Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF Autofocus VR Nikkor Zoom Lens

After reading all the mixed reviews, I thought the price would be a sensible interim solution pending a 18-200VR. So far I have been more than satisfied with this lens. I get good contrast and sharp images through the middle 80% of its range. Unlike some of the negative reviews I've read, the focus is reasonably fast, and more than adequate for action sports in good light. Granted it's not a low light lens. I have other lenses for this purpose, but it cost me over $ 900 each and do not have the versatility of this lens.

I finally got my 18-200VR and have to admit that there is an improvement because of the extra reach, but to collect light and is comparable, and in the 24-120 range, but the two functions with the same result. Overall average quality of the images taken with both lenses are about the same.

That said, even with the 18-200 VR, I have to still use my 85mm 1.4 and 80-200 f/2.8 for shots where extra dazzle or sharpening needed.

In short, if you plan to have a couple spcialty prime lenses and a multi-purpose zoom when either 24-120 or 18-200 will do a good walk around lens. Unless you're just going to buy a lens for the life of your camera, so why spend extra money on the latter?

Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens

By now there are enough pro reviews out there for experienced shooters to read the writing on the wall. No, it's not a 17-35 and 70-200 wrapped in a small package. You can not have it for any amount. The 18-200VR is not meant to question the exotic as my 70-200VR or the 200-400VR. It is not even supposed to go on a prime number. It is designed to be the ultimate one lens solution when you do not want a bag full of heavy glass along for the ride. It features moderately fast (but not very) optics, vibration reduction and a lot of work to keep CA and distortion down. It has achieved some success, but distortion is still obvious at 18mm. Distortion is cut off enough at the wide end to require correction of the service (easy to do), but this is not the case for those who shoot architecture professionally. This type of distortion is typical for a lens of this type.
I'm sorry, but those who have panned this lens either got a bad (very possible with the earlier reported batch problems) or just do not understand what a walk-around lens, too. That's what we all hoped that the 24-120 VR would be, but unlike that lens it will be much more done for just $ 200 more. Anyone who says there are lenses like this for less ... yes, where? No other superzoom is sharp, has so little CA and throws in VR II and ... and in a small package!
Now ... how good is it in the real world? Very Good. It is a struggle for the sharp little 28-200G which means it is only a little less sharp than the 70-200VR which costs twice as much. My first shots with this lens were stunning, detailed and quite sharp at the edges above F5. Close focus gives near macro results and again this lens is sharp! Focus speed is pretty fast track, but I think the 18-70 kit lens is a hair faster. You can take all day with this miracle and do everything without feeling that you need a giant lens. If, like me, you find yourself shooting mostly in the 35-200mm range on a DSLR, this lens makes sense. It also seems deeper color saturation and contrast than either the 28-200G or 50mm 1.8. Did I mention that I'm impressed?
Build quality is good but not great. It's hard to be impressed with any lens build when compared with the 70-200VR. The 18-200 zoom is a little stiff, manual focus a bit loose. I suspect Nikon dialed up the zoom stiffness due to early problems with lens creep early. There is no creep at all. The size of the lens is only slightly larger than the kit lens, perhaps as bulky on the Tokina 12-24 if you have any of these.
VR II exceeds all expectations, I was able to shoot sharp shots at 1.10th sec exposure. But remember it's not fast glass. A moving object in low light is blurred at such slow shutter speeds. So far, this is an impressive effort from Nikon. Even an experienced shooter could find this lens on the camera most days and be happy. "Average" shooters do not need more because this lens is so good. The only areas for improvement given the real limits of optical design in construction quality, which can be a little better. In the end, plus even at $ 700, this lens is pretty hard to resist.
And no, this is not a "kit lens with VR." The kit lens only reaches to 70mm. The kit lens also can not close up macro work as this lens can. The kit lens is not as sharp. And of course this lens has the latest version of VR that works perfectly. There is simply no other lens like this on the market today. Again, if you believe that this objective has to be perfect and do not require compromises to achieve the design goals, do your homework before you buy. If you need a zoom to cover this area at F2.8, with no distortion and small size please call Mr. Scott aboard the Starship Enterprise.
For those who question the sharpness of this lens, be aware that there are online tests show even sharper in the corners than the legendary 17-35 2.8! In my 70-200VR I see a little sharpness advantage with the 70-200, but only visible with a 100% crop. Or, to put things more into perspective, this lens works well on a D200. Search the forums yourself. Most D200 owners report good sharpness even with pro bodies.
This lens is simply lots of fun for people who like to take pictures

Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS (Optical Stabilizer) Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

It was sent to my office yesterday, so of course I had to play with it. I have an old Nikon D50 and had got used to the kit lens that was on it. This Sigma is significantly larger and heavier. I expected the course, and maybe I'm just getting old, but IMO it's a pretty hefty lens.

I bought this lens specifically optical stabilization, so it was the first thing I tested. My office has a logo painted on the other side, so I hand held, indoors, at 200mm and focused on a letter. The lens setting was f6.3 at 1 / 30 sec. Looking side on OS and non-OS shot in the camera's LCD screen, they looked almost identical.

But to put them in Photoshop and blowing them showed a different story. The non-os image was blurred - and no sharpening in Photoshop could correct it.

OS picture was sharp. I'm not easily impressed, but I was really surprised how well it worked. When I extended it to 200 percent in Photoshop, it seemed a little soft, so I tried a little sharpness from the program - and ended with an image similar to
It was shot with a macro lens from 3 feet away on a tripod. It was excellent.

I bought this lens for two reasons.

First, I am a real estate agent. All of my listings need indoor shots, and I stay away from flash if I can - natural light seems to create warm home interiors. The problem was that most of the shots ended up in the 1/8-1/15 range - so I packed a tripod around. This lens should be much more comfortable.

Secondly, I am a photographer. I shoot a lot of weddings and reunions, and I often try to pull the trigger, especially in churches or large halls, where I want some ambient light to fill in the background. This lens allows me to shoot all day on 1 / 15 sec. with a TTL flash, and create some nice balanced portraits without the background blur present in most of these pictures from the slow shutter speed.

I have read in other reviews that this lens is slow. That's it. If it were a straight lens with f6.3 at 200mm, I would not even consider it. But the OS, you can safely handle at least another two fStop slower, so IMO that makes up for the slow speed of the lens. Moreover, it is ridiculous to compare a $ 500 lens for $ 1700 lens in the first place.

The lens also has a small distortion. If you primarily shoot architecture, and do not want to correct all your pictures, this is not the lens for you.

I have not noticed any lens creep yet, the zoom ring is pretty stiff, but that may change over time and there is a lock anyway.

One of the major complaints I have about this lens: Focus is prominent and easy to grasp. For easy to grasp. Sigma warns against turning the focus ring when you are in autofocus mode, for fear of damaging the lens. I trained myself after about 15 minutes to keep my hand on it, but I noticed that everyone who downloaded the camera had a tendency to want to turn the focus ring, thinking it was the zoom ring. If you leave this lens to someone to take your picture, be sure to instruct them in how to handle it, or fear of damaging the lens.

Focal mechanism and the Olympics is a bit noisy, but mostly because my ears are about 4 inches from the camera when it works. I do very little about the noise factor.

Overall this is a good lens. Inexpensive, it will stay securely on your camera exclusively, and allows you to grip the camera in low light. I never got to test it against Nikon's version, but the price difference made the choice easy. I would recommend this lens highly.