a 70-200mm VR 2.8 instead of trying to accommodate it in an all in 1 package. Even with all my lenses, I use the 18-70 3.5 for over 80% of my shooting. The VR feature is good, but you should really only use it at maximum zoom when shooting sports at a low shutter speed or in a very dark place. It'll allow you another 2-3 stops but... If your camera is on a tripod, DON'T FORGET to turn the VR feature off. It's a little too smart in the sense that it'll actually create motion blur if your camera is completely still and image is pin sharp. When buying a new camera these days, look at the features. Megapixel rating is pretty pointless these days as I have only needed to blow up an image greater than 30" about 3 times in my career. A 30" image you could EASILY do with 6 mg pix. With computer extrapolation, 3 megapixels would also suffice. I've been requested by clients to use all 12.5 megapixels raw with shooting their photos when I use the D2X. Then they complain that when they load the photo on the screen, at full screen image, it's only at about 6% zoom.

Hmm.. that's exactly what I thought too. I was gonna comment about it on different forum but considering how hard (and expensive) it is too get, I'd rather not since I know there would be people flaming and getting defensive about it.

I mean maybe it's "great" considering the range you can get from it (maybe they're talking from zoom lens point of view) but then again, I don't see anything special from it.
Or maybe I've been looking at too many samples from Nikon primes.

But zoom lens wise, I like what I see from Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX (that's a long name lol). A bit more expensive, but I mean, if you have the money for that 18-200, might as well save up a bit more for this one.

 

[warpdriver]

I traded in my two zooms (18-70, 75-300) for my 18-200VR and haven't looked back. I still have my prime lens for maximum sharpness and low light. From my experience, the 18-200 is every bit as good as the kit 18-70 kit lens.

It's completely preference. I went on vacation and had my D70, 18-200 with me. Good photography is also a product of opportunity, and there were lots of shots I would have missed if I had to change lens. The performance of the lens is as good as my previous set. The VR at tele range worked beautifully also. I hiked up and down mountains and took some nice shots, my gear bag was not overly heavy, which would not been true if I had to lug a big 70-200VR around also

I highly recommend this lens.

Edit: It's easy for somebody to put this lens down and recommend bigger and heavier lenses as a superior setup, but the average prosumer and even pros on occasion is well served by this lens (It was my wedding photographer who recommended to me that I buy this lens, and he doesn't go light). It's all about application. In the ideal world, you would have three lenses, fix your tripod for every shot, waiting for that perfect light. I don't make money off my shots, so squeezing that last bit of sharpness or contrast out of my shot is not worth the weight or expensive of carrying two heavy pro grade lens around with me. I do care about sharpness and contrast, and it's not like this lens is really bad at anything. You do pay a slight premium for being a superzoom, but as I said, the fact that I don't have to switch lenses often is worth it to me.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumpinjohn1234 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah thanks great info. The problem is that the 70-200mm VR 2.8 is a bit out of my prive range of $1100. in that case any suggestions then, is the 18-200 that bad? thanks

No, it's no that bad. If it was a dog, no one would buy it. Is it the same grade as pro glass? No. But it's at least as sharp as the 18-70 across the board and the VR feature is INCREDIBLY useful for anything but sports. And there's a lot to be said for not having to switch lenses.

News flash: Optics has progressed a lot in fifty years. In 1970 they couldn't make a zoom for crap. In the eighties anything that tried to have more than a 3X zoom was complete crap. Nowadays Nikon's managed to make a superzoom with very minor distortion, decent contrast, and great quality.

Another thing to consider: It takes top-grade technique to get the razor sharp images the 17-55 f/2.8 and similar zooms are capable of. In the hands of someone who doesn't spend their entire day behind the camera, the results from pro glass and the 18-200 will be very comparable - in extreme circumstances the 18-200 may give better shots in the hands of an amature because of the VR. And there's a LOT to be said for weigh and size. I've shot with a 17-55 and a 70-200VR. They're big, they're heavy, and having one around my neck all day long would be a pain. Not so wih the 18-200.

 

[dj_mocok]

I just remembered that the OP has a D40, I think it will feel a bit awkward too using big heavy glass for smaller DSLR like D40? (too much weight at the front end). Should've gotten D50, unless what you really want is a really small DSLR like D40.

But regarding the lens, I still think that if you can really afford it, why not? Lens will last you a loooong time, and 55mm is not that long you really NEED VR for it, and it's f2.8 too. But of course, if you want a longer zoom, probably 18-200mm is your best bet.

 

[Arainach]

The problem with the 17-55 is that it's damned inconsistent. People regularly have to return 2 or 3 samples before they're sent a good one. If you get a good one, it's wonderful, but it's in no way guaranteed.

 

[KrooLism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumpinjohn1234 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah thanks great info. The problem is that the 70-200mm VR 2.8 is a bit out of my prive range of $1100. in that case any suggestions then, is the 18-200 that bad? thanks

Then just get the 18-70mm (24mm-105mm on Nikon CCD's) AF-S DX lens.

You can forget the VR feature on the 18-200. Absolutely pointless when the max aperture at 200mm is 5.6!!!!

You might as well get an 80-200mm AF-S 2.8 constant. The two extra stops you are getting now are from a professional grade lens and not from an amature feature. There is one now for the next 4 days on ebay and the bid is only at $450 USD.

Your 18-200 lens is about $900 USD.

Most amature camera kits come with the 18-70 AF-S anyway. If it doesn't you can pick one up dirt cheap. There is one on auction on ebay now for $130. It's by far far awaw the most value for money lens I own.

Just for your info, that lens as well as my 50mm 1.4 constant probably accounts for over 90% of my professional shooting.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

The problem with the 17-55 is that it's damned inconsistent. People regularly have to return 2 or 3 samples before they're sent a good one. If you get a good one, it's wonderful, but it's in no way guaranteed.

Really? That's a shame considering the premium price they're asking for it..

But then, I've also seen excellent pictures taken with just humble 18-70mm DX (and also crap ones taken with that 17-55).
So I think it's really up to the OP in deciding how much he wanna spend for it and how confident he is in using the camera.