Interactive Lens Reviews and Opinion.
Digital Camera Reviews

Reviews Views Date of last review
7 223803 4/30/2014
Recommended By Average Purchase
57% of reviewers $758.80
Reader Review Rating Averages
Readers' rating for
Construction Quality
Readers' rating for
Image Quality
Overall Rating

Keywords: Nikon Nikkor Wide Mid Tele Zoom APS-C DX AF-S VRII Stabilized Tested


Registered: April 2014
Posts: 1
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II DX AF-S Nikkor review by joefunny30
Review Date: 4/30/2014 Would you recommend the product? No | Total Spent: $650.00| Rating: 7 

Pros: convenient
Cons: lens creep

Just picked one up and I don't know why I'm even surprised about the lens creep. Seriously?! Haven't they had at least 7 years to fix this? Not feeling it from Nikon lately.

Registered: November 2008
Posts: 8
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II DX AF-S Nikkor review by ppk
Review Date: 10/4/2011 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $729.00| Rating: 10 

Pros: quite a bit tighter barrel than my vr I and sharper.
Cons: not really any other than distortion that needs a in camera editor to straighten up

have had a VRI for some years on D80-90-7000 cameras. decided to have a backup setup and purchased the VRII from 42nd. This VRII is sharper and tighter than the old model.

Actually, my sample VRII is very sharp, and using the in camera D7000 distortion control you can clean up the only weak area of the lens.

i traded in a 16-85 which was sharper than VRI and equal to VRII. There are sharper lenses but not really more convenient ones. I have an 80-400 which if you can hold it still shoots better, but you get one good shot out of 5. The VRII nails it every time.

the lens also is a lot less sloppy in the barrel when zoomed to the 200 mm position.

i looked at tamron and sigma, the nikon has a bigger 72 mm objective and the others are smaller. i thought the tamron 18-270 might be as good, but the focus is nowhere near the nikon system.

the lens is not quite sharp enough at the edges to reach d7000 limits. but on the other hand i have 4 meg pix photos that still look great. it's about color, not always about sharp pixel peeping details..

Registered: June 2010
Posts: 3
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II DX AF-S Nikkor review by nightbiker
Review Date: 6/30/2010 Would you recommend the product? No | Total Spent: $915.00| Rating: 6 

Pros: good vr, very useful zoom range, quick focus, little sharper at center than vr I
Cons: still zoom creep. very soft at edges

Definitely not a successful replacement for Vr I edition.

Very soft at edges (maybe mine had a problem?)

Zoom lock doesn't help much at 18mm, eitherway the lens doesn't have any creep there.

I was very pleased with my Vr I edition and i regret for it;s sale....maybe it was softer but it was decent at all frame.

Registered: January 2010
Posts: 1
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II DX AF-S Nikkor review by yayaooh
Review Date: 1/24/2010 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 10 


good good good

Registered: December 2009
Posts: 1
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II DX AF-S Nikkor review by kdk
Review Date: 12/16/2009 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 0 


What bothers me here is the old lens gets over an 8 in image quality and this lens gets over a 7, but the new lens is said to be better in image quality. also the old lens gets a better overall rating.

Registered: July 2007
Posts: 36
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II DX AF-S Nikkor review by touristguy87
Review Date: 12/14/2009 Would you recommend the product? No | Total Spent: $600.00| Rating: 7 


Rewriting my response in terms of the question from the guy after me...

To the question about why this lens is rated lower than the original, that's for several reasons...when this lens first came out there wasn't much competition, the Tamron 18-270VC wasn't available, the only choices were the Tamron 18-250 *without* IS and the Sigma 18-200 for Nikon-mount (which also is a dog away from F8 and uses really-poor glass in my opinion). There also wasn't a Nikon fullframe so there wasnt a Nikon match for the Tamron 28-300 (which doesn't have IS but is a nice, decently-sharp superzoom). So there weren't any real options other than to get this lens if you wanted a superzoom for a Nikon camera and thus it was rated against nothing for quite a while. The only real competition for the combination itself was the Tamron 18-250 on the Sony subframe, either an A100 or A700, and Sony really screwed the pooch there for a while with cooked-raw (but that combination is what exposed the weaknesses of this lens for me). I think that people were happy to get a decent Nikon superzoom for subframes (and remember that was their entire market back then), as they were at least able to get shots with it over a wide focal-length range (which you have to admit does count for a lot, especially with a DSLR), and then over time as they shot the lens and compared the results to what they got with other lenses on the same cameras and other lenses on different cameras (like, the Tamron 18-250 on any Sony with body IS, the Canon 18-200 EF-S IS on a Canon, etc, shorter-throw zooms that are sharper) they realized just how bad a lens it is. And of course some did not expect much out of it compared to say a $1500 zoom or a prime, and some did not really know to expect more, and some didn't care to update their review.

So the early lens was rated against the absence of any real competition, this new lens is definitely rated in the face of stiff competition.

I still say that the new one may be great for you, so you should at least buy it and try it if you are at all interested in this lens. Get it and the Tamron 18-270VC and have a shoot-off. I got a lot of good shots out of my 18-200 when I had one, but I got sick of the blurry fine-detail and feeling that I had to shoot it at F11, tried the Tamron 18-250 on my D300 and never looked back. I have not bought a non-Tamron lens since. You want an extreme comparison, try shooting a landscape scene of decent complexity and fine-detail with a Tamron 18-250 on a Sony A700 at low ISO and compare it to any Nikon subframe with this lens. Shoot 'em both raw, using the same lens settings & the same focus-point, even use the old V3 bios on the A700 and your favorite raw-converter. Just for fun try using a tripod. The Nikon combo will give you better color and maybe a touch-better focus, but the Sony/Tamron combo will give you 50x more fine-detail even using the old v3 cooked-raw bios with a lot less geometric distortion. Below ISO800 it won't even be close, at ISO800 and above I'd prefer the Nikon combination simply because at high ISO fine-detail is already lost to noise anyway, especially in a subframe and I'm probably shooting wide-angle wide-open anyway & neither lens is going to be sharp across the frame then.

But with the Tamron 18-250 I can get decently sharp shots at F5.6 not to mention F8 and it never sees F11 in my hands. The Nikon 18-200 pretty much starts to be "ok" at F8 and needs to be shot at F11 to get it to be flat-sharp across the frame away from say 50mm on the lens. Even then it just does not get "sharp" in my opinion. Sure I could ue DxO or Bibble lens-correction which definitely helps, but still the Tamrons are *way* easier to shoot in my opinion, but to be fair, you really have to try these things for yourself to know for sure. As long as it's a plausible candidate for your bag. Everyone has an opinion.

Registered: October 2009
Posts: 7
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR II DX AF-S Nikkor review by Eager
Review Date: 10/15/2009 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $900.00| Rating: 8 

Pros: light weight, efficient VR, fast and silent focus, sharp
Cons: variable aperture, build quality, zoom creep is still here

Nice travel zoom lens. Light and compact (when collapsed). Very impressive image quality for a superzoom, exellent VR performance.


This document copyright © 2009-2015,, all rights reserved.