Nikon 18-200mm VR - Are you happy with its results?

<p>Should I get rid off my 18-200 (3.5-5.6) VR?<br /> <br /> I have D90 with 18-200mm VR lens. The reason for writing this post is after learning and looking at pictures post here, I do now understand now to take a really good picture it is also important to have good lens too.<br /> <br /> The reason I bought this lens because I never ever need to change my lens and giving that flexibility is really important and can be a big difference between a normal photo and best picture.<br /> <br /> I am using this lens from 6-8 months it solve all my photography needs. But somehow started to feel that may be I am not getting that output from this lens. But at some point especially when you are going beyond 50mm and you look at pictures at 100% its not kind of sharpness that you get or else may be I am not doing something that I am suppose to do…<br /> <br /> I will post some pictures soon…<br /> <br /> Let me know what you think...it would be nice to know someone who also has 18-200mm and can share their experience?<br /> <br /> Thanks<br /> <br /> Rohit</p>

<p>f8 and forget it.</p>

<p>But really, I find that at f8-11 this lens to be as sharp as anything out there. The only that's not so great is the CA at 18mm but then NX2 or your D90 jpgs eliminate CA for all intents and purposes.</p>

<p>Keep your 18-200. Add a 50mm 1.8 and you'll have a whole new bunch of fun photo times for 6 more months.<br>

If you don't like the sharpness on the long end (I'm assuming wide open) I'd suggest a 80-200 2.8. At f11 you won't notice any difference, but at 2.8-5.6 the 80-200 will blow away the 18-200</p>

<p>I agree with Peter K above. The 100% view test is kinda ridiculous for most of us, unless we are printing 30" photos that is... The lens has limitations, but for a walk-around versatile consumer vacation type lens... it is great.</p>

<p>That said, most of the sharpness issues I've seen around here end up being caused by technique or the user. How big do you print? How tight do you crop? If you're printing 8 x 10 or smaller, you will rarely see much difference between this lens and others.</p>

<p>I LOVE mine.</p>

<p>Perter K & Peter H.<br>

thanks for response. Yes I also love my lens too as I said its gives me flexibility. But when its goes beyond 135mm thats where I loose the sharpness. Yes, may be i should consider buying one prime wide angle lense 10-24mm etc.<br>

Rohit</p>

 

<p>Here is photo...</p><div></div>

<p>Rohit,</p>

<p>Can you post the shutter speed and aperture info on that photo. At web resolution, of course, it's awesome.</p>

<p>A wide angle zoom like the Tokina 11-16 might be fun for you, but a very different lens.</p>

<p>I love mine, have over a year and am using it on D200 constantly and rarely switch to another lens, just in case if I need 12-24mm or 50mm 1.8 for portrait's and such or other lens if I need diferent/longer reach, but it's mostly on my camera than any other lens.<br>

Try to use in manual on camera and check the pics.</p>

<p>Rohit,<br>

there will probably be a few soon to point out that having only one lens on an "interchangeable lens" camera defeats its purpose. As for me, I think that is not quite true, as you will still have better quality than with a more compact digital.<br>

I had a 18-200 and sold it. At that zoom range, you are bound to have compromises on quality. I found it to be soft, have quite a bit chromatic abe ration (green/purple "fringes"), and f5.6 at the longer end is quite dark. That being said, it is a good walk around lens and I got some great shots from it.<br>

I second (third?) the recommendation of the 50mm f1.8, which is cheap. You won't regret that purchase and i t will show you what a lens can do. But pro-quality zooms will cost you dear money..... I caved and instead of getting a 24-70 f2.8 got a minty 35-70 mm f2.8, which was a pro lens in its day. Some people do not like it, I am happy with it. You would then have to cover the long end (80-200 has been suggested) and short end (10-24? or maybe skip the 24-70/35-70 even and get a 18-70?)</p>

<p>Just my personal thoughts, I am sure you will get plenty of ideas here - some undoubtedly disagreeing with me :) That is PN for you!</p>

<p>Happy shooting.</p>

 

<p>wow, quite a few posts while I was writing it. Is that hou you spell a b e r r a t i o n, somehow it did not let me post it</p>

<p>Rohit, if you are saying the lens is losing sharpness to you around 135mm, an ultra-wide like the 10-24mm zoom won't help you get sharper images at 135mm. Neat wide angle lens, but only if you also want to go real wide.</p>

<p>I don't find that my copy of the 18-200VR is soft at 135mm or even at 200mm. Well okay, not as crisp as other lenses I have but more than good enough to get a great shot. But if you want something in that 135-150mm range that is real sharp, consider an f/2.8 prime. Those extra couple stops can be real helpful.</p>

 

<p>I have the 18-200 and like you said the sharpness goes down as you approach 200mm, I do not like it at 200mm at all. Sell it and get nikon 80-200mm, for the same money and it is really sharp.</p>

<p>Rohit, I am not sure how representative that one Las Vegas image you posted is, but if you want sharpness for a night shot, you must use a tripod for those slower shutter speeds. You can get the sharpest 200mm lens, but without a tripod, you'll get largely disappointing results.</p>

<p>I think your 18-200 lens is OK for now. If you want to get better picture, I would suggest spend your money on photography classes or books, etc. At this point getting more lenses is not the answer.</p>

<p>Hello All,<br>

Thanks again for your suggestions. Yes i do agree that i need to improvise on my skills, which I am working on at the moment. However also taken some good pictures too with 18-200mm lens. And yes I do agree it and the responses that i am getting above is more 50%-50% but more its personal openion too.<br>

Nevertheless, just thought that is it just me? that I am getting feeling about the lens or there are more people around who using/used it and would like to share their experiences.<br>

One more picture...(sorry guys don't know the meta data need to check with my xcel sheet)</p>

<p>Rohit</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Again not to confuse others, I am worried when it goes beyound 135mm where it loose its sharpness. Yes, I do use tripod for night pictures for long exposure photos to capture details of photos.<br>

The reason for mentioning about 10-24mm is getting one wid angle lense or may 18-70mm and get another 80-200 specifically for zoom lense. Question is should I/we use lenses that are specifically designed for its purpose like Wide Angle, Zoom or Fisheye they are designed specifically for those purposes only but when it comes to 18-200mm which is jack of all trade but master of none (some one posted this in other thread).<br>

Rohit</p>

 

<p>Rohit, What type of photography do like. Knowing more about what you like to shoot would help. I would suggest keep the 18-200 for those vacations and day trips where you might want the range the 18-200 offers. Like the 18-70 the 18-200 does great where you have light and can stop it down.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon 18-200 VR and I love it, but it does have limitations. As you found out, it's very sharp from 18-135, and a little less sharp from 135-200. However even at 200mm and f/5.6 I can make a very good to excellent 8x10s or 8.5x11s. If you are going to make much bigger prints or highly cropped 8x10s you may want a sharper lens to cover that 135-200 range. I also have a Nikon 70-300 VR which is sharper in that range, but I only carry it if I expect to shoot a lot at 135 and above.</p>

<p>It also depends on how fussy you are about sharpness. I might be happy with an 8x10 print and someone else may feel that it's a little soft. Some people are only satisfied with medium or large format cameras. Sharpness can be measured objectively, but acceptible sharpness is subjective.</p>

<p>Zooms are so much better today than in years past, but you still pay a price for an ultra wide zoom range. Though incredibly cheap (and built that way too) I find the optical quality of the 18-70 and 55-200VR is better than their longer range cousins, almost the equal of the pro lenses I don't want to pay for. The secret is in not going for that extra zoom range everybody seems to want, nor the speed. Both those things generally incur a performance hit unless you're willing to pay top dollar.</p>

 

<p>I am quite content with my 18-200mm. A number of people have correctly pointed out that it has limitations. Name a lens that does not. This lens does not pretend to be an exotic, fast super wide or super long lens. It does what it was designed to do very well. I think it is very high on the price/performance curve and there can be no argument that it is not versatile. I too tend to get all wound up about sharpness and fear I sometimes let the pixel counting cause me to spend more time measuring and analyzing the photos than simply looking at them and enjoying them for what they are. I bought a prime super wide, a macro, a long lens, etc. for those special situations but I most often use the 18-200mm. I just got home from a few weeks in Europe and all I took was my D300 and the 18-200mm and am very pleased with the results. Good quality equipment is important but I think tecnique and a photographer's eye for composition are more important.</p>

<p>I had the 18-200 VR and was not happy with the results I got from using it. It's performance especially in the long end was a bit disappointing . So I traded it to 55-200 VR and in my use it seems to be better, gives me much sharper results so I think it was not about my technique. Maybe I just had a not-the-best-copy of the 18-200 VR, but I would not buy it again. Sure it is versatile, but I kept bumping to it's limits all the time - not sharp enough (esp. near the border of the image), not fast enough, too much distortion, etc. While I could get OK results out of it, it just was not enough for me. I always kept taking my other lenses that were not as versatile in focal length-wise but sharper and faster with me, and the 18-200 VR spent most of it time in my camera bag. But then again, I bet that my friend with whom I traded lenses with will be happier with the 18-200 VR than what he was with the 18-55 + 55-200 VR combo.</p>

<p>So Rohit, if you think that it doesn't meet your demands anymore, just go ahead and trade it to other lenses. I did and I'm happy with my decision. There are much better lenses out there, but you will give up some of the versatility. Only you can judge if that is a trade off you are OK with. Maybe you could borrow/rent some other lenses and see how they work for you before make your decision. And as far as changing lenses come, I happen to belive in what Benjamin here "warned" about. :) IMHO DSLR's and changing lenses come hand in hand, it's all about using the right tool (lens) for the right job. For some jobs 18-200 is OK, for others there are better lenses to use.</p>

I had the 18-200 and it was a good lens, it could be sharp if you tried different settings etc but in the end I always felt a little dissapointed, so i sold it and put the $$$ towards a 17-55/2.8 sure not the range but i already had a 80-200/2.8 anyways so that didnt matter....i have never looked back, nearly all my 17-55/2.8 images are as sharp as a razor, i ws outstandingly impressed with that lens. Do I miss my 18-200, sure it was compact for what ot was and versatile but i like the 17-55 better ;)

<p>I used the 18-200mm VR on a D200 for two years and was not happy with sharpness. I now have the 24 - 70mm f2.8 and sharpness is great. I plan to keep the 18 - 200mm VR, but will limit it use to applications where I can use f8 - f11. I plan to add the 70 - 300mm VR in the near future and also plan to upgrade to a D700, which is why I am limiting my new lens to full frame lens. </p>

<p>Rohit,</p>

<p>Much has been written about this lens.<br>

I can state, for the focal length excursion this lens is able to ahieve; it is probably one of the best walk-around lenses I've seen and used. Is it "professional? That depends on your definition. I've shot images with this lens and have been paid. It has a lot going for it, but is NOT w/o it's faults.</p>

<p>The shooting scenario will dictate the lens to use. For portraits, I don't use it too often. I prefer a 2.8 at 200mm if for nothing else than a nicer bokeh. For the wedding shooter, f/5.6 @ 200mm is rather limiting.</p>

<p>Distortion is a little weird with this lens, described as "complex" and not fully correctable at certain FL's. Is it that noticeable? No; unless you are shooting architectural.</p>

<p>Sharpness with this lens is a matter of good technique and a solid understanding is PP sharpening technique.</p>

<p>Rohit, the 18-200 VR can produce excellent results. Take a look at this image and the rest of the work in this photographers portfolio. These were ALL taken with a Nikon D40 and the 18-200 VR...<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=9435941">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=9435941</a></p>

<p>Here's a relatively inexpensive solution. Keep the 18-200 VR and get the Nikon 55-200 VR (or 70-300 VR if you can afford it w/o trading the 18-200 VR). Use the 18-200 VR alone when you want to carry just one lens. For times when you want more sharpness at 135 and above also bring the 55-200 VR and use the 18-200 VR for the shorter focal lengths where it is very sharp. That way you have the best of both worlds. That's what I do with my 18-200 VR and 70-300 VR, but I can tell you that I use my 18-200 VR more than all of my other lenses put together.</p>

<p>Rohit,</p>

<p>The second image you posted would not have been great with any lens, as there was nothing you could do about the uninteresting light. </p>

<p>Nothing to do with the lens quality.</p>