Great Zoom - surprisingly good for the zoom range!

First of all: The lens is sharp crack in all focal areas. One should always dimmed 1 to 2 levels for optimal results. The lens is not suitable for full aperture over the entire range - but this is absolutely normal for such a push. Not open glare fit also means only that the sharpness at maximum aperture gg. 200 mm back something. But the pictures are still really good. Compared to 16-85VR somewhat less sharp, less brilliant and somewhat weaker of the contrasts.

But: It's by far the best superzoom that I have ever seen / tested.

The bad reviews on here I list beginner back who have not dimmed. Perhaps also the default of a Nikon DSLR is compared to a consumer-clippers, the JPG defaults a Nikon DSLR are indeed very little sharpening, while Consumer snapping usually quite strong sharpening.

The people who claim here that the objective is not or only partially sharp, have in my opinion, either a defective copy, a faulty camera or simply do not know.

I have this lens recommended some friends and all were and are satisfied with it. Other Nikon users with whom I spoke in order to achieve superior results. Many press photographers use it now instead of a whole range of lenses.

Oh, I bought a D200 together and use it now on a D300.

Incidentally, the II at the end of the name refers to the lens and not on the VR. Some believe that the new version would have the VRII - This is true, but the first version has already the VRII. The difference between the two versions are a lens Tubussperre for transportation and other remuneration. Taken Tester my better image quality at version 2 make out, but in a blind test, the pictures can not be clearly distinguished. The differences are rather marginal. The accounts of the lenses are - as far as I know from the trade press - identical.