The overall photo quality is decent, but nowhere near as sharp as my 1.8 50mm that cost $600 less than this one

No, it doesn't manage 300mm like my longer zoom lens, but I'm not too worried about that since I find that I seldom need 300mm on my DX/APS-C camera at a moment's notice

My 35mm F/1.8 lens is sharper, but this 18-200mm is so versatile, and the image quality is still good enough that it rarely leaves my camera

I broke my 18-105 mm VR DX lens, and replaced with this used 18-200 mm lens.

If I were willing to spend almost twice as much on the 28-300mm full-frame lens I could get 300mm, but then I'd lose the 18mm wide angle that's rather useful to me with a DX/APS-C format camera like the D7000

too?18mm is decently wide, 200mm is decently long (like a 28-300 on FX), and with VR I can handhold in the neighborhood of 1/4 second on the short end.

I like wide angle and would have liked something a bit wider than 18mm

In my experience, the kit lens 18-55mm is sharper than this lens, let alone 35mm

My 16-85mm is a tad better, the 18-105mm is sharper than both all around

For indoor meeting photography I do much better with prime lenses, especially the Nikon 85mm and inexpensive 35mm alternatives

72mm makes it a little bulky, but I suppose that is the price you pay for the great results.

This lens is on my Nikon D90 right now, I also own the 50mm 1.8, and the 85mm 1.8, but the 18-200mm VR 2 is my favorite

18-200mm is like getting an elephant to tap dance

Instead you should consider buying a step-up ring and using 77mm filters, which will allow you to use one set of filters for this and your 12-24mm or 10-24mm super wide angle lens.

The Nikon 18-200mm is not perfect however it is built pretty well and very handy as a “walk about

At short focal lengths (below approximately 35 mm) the barrel distortion is quite noticeable

The 18-200mm gives me the flexibility I am looking for...no more changing lenses to get that close-up of a kid laughing

The new Nikon 18-200mm VR II lens is fantastic

I was surprised how many times 18mm is just not enough to get the good stuff in the photo

I heartily recommend the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G AF-S ED VR II (whew

If I were willing to spend almost twice as much on the 28-300mm full-frame lens I could get 300mm, but then I'd lose the 18mm wide angle that's rather useful to me with a DX/APS-C format camera like the D7000

In short, 200mm is good enough and keeping 18mm is really important

In short, 200mm is good enough and keeping 18mm is really important

Plus I am all about looks and this baby is big, it is real pro looking 72 mm is no joke

I currently carry a fast 35mm f1.8 prime lens (ideal for low light and portraits) and this one

The range 18-200mm works well for

If not, the lens just creeps out until it is at full extension, 200mm

I don't know why people complain about that, if you want good low light performance, then you want a 2.8 lens, or maybe even better a cheap 50mm 1.8 or 35mm 1.8.I can't figure out the purpose of the zoom lock switch because it only works at 18mm, but I haven't noticed zoom creep at 18mm

The 18-105mm is decent for most random "walking around range" photography, but switch to the 70-300mm when you need more focal length and you find that the minimum of 70mm can be annoyingly limited when you're not sure what you'll encounter