Harry Krause wrote:
Reginal P. Smithers III wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 08:03:40 -0700, "JimH" wrote:


I wouldn't buy any lens John. My little digital camera works just
fine for me. ;-)
That's super!


--
******************************************
***** Have a Gay Day! *****
******************************************

John

JohnH,

Here are some unbiased reviews from numerous photographers, covering a
broad range of skill levels, and links to to their photos.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/1...f_ed_afs_dx_vr

Based upon what I have read here, it appears to be a nice lens to have
when you want a light weight lens, but it is not designed to replace
your fast 2.8 tele-tank, any prime lens, or any of the smaller range
zoom lens. It is a lens you can put on your SLR and forget about
changing lens or carrying around your camera bag. You will take some
nice photos, but don't expect it to compete against a prime lens or a
pro quality smaller range zoom.

Harry said something about the quality being similar to a $300-$350
lens, and that is probably a fair statement, but it would take 2
$300-$350 lens to do the job of this one lens, so it is priced about
right. Will I keep my 18-200mm VR lens when it finally arrives or
sell it on Ebay for a profit? I am beginning to think I really won't
be happy with this lens, but who knows.



Hey, it is a fine lens if it fits in with what you want and your
patterns of use. I haven't seen photos that indicate it is any better
optically than third party 11-1 zoom, although I would assume the Nikon
build quality is a bit better than Sigma or Tamron.

My objections to the lens are as follows:

1. It is too slow, especially at the longer focal lengths. I prefer
shooting at the lower ISO numbers (100-200) with digital cameras, and I
frequently shoot when the outdoor lighting is not bright and sunny.

2. It is not going to be as good optically as a good fixed focal length
lens. I have a really nice 35mm F2 Nikkor that works on film Nikons as a
sharp moderate wide angle or as the equivalent of a 52mm "standard" lens
on a typical digital SLR. The zoom is not going to produce the same
optical quality as the 35mm F2 in low light or probably in any sort of
light. Remember that by opening up my lens, I can stay with slower film
or lower ISOs.

3. With film cameras, I get along very nicely with my 35mm F2 and a 105
F2.5 on a Nikon, and with a 50mm Summicron F2 on my ancient Leica M3.
with a Nikon digital, the 35mm F2 and the new Sigma 70mm F2.8, which
will be the equal in focal length of 105mm. And again, these two lenses
are fast, compared to the zooms.

If I am just carrying around a digital camera, one lens is mounted and
the other is in a soft lens bag in my pocket. I've been messing with
Nikon mounted lenses for decades, and can change from one to another
pretty fast. Rarely necessary, though.

Which is not to say I would avoid teh Nikkon 18-200. But not for $700.
Its optics aren't worth $700.



Did you read the reviews in the link I posted? There were some
complaints that go beyond the ones you mentioned. I am thinking their
backorder situation, might have put pressure on QC vs Quantity out the
door.

The two lens that look good to me now a

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor

the one you and numerous others have suggested:

Tokina 12mm - 24mm f/4.0 PRO DX Autofocus