PDA

View Full Version : Nikon 18-200mm lens



bladerunner.nl
10-16-2005, 10:50 AM
Is there a Nikon 18-200mm lens?

I'm only reading about the Sigma and Tamron lenses.

coldrain
10-16-2005, 11:54 AM
no. . . . . . . .

bladerunner.nl
10-16-2005, 12:16 PM
no. . . . . . . .

Thanks for the quick answer.

Now I can read the Sigma and Tamron threads for making my choice. (I'm seriously thinking buying a Nikon D50)

Because I cannot read Japanese and Swedisch I couldn't check if these stories where true or just a joke, that's why my question regarding these lenses.

"Nikon??????????????AFS VR 18-200 3.5-5.6??"
"Av bilderna kan vi också utläsa ett det kommer ett nytt spännande objektiv: 18-200 VR DX."

http://www.8080.net/html/200509/p231540100.html

http://kamerabild.mkf.se/ArticlePages/200509/23/20050923101605_ADF102/20050923101605_ADF102.dbp.asp

Balrog
10-16-2005, 03:55 PM
Of those two I'm pretty sure the sigma is better - I think ObiJuan posted some comparison shots where the Tamron was softer and had more CA than the sigma...

BigConig
10-17-2005, 05:27 AM
Thanks for the quick answer.

Now I can read the Sigma and Tamron threads for making my choice. (I'm seriously thinking buying a Nikon D50)

Because I cannot read Japanese and Swedisch I couldn't check if these stories where true or just a joke, that's why my question regarding these lenses.

"Nikon??????????????AFS VR 18-200 3.5-5.6??"
"Av bilderna kan vi också utläsa ett det kommer ett nytt spännande objektiv: 18-200 VR DX."

http://www.8080.net/html/200509/p231540100.html

http://kamerabild.mkf.se/ArticlePages/200509/23/20050923101605_ADF102/20050923101605_ADF102.dbp.asp

Most sources are saying that Nikon will announce a 18-200 AFS VR along with the D200. The most recent spy photos of the D200 (the first that look like the real deal) appear to have this lens mounted. I would guess an announcment in November some time

Babben
10-17-2005, 06:53 AM
Thanks for the quick answer.

"Nikon??????????????AFS VR 18-200 3.5-5.6??"
"Av bilderna kan vi också utläsa ett det kommer ett nytt spännande objektiv: 18-200 VR DX."

http://www.8080.net/html/200509/p231540100.html

http://kamerabild.mkf.se/ArticlePages/200509/23/20050923101605_ADF102/20050923101605_ADF102.dbp.asp

Translated into english that means:
"By the pictures can we se that there will come a new exiteing lens: 18-200 VR DX"

Andy.ro
10-17-2005, 11:06 AM
until proven wrong the d200 and its funky lenses are only dreams to me.

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/Nikkor_Lenses/

have a browse through that ...make up your mind on the lenses they have, according to what your shooting style is.

P.S: Ever wondered why nikon and canon don't make a 18-200 ? :P but 18-70 or 28-105? (tip: quality ?)

I got my d50 with the 18-70 USM and a 50mm 1.4.

I must admit that when i bought the d50 i got it with the sigma 18-125 and it sucked compared to the kit lens (also 50% more expensive). So i gave the lens back and bought 2 more :)

All my friends told me before i got my first dSLR ...ignore the camera (price wise) save your money for the lenses :)

d50 body = 460GBP
lens lust = 500GBP :-)

Good luck,

Andy

BigConig
10-17-2005, 12:32 PM
I agree and usually don't promote vapor ware but the pictures are quite convincing and the most reliable source on DPreviews board confirm it. Also Nikon's 28-200 is so much better than it should be considering the range and cost I have a good feeling about the 18-200


http://home.rochester.rr.com/bigconig1/d200front.jpg

Andy.ro
10-17-2005, 12:47 PM
i don't know where atm, but that picture was tagged by dpreviewers to be a fake. Somebody actually made the good point that the camera in the picture has a part of d70, d100, d2h in it :) can't find the link at the moment though.

Re. the lens here ...i would suggest anyone would be better off with 18-70 + 70-300 macro II apo (or whatever, i don't own it but impressive reviews / quality v price ratio)

or just bet your money on 24-120vr .... it really depends.

as i come from FZ20 i am considering the BIGMA 50-500 :-)) the quality can't be worse than that!

BigConig
10-17-2005, 01:14 PM
I missed that thread, but in this one (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=15134379) Jeff C (who has been VERY accurate in his predictions- as stated by Thom Hogan) pretty much confirms a November announcment of the d200 and 18-200 AF-s VR. He nailed what would be announced in September and also knew about the D70- D2H service bulletin ahead of time.

Andy.ro
10-17-2005, 02:33 PM
well ...i'll just sit and wait another month ...it's not that i'm going to bite :)

18-200 vr sounds very very interesting though ... but at what cost? 2000$ ? :)

BigConig
10-17-2005, 03:33 PM
well ...i'll just sit and wait another month ...it's not that i'm going to bite :)

18-200 vr sounds very very interesting though ... but at what cost? 2000$ ? :)

That's the part I've ben trying to figure. I am hoping it will be as good image wise as the 28-200, which is very good but certainly not pro caliber. Which means it will be sold as a consumer level lens. . .how much can they get for a consumer level lens? I think the 24-120 VR is pushing it at $500 USD, but being wider and longer it stands to reason it will be more than the 24-120. How much more? Like you said, I guess we wait and see. Meanwhile I'm trying to decide if I should sell my 24-120 while it's still worth something.

Jim R
10-18-2005, 05:28 AM
I recently (very recently .... last week) purchased the Sigma 18-200, and so far it looks pretty good .... although I would say that in low-light situations, it might be a bit restrictive. You should check the previous thread dated 1st October .... the many replies were very helpful for me (thanks everyone! Much appreciated). Here in Australia, the Sigma seems to be a lot cheaper than the Tamron as well, for some unknown reason. I was able to get the Sigma for Aus$484 (about US$360), and this was a couple of hundred $$$ cheaper than the Tamron ..... although I didn't pursue it that hard, as I'd already decided that the Sigma was the lens I wanted. Obviously, the Nikon (if/when it materialises) is likely to be a very good lens. But then it becomes a matter of the $$ you want to spend. But for me, the Sigma is very good value

GaMBarini
10-27-2005, 01:32 AM
take a look at this link...
http://www.dearingfilm.com/d200.html

The new nikon lent is AF-S 18-200 DX 3.5- 5.6


Is there a Nikon 18-200mm lens?

I'm only reading about the Sigma and Tamron lenses.

Rex914
10-27-2005, 01:36 AM
Jeff-C is indeed a very reliable source and also provided me with about half of the infomation I posted about Nikon's major announcement back in September (the other half coming from a variety of other reliable source).

erichlund
10-27-2005, 09:26 AM
well ...i'll just sit and wait another month ...it's not that i'm going to bite :)

18-200 vr sounds very very interesting though ... but at what cost? 2000$ ? :)
The speed people are quoting for the lens does not indicate "pro" level optics or pricing. You can probably expect the 18-200VR to compete against other consumer optics. It will be priced (substantially) higher than Sigma or Tamron, but people will buy it because it's Nikkor. Whether that turns out to be a good choice depends on how good a job Nikon does with the lens. The 18-70 is a real winner, the 18-55 is OK, but has more warts. The 18-200VR will not compete with the 70-200VR. If you need speed or superb optics, you will still want that lens.

If I had to guess a cost, I'd say double the Sigma and Tamron selling price of around $350 or $700 (or so).

Cheers,
Eric

bretjones
11-04-2005, 08:31 PM
$699... it will be on par with the 28-200ED quality wise... a pretty decent everyday lens.

K1W1
11-04-2005, 08:39 PM
Here in Australia, the Sigma seems to be a lot cheaper than the Tamron as well, for some unknown reason.

That answer is easy. Tamron is imported by Maxwells - the same people who bring in Nikon and want Aus$299.00 (US$212.00) for Nikon Capture when is available everywhere else in the world for less than half that amount.

Rex914
11-05-2005, 12:13 AM
Check here for shots using the D200 + this lens.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13814

D70FAN
11-05-2005, 07:50 AM
Norman Camera has the Nikkor AF-S 18-200 VR listed for $799. Glad I waited, as the initial pictures look great.

Looks like it may be time to retire the Sigma 18-125.;)

D70FAN
11-05-2005, 09:25 AM
Check here for shots using the D200 + this lens.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13814

Rex, How come the 200mm is the only shot with EXIF info? I'm not doubting the genuine nature of these shots, but the first shot at 85mm is incredible, and I'm assuming without flash.

The color and contrast remind me of the 28-70 f2.8... If this lens holds true to form then the D200 will have to wait, and the 85mm f1.4 is really not needed.

Come to think of it the 35 f/2 may go up for sale as well.;)

Rex914
11-05-2005, 10:24 AM
I really don't know. This are Nikon's actual shots on their site. Two of them are buried a little further in than the others (The 18 and 200mm ones) while the 98mm one is on the main page for the lens.

tekriter
11-05-2005, 01:52 PM
Norman Camera has the Nikkor AF-S 18-200 VR listed for $799. Glad I waited, as the initial pictures look great.

Looks like it may be time to retire the Sigma 18-125.;)


George, this link from Norman shows $899....

http://www.normancamera.com/shop/SearchResults.asp?ProdStock=2159

the original info on this lens was $699.

D70FAN
11-05-2005, 02:37 PM
George, this link from Norman shows $899....

http://www.normancamera.com/shop/SearchResults.asp?ProdStock=2159

the original info on this lens was $699.

Hmmm. OK, Could have sworn that it was $799. Must have been wishful thinking... or maybe I'm subconsciously assuming a $100 rebate in December.:o

Oh well...

P.S. Forgot to say thanks for the correction. I like the original info better, and maybe Norman is just hedging their bets.

tekriter
11-06-2005, 05:32 AM
Hmmm. OK, Could have sworn that it was $799. Must have been wishful thinking... or maybe I'm subconsciously assuming a $100 rebate in December.:o

Oh well...

P.S. Forgot to say thanks for the correction. I like the original info better, and maybe Norman is just hedging their bets.


I was reaaaalllyyy hoping the $699 was right - i could probably swing that before the end of the year but it would be tight. $799 - doubtful; $899 - no way.
:mad: :(

Rex914
11-16-2005, 09:55 PM
It's more like $650-$700. Only a nameless place that starts with R sells for $750.

coldrain
11-17-2005, 02:29 AM
It's more like $650-$700. Only a nameless place that starts with R sells for $750.
:confused:
Randorama?
Rolf Camera?
Rorman Camera?

Balrog
11-17-2005, 04:39 AM
:confused:
Randorama?
Rolf Camera?
Rorman Camera?
:) Think about crackers ...

D70FAN
11-17-2005, 12:20 PM
:) Think about crackers ...

Rispy Raltines!!!

Raham??

:confused:

D70FAN
11-18-2005, 08:34 AM
Norman is still showing $899. Very disappointing as I know the wholesale price allows for a very nice profit margin even at $669 (Adorama).

Oh well...