TUNisia From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 5 Posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2676 times:
I have the D50 body, and would like to add this lens, but Iw as wondering if any of you had any experience with it thus far? How is it for focusing? Is it worth getting to replace the 18-70mm I have now? Any help would be appreciated.
Someday the sun will shine down on me in some faraway place - Mahalia Jackson
Cathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2584 times:
Oh no, Andy......... don't pump up Billsville's tyres to much. That will only encourage him to go and take more shots that put my poor old D60 to shame!
I only had a brief fiddle with the 18-200 during Bill's trip to Brisbane over New Years and it really put out some seriously good photos in a wide range of conditions - from bright sunshine at Caloundra to blowing up bread rolls with fireworks on New Years Eve (don't ask!).
If I were a "Nikonite" I'd happily have the 18-200 in my plastic bag of tricks!
I got the 18-200VR lens too for my D200. It permanently benched my 18-70DX kit lens and depending on which lens you got with the D50, if it's the cheapo 18-55DX kit lens, you can sell that one too.
The 18-200VR is just 1 centimeter (0.4 inch) longer than the 18-70, a tad heavier but all in all a great, small piece of work, excellent for traveling around. The VR works well. Focusing is fast and quiet, much like the 18-70. The lens also focuses quite close, even when stretched out to 200mm, I think it will focus at about an arm's length in front of your camera. Sharpness is about the same as the 18-70. Bokeh is quite good too.
The only major drawback for spotting is of course the slow aperture at 200mm (5.6). It makes shooting on a dreary day quite a bit harder (Bill's nice heli shots were made in nice weather). If you're at the 200mm mark a lot, you might want to consider a non-VR 80-200/2.8 lens, which a lot bigger and heavier, but has excellent glass and is quite fast and not as big and heavy (and EXPENSIVE) as the excellent 70-200/2.8VR, which seems to be the most lusted after Nikon lens in the world. You may be able to find an 80-200/2.8 for around the same price as the 18-200.
In terms of convenience though, the 18-200 is definitely a winner, I think it will be on my D200 for 97% of the time.
Billsville From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2504 times:
I agree Grbld,
I would tend to use the 18-200 more at the shorter end, than at the longer end. The 200mm is nice to have, but I wouldn't shoot all day out at that end. Its a very versatile lens when shooting 18-120mm type shots, but it can go all the way out when needed in a one off situation.
If I'm going to sit out on the end of a lens I'll use the 70-200 VR.