Portraits with Nikon 18-200mm VR

LOL! Sergio's "nose picking girl" photo just went on my list of favorites. I love photos of kids just being themselves.

 

Sergio, just use a faster shutter speed, stop down and ... aww, heck, just do what everyone else already suggested. ;>

portrait? tripod if possible, higher shutter speed for sure.

 

18-200? FANTASTIC lens for what it's designed for. Portraits ain't it. I'd use a 50mm f1.8

in there. But you are certainly NOT getting the sharpness out of your 18-200 that I am

getting out of mine. I think it needs an adjustment.

I would also think that the shutter was way to slow, especially with a moving subject. I have experienced similar problems with my 70-200vr and have been able to iron out the "problems" by jacking up the iso and attaining a higher shutter. Keep in mind that these adustments are subject to quality of lighting and just how fast your subject is moving.

 

Michael

I use this lens on a D200 and do not have a problem with sharpness. I use Aperture priority, Auto ISO, and have the camera set to not use a shutter speed slower than 1/125 second. If it can't get a correct exposure at the f stop I select and ASA100 with a shutter speed of 1/125 second it will increase the ASA to compensate. You might try this approach. You also have to do some sharpening in processing the RAW for all images.

What image quality would you expect from a 10x power zoom? It's for convenience not for sharpness. The optical design is definitely comprised when designing a 10x zoom at a reasonable price.

 

For top IQ, choose a prime or at least 70-200/2.8 VR.

I use the this lens with my Nikon D200 , and i like it ,is sharp and quite fast ..ok is not a telezoom f/2.8 - but for f/3.5 is fine .

An 18-200 first of all Binyuan is not a 10x zoom. It's more like a 6x. Take your D300

outdoors into some decent light. Use normal focus setting and "NOT" dynamic

focusing. If you are shooting a fairly static subject. Use normal 3D matrix metering.

Set ISO to about 400 to make sure you are getting enough shutter speed. Pre-focus on

the subjects eye and fire away using VR normal setting. If you don't get a reasonably

sharp image take the lens back.

I agree with Peter. I got this lens with my first DSLR, a D70s, and now use it with my D200. Later this year, I'll get a D300, and I'll use the 18-200VR on it, too. I'll give up my 18-200VR when they pry my cold, dead fingers from around it. It's a great, great lens, but like anything else in photography, it's a compromise, and it does have its limitations, and anyone shooting this lens needs to learn the limitations. It's not a phenomenal portrait lens, but it should be OK at that, and certainly is capable of delivering better results than you're getting.

 

VR is not a panacea or a fixall for faulty technique or not understanding the VR system. Using it at full zoom (300mm equivalent to 35mm film) wide open handheld at 1/30 is asking for problems. Rockwell and others that espouse the 18-200 don't ever say all shots will be tack-sharp at slower shutter speeds because of the VR. They say more photos will be usable at slower speeds because of the VR, and that sharpness is good with this lens. You still have to do your part, both in technique, and knowing how to operate the system and the limitations of the system.

 

Are you certain you understand how to use VR correctly? Please have a look at this: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/18200-vr.htm Your VR might not have been active.

 

Have you tried test shots to see if the autofocus is working correctly? Try the camera on a tripod, with VR off, and auto-focus on something (a tree is best). Then play with the manual focus ring. Any difference in correct focus? With the VR still off, try some shots of a tree from the tripod at various focal lengths, and evaluate these for sharpness. Still have problems with sharpness? If there are problems with the autofocus or non-VR sharpness from a tripod, your lens needs attention from Nikon.

Sorry Binyuan! I just realized you were talking about the zoom difference between 18

and 200mm. Not the optical total zoom of the lens at it's high end. My apologies.

"I know some of the members here will jump on me BUT you are using a pro model camera with a snap shoot lens. Yeah! Many people love that lens, all in 1! Great! The way I see it is for that lens a D40 will do! Now if you want decent shots from a more that decent camera please use a decent lens! Doesn't have to be a 1,000 USD lens! a simple 50 f1.8 will do the job!" ---------- again same thing ...paint brush or the painter makes great paintings ????? .......................................

This is the sharpest I can get....

Now the same picture taken with Nikon 50mm/1.8

I bought it when it first came out then sold it a few weeks later.

 

Two reasons why it's rotten for portraits.

 

1) It's not sharp. You noticed. A good consumer lens but that's all.

 

2) (And most important) You can't open it up wide enough when shooting long to get a good blur in the background. That's essential for portrait work.

 

So there it is. It's not sharp enough for the foreground and not soft enough for the background.

 

For what it does, which is to try to be all things to all men, it's a great lens. It's just not a good lens.

Sergio, you really have to show us a one-to-one crop. It's also helpful when posters are able keep the EXIF information intact.

 

Since you appear to be shooting jpegs, the picture control settings can significantly affect the final result. Nothing looks wrong with your latest example, especially after adding some unsharp mask and lightening shadows. These are things you can do in-camera.<div></div>

Sergio, all your examples are interior shots, with available light, shot at circa 200mm, with speeds of about 1/30, and maximum aperutres ! You cannnot complain about blurry pictures taken under those conditions. For indoors, test it with flash, test it at 50mm. You want to test the 200mm end, test it outdoors, test it with a far higher shutter speed. And don't use program mode, thats for braindeads that don't know much about photography. Use shutter priority, or aperure priority, its still auto but gives more control and understand about what your doing.

Edward says it best. There's really no way the 18-200 is going to be as sharp as the 50/1.8

 

And it's pretty much impossible to precisely compare the two samples you posted. EXIF information is missing and we don't know if the exposure data is the same. The images are different sizes and that will change perceived resolution. And the lighting is different. The shadows are not the same.

 

For someone with your critical eye, It really seems that you'll be happier with using your primes. (You might find the 70-200/2.8 adequate to your standards, but you'll have to trade the convenience of the 18-200).<div></div>

Here we go again! I don't know what the problem with Sergio's portraits might be. His lens might be a dud in need of adjustment. He might need to use a faster shutter. It's at least worth a try. But the notion that "all" 18-200mm. VR zooms are "not sharp" is just plain wrong. Mine is fabulous, and I have used many, MANY lenses in my day.

 

Of course it's not as sharp as a 50mm. f1.8, but for portraiture one doesn't necessarily want absolutely top-level sharpness anyway--and the 18-200 is plenty sharp enough (at small levels of enlargement the difference should not even be noticeable.)

 

The 18-200mm. should be fine for portraits, with a few caveats. A zoom, and especially a wide-ranging zoom, is going to be prone to focus field curvature, which will make across-the-plan sharpness difficult wide open in some circumstances, particularly at close focusing distances. If you stop down a bit this problem is eliminated.

 

ALSO: when I have found certain lenses to be "unsharp," particularly wide open, sometimes it turns out that the focus point is just a bit off. This was true of my 80-400mm. at f5.6 I was sure that it was "noticeably soft" at maximum aperture, then I tried double-checking the focus manually. Turns out that the AF can sometimes be a little funky and at full aperture this causes problems.

Indeed, 100% crops will help to tell the tale. Sized-down JPGs are very deceptive.

<br><Br>

Never the less, let's see here...

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7147380"><b>An 18-200 face shot from Tim Keller at f/4.8, 50mm</b></a>, and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7143801"><b>another at a slightly longer focal length</b></a>. In fact I think everything in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=820277"><b>that particular gallery</b></a> was shot on walk-about with that lens. Of course, Tim's careful in how he uses it.

<Br><br>

Of course, those were outdoors in fairly good light. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6546290"><b>Here's one</b></a> taken in some less-good, but still adequate light, but at 200mm. Stopped down to f/8, we're resolving individual whiskers at the far end of this "snapshot lens's" range. How about bad light? In a poorly lit room (with a badly <i>backlit</i> subject), I was forced to go to ISO500, at 200mm, f/5.6, and could only get 1/25 out of the shutter <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6918083"><b>on this casual shot</b></a>. It's not razor sharp, but that's from subject movement, mostly... I was careful in my own handling of the body for that one, and VR absolutely made the image possible. That image printed very nicely at 12x18.

<br><br>

For shots like these for me, Sergio, it's ALWAYS single-focus. I'm using a camera with a LESS sophisticated focusing system than yours. You just need to get the camera out of point-and-shoot mode, and take contol of it, and your own holding techniques (think: scalpel!) in challenging light. You can get very good results when you've had the practice.

<BR><bR>

Full disclosure: I own and gladly use lenses that are absolutely faster and sharper than the 18-200, as well. But it's on the camera any time I leave the house. Very versatile lens.

Perhaps the lens VR is not working properly. Test your lens with VR off, camera on tripod, all manual setting, and manual focus .. see if there is a difference... and then, introduce your digital technology factors one-by-one to see if you can duplicate the dull appearence.

 

If you are impatient in testing, pop that 80-200 on your F100 and shoot a roll of film .. lens VR is a tricky thing to measure, they tell you it helps but to what degree most people can not quantify .. and of course, with anything electronic pinning down a electro-mechanical fault can be a difficult task.

 

Love your shots of the child .. nicely done.

Rene wrote: "Sergio... Ken Rockwell must be right! Coz he is an expert photographer! he knows the limits of the lens and he got the experience to get the most of it! Also he got lenses for every task. for me photography is a hobby and I am not a pro."

 

While Ken's website can be a good informational resource, people need to realize that Ken neither is, nor ever was a professional photographer. Ken is an engineer, his wife is a high end real estate agent... hence how they have the money to own every camera and lens ever created.

 

The original poster said he bought the lens because of Ken's comments of its sharpness. One has to rely on more than just "Ken's word" when it comes to purchasing equipment. Ken's opinions are based on what he uses cameras and lenses for... mostly nature and hobby. One should also do independent research on their own and test drive equipment if they can get the chance. Look to rent lenses from rentglass.com or connect with friends who may have what you're looking to purchase.

 

I own the 18-200 VR myself... use it often on my D70s. Its a great all around lens, but I don't use it for portraits. It's just not as sharp as good prime portrait lenses.

Sergio, I use the 18-200 with the D300 but my experiences with this lens are different than some here. Overall, it works pretty well and gives some nice results. However, there are some limitations with this lens, especially at the long end.

 

Comparing results of the 18-200 to the 50mm prime is nonsense. They are totally different lenses for different purposes. Yes, the prime is noticeably sharper but I find it stinks if you are shooting 18-49mm or 51-200mm. Each has their place.

 

IMO the 18-200 is a poor lens choice for portraits at 200mm, much better at <100mm. That said, you can get some decent images with it at 200mm but they are best reserved for good lighting. If you have to shoot at 200mm inside with the lens, use flash.

 

Another thing -- especially since I guess you shoot JPEGs -- in-camera settings are very important. I have spent five months tweaking them and learning about when to use different focus and metering modes. This can have a big impact on your final results.

 

Oh, and just a little thing no one mentioned yet..... make sure your VR is not set to Active. It should be on Normal mode.<div></div>

Bruce, what the heck is that? It looks like some sort of cross between an animal and a tree stump!

 

By the way, in addition to using single spot focus mode, select an AF point that is on the near eye. This can work really well if you have a shallow depth of field. For some reason, my 50mm works best with single-servo mode. But I get better results with my 85/1.4 set to continuous-servo mode. (I think that's because the DOF is so narrow, that when I compose I inevitably move back or forward a few millimeters and change the plane of focus.)

 

Whether using single-servo or continuous-servo modes, I almost always have both set to AF Priority instead of Release Priority.<div></div>

Would somebody just send me their POS 18-200 VR and put it out of their misery? Heck, I'll pay shipping. ;>

Dear Sergio

this one http://www.photo.net/photo/7017968 is using D200 with 18/200. All I can say it is a great all round lens. and so far 18/200 never let me down.

 

cheers

 

Antoine Dagobert

It's very likely your lens is out of alignment. While that isn't the only reason for some of your posted examples, it's a contributing factor. If you have the means to send it to Nikon, do so. Even the high-end lenses suffer from this problem.

<p>

Sadly, quality control isn't what it used to be.