And even thought the optics are not great by current standards, they are pretty damn good by the standards of the 35mm film era. The extra sharpness might be an issue if you were buying a new, higher resolution body.

That said, I really can’t see much of a case for upgrading an existing 18-200 just to go to the next generation. I can think of a lot of better uses for the same money. Like buying the 10-28 super-wide zoom for example or the 35mm f/1.8.

I tend to think that Nikon’s answer to what should compliment a pro-level DX body is going to turn out to be a combination of their upper end DX zooms and their DX primes. In recent years the zooms have been so good that primes have been pretty much forgotten. But if you think about it, you can spend $6000 on the magic three zooms and carry all 6lb of them round with you or you could buy a single super zoom and four primes for less cost and the same weight.

Every lens that Nikon has come out with recently has been a really great one for any DX shooter to own. I love my 10-24 and 50mm. Unless money is absolutely no object, or you are a single lens shooter, I think it is almost certain that there will be another lens along shortly that is a better buy than upgrading one you already own.

Now if Nikon would just fit AFS to my 80-400…

The AF on the new one seemed ever so slightly nippier in low light, but other than that, I couldn’t see any difference, nor could the guy in the shop (who presumably would have had a vested interest in pointing out any advantage that I should have spotted).

Price in the UK is about 50% extra for the new model (£729 vs £509) – I just don’t see an extra £220 of advantage.