Jump to content

Poor IQ from Nikkor18-200 3.5/5.6 VR on D7000


craig_supplee

Recommended Posts

<p>Elliot, I only said that the Tamron was giving me sharper images than the Nikkor 18-200, not that I felt this was a lens that could offer blow up quality marketable prints. The Nikkor has much better color saturation than the Tamron.<br>

I stand corrected in the fact that I do believe the $200.00 Nikkor 35mm 1.8 does give great results, so maybe the D7000 can use less expensive glass.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Craig, why don't you post some samples? It may be easier to determine what the problem is if you do.</p>

<p>I have only had my D7000 for 2 weeks and I have not noticed any differences in IQ from my other bodies to it with any of the lenses I have tried on it. The fact that you have indicates to me that there is some kind of issue. What that issue is is at this point still a mystery. I hope you can resolve it. Perhaps the new lenses you ordered will work out better for you.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>did Nikon bring out the D7000 "prosumer" camera knowing that to get good results ( subjective I know) that the enthusiast or even pro would have to buy (or have) new optimum glass to achieve the benefits the 16 MP sensor can offer. A lot of people get caught up in the mega pixel race and while new cameras are fairly cheap, great glass is not. So is the D7000 a camera that can deliver great results but only through the use of 2K-3K cost of glass? If that is the case, a lot of people are going to be dissapointed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Craig, high-pixel-density DSLRs demand good techniques and good optics in order to get the best resutls is not news. When I tested the 24MP D3X a couple of years ago, that issue was very apparent, as I wrote in the conclusion there: <a href="../equipment/nikon/D3X/review/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D3X/review/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Having 24MP is very demanding on the optics and technique. To take full advantage of it, we need to:</p>

<ul>

<li>Use high-quality lenses, set to an optimal middle aperture around f8 or so </li>

<li>Use a sturdy tripod </li>

<li>Use mirror lock up, a cable release, or exposure delay to minimize camera shake </li>

<li>Stay with the base ISO 100 or at least the low 200 and 400</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>I have used the D3X with a 50mm/f1.4 AF-S hand held indoors @ 1/30 sec or so. Camera shake robs all the resolution advantage from 24MP, and I ended up with worse imags than what I can get from a regular D3/D700 because those 12MP DSLRs give me better high-ISO results.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan explains the same issue in his recent D7000 review. He explicitely mentioned the 18-200 superzoom; see the section on <strong>Resuolution </strong>towards the end: <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm</a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mostly. Poor lenses start showing just how poor they are with this level of pixel density .... The 18-105mm kit lens is not quite as good a performer as the 16-85mm DX lens. ...</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 18-200mm starts to look more like a mediocre performer on the D7000, as do several other lenses. If you're buying the camera for resolution, you need to look seriously at your lenses, just as D3x users have to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So in a sense the "mega pixel race" among consumer DSLRs is silly. On the DX format, 12MP is plenty. 16MP merely gives you a very slight advantage that you must use excellent optics and excellent technique to realize. Most consumers are simply not up to it. But the good news is that you can still buy excellent optics for a few hundred dollars. Tamron's 70-300mm Di VC is a good example @ $400. The problem is that lens is slow @ 300mm/f5.6 and the construction is very mediocre. If you want excellent optics at f1.4 or even f2, it is going to cost.</p>

<p>Another interesting development is that the new 28-300mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR performs quite a bit better then the 18-200 on the long end, although it is not nearly as good as the Tamron 70-300 @ 300mm. So clearly there is room for improvement even for superzooms. Hopefully Nikon will redesign the 18-200 for the benefit of DX-format users. The current version was ok when it was introduced back in 2005 along with the 10MP D200. The new generation of DSLRs needs better optics, and that is what Craig the OP discovers.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This whole situation came about because I wanted to upgrade from my D40. I bought the D3100 but didn't like it at all, so after reviewing what was new and at a price point I could handle was the D7000. None of the reviews or tests I read before getting this camera mentioned anything about the need for high quality glass. Apparently I read the wrong reports. I probably still would have bought this camera, but would have done so knowing I might be looking at new lenses.<br />For Elliot's benefit I am posting a test pic. It is a 100% crop of a shot taken at 200mm f5.6 on a tripod with VR off and using the self timer. Sharpening was set to auto in SD picture control mode. The lens was focused on the center of the ivy on the tree for these test shots. The pic on the left is the Nikkor 18-200 and the one on the right is the Tamron 70-300 set to 200mm.</p><div>00YDFP-332007584.jpg.956d13303de829cd8cc9832015d13b2d.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

None of the reviews or tests I read before getting this camera mentioned anything about the need for high quality glass.

</blockquote>

<P>

Clearly you have not be following discussions here in the forum as well as reviews such as those by Thom Hogan.

</P>

 

<p>Craig, what was your test procedure?</p>

<ul>

<li>Did you use a tripod?</li>

<li>How did you focus?</li>

<li>What was the aperture you used?</li>

<li>What was the shutter speed?</li>

<li>What was the focal length you used?</li>

</ul>

<p>Exactly which version of the Tamron 70-300 did you use? Personally, I only have experience with the latest Di VC version with vibration reduction.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Shun, clearly I have not been following this forum or reading Thom Hogan's review. I have been a member of the Photo.net community for several years, just not on this particular forum. I just started looking in here after I decided to get the D7000. Didn't see anything in recent posts jump out at me about choice of glass for that camera.<br>

As to my test procedure, almost all your questions were answered in my last post. I didn't record shutter speed although I seem to recall it was in the neighborhood of 1/500 or slightly above. I focused using the center dot in AF-S mode. ISO was 100. The Tamron is an older model from around 2001. AF 70-300 4/5.6 LD. No VR.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Craig, to me your pictures look close enough in detail that perhaps a bit more sharpening on the 18-200mm would even he playing field and satisfy you. As I mentioned in my first post, I am finding that I need to add a bit more sharpening to my D7000 images with all the lenses I have tested so far on it than I have typically needed with other Nikon bodies. I also find that one sharpening setting does not fit all - the amount needed can vary from lens to lens. But ultimately I am getting very sharp images with my 18-200mm lens at 200mm.</p>

<p>Something else to keep in mind... some zoom lenses do not perform at their best at their longest end. You are comparing the Nikon lens at the very end of its zoom range vs your Tamron in the middle of it. Many here state that the 18-200mm is at its worst at 200mm so the fact that they are so similar is quite interesting and consistent with the results I get.</p>

<p>Also, you stated that you are getting different results from the same lens on the D7000 vs the D40. This could be related to differences in the default sharpening settings in each camera. I believe the D40 has a higher level of sharpening in its default setting vs. the D7000's default setting.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Elliot, I hope you realize that when you use a poor lens that lacks resolution, you cannot fix that with sharpening. Once your image capture does not contain fine details, you will never be able to re-create it in post processing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For those who want excellent results, there is no substitude for good technique and good equipment. But I also have a superzoom in the 28-300; for casual photography, it is hard to beat its convenience. Unfortunately, the 18-200 DX is outright poor on its long end as verified once again by Craig's result. After trying one out for over a month on D300/D300S, I decided not to get one. For those who have that lens, I would treat it as a 18-100mm zoom with an extended long end that I would avoid as much as possible. For casual photography on DX, it is hard to beat its convenience.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>P.S. Craig, sorry I missed the exposure info you posted earlier.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Craig, there is no doubt that there are many lenses better at 200mm than the 18-200mm, but that doesn't mean that you can't still get very good images with it on your D7000. If you are shooting JPGs, adjust your picture control settings so the results are more to your liking. If you are shooting RAW, simple correction in PP may make you happier. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a new lens or two!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bob, exactly what "miracles" are you referring to? Craig shows us that the 18-200 cannot even match a cheap and old Tamron tele zoom from a decade ago. That Tamron itself is mediocre lens to begin with. It verifies the that the long end of the 18-200 is not even mediocre.</p>

<p>Sharpening merely adds contrast the dark/light transitions so that some subjects can look sharper to the viewers. It still cannot regenerate the loss in details from a poor lens. Post-processing is a destructive process; those more you apply, the more you lose.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Shun - You are right that this is not one of Nikon's best, far from it. It really comes down to what you expect from the piece of glass you are using.<br>

You must admit that what Elliot did in pp did improve the look of the image. You cannot create what wasn't there in the first place but you can improve on what is there, as Elliot did. That's the miracle of PP. I respect his work and talent. If he says he has never had a "bad" copy of this lens, I have to believe him.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>With the current photoshop version you cannot recover lost detail. But I know two image processing methods which return a higher than the original resolution. But again, there is no free lunch either. (i) <em>Superresolution</em> --> you need several pictures of the same subject, which ideally have a slight jitter around one pixel (across pictures). (ii) <em>Deblurring</em> --> you need to know the point spread function of the lens. With a zoom, the PSF is a function of focal length, so the only way to do that is to measure the PSF before/after having taken the photo. And the perhaps the biggest disadvantage is that you need to be versed in mathematics (optimization theory, variational calculus, signal processing). Just take a look in the corresponding IEEE journals if you were interested. Perhaps in the future, superresolution and deblurring algorithms will be standard in every camera.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Shun - You are right that this is not one of Nikon's best, far from it. It really comes down to what you expect from the piece of glass you are using.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely. When one has low expectations and high tolerance for poor-quality optics, every single copy of some poor lens can be considered "good"; it is all relative. From my point of view, every copy of the 18-200 is poor on the long end; that is exactly why I didn't buy one.</p>

<p>I went back to check my fairly new 28-300mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR. Since I don't have a D40, I tried it on my D100, which has the same 6MP CCD sensor as the D40's. On the D100, it is ok @ 300mm. On my D700 it is also ok @ 300mm. Keep in mind that the 12MP D3/D3S/D700 actually has a lower pixel density than the D100/D40; therefore in a sense those FX bodies are less demanding on the center part of the image circle. (The edge of the frame is a different story.)</p>

<p>When I mounted the 28-300 on the 16MP D7000, @ 300mm, the limitations for a 11x superzoom became painfully obvious. There is no sharpness and details to speak of. Assuming that Nikon will continue to add high-pixel DSLRs this year, lens selection will become a lot more challenging for most people.</p>

<p>To MS Keil: when you combine several images together, you are starting with more information to begin with, but post-processing is still a destructive process where you are eliminating information.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Assuming that Nikon will continue to add high-pixel DSLRs this year, lens selection will become a lot more challenging for most people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, this is exactly what I was referring to in one of my earlier posts on this thread. I think that possibly most people that look at this camera or others that will have a high MP sensor at a "reasonable" price may not realize the need and necessity for ever increasing quality optics and become disenchanted with the outcome. I am still not sure the Nikkor 16-85 I am supposed to get tomorrow will do what I anticipate or expect. It is scary. I bought the D7000 because I believed that the higher MP would get me closer to the medium format film that I am used to. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. The D7000 I feel has a lot to offer for the price point, but the lens manufacturing is still too costly to mate the needed optics to the "prosumer" price point. It would be great if there was a way to bring that technology down to an acceptable average consumer level. I think that is a long way off unless a miracle glass formulation is discovered, or we all go back to carring around a bunch of prime Tessar style lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>"With the current photoshop version you cannot recover lost detail."</em> I would say that is not entirely true. This would be more true for a JPG file but not necessarily so for RAW files. Photoshop, DXO, etc. give the photographer a lot of leeway to recover (to a degree) blown out highlights or recover a great amount of detail from shadow areas that would be impossible to do with a JPG file. They also do allow some correction for detail. There is no question that some lenses give better results than others, and certainly the 18-200mm is not the best, but that doesn't mean it doesn't do a good job.</p>

<p><em>"what you expect from the piece of glass you are using"</em> Shouldn't every Nikon lens, regardless of cost, give excellent images? I have found this to be true for every Nikon lens I have owned, from their inexpensive ones to their expensive ones, except for one. I have not tried all my lenses on the D7000 yet but the ones I have used perform no differently on the D7000 than they have on any other DX bodies I have owned. With regard to the OP's question about IQ on the D7000, issues with this lens have been brought up numerous times in the past with a variety of bodies. And others like me have had good experiences. In fact, there is a wide variety of lens experiences for many lenses on many different bodies, not just the 18-200mm. For example, I believe I have read in this forum at least a couple of posts of photographers having IQ issues with Nikon's 17-55mm lens.</p>

<p>In my opinion which is based entirely on my personal use of 3 previous and my current copy of the lens, the 18-200mm should give great IQ on any body it is used on, including the D7000. If the photographer is not getting good results, he/she needs to determine what the problem is and correct it - the lens could have an issue or it could be technique.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>when you combine several images together, you are starting with more information to begin with, but post-processing is still a destructive process where you are eliminating information.</em></p>

<p>Mathematically, it depends on whether your function that is used for post-processing is invertible. If it is, you won't loose anything. However, your statement is in general true, because many post-processing operations are not invertible, for example adjusting levels (to make an image more punchy) implies usually thresholding operations. Similarly, I never have see the inverse function of a noise reduction algorithm (normally, this is also not of interest - you want the algorithm to behave stable and to converge, so the focus is instead on finding the associated energy/Lyapunov function). But Shun, I guess you know these things anyway.<br>

<em>"With the current photoshop version you cannot recover lost detail." I would say that is not entirely true.</em><br>

I spoke mathematically, but your example about recovering shadows/highlights from JPEGs is a different problem, what is related to tone mapping: You want to map a say 14-bit image space (RAW file) to 8 bits (monitor/JPEG). If you do that using global operations (the same for each region in the image), you likely end up with a surjektive mapping (that is, shadow detail is mapped to 0 in the JPEG, so you see only black; analogous for highlights). Of course, and there you are right, mapping 14 bits to 8 bits and saving only the latter implies loss of information (even in Shannon's strict sense!).<br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em>That is not the sort of thing that the target user of the 18-200 is going to be able or willing to do.</em><br /> Sure not ;-)<em> </em><br /> <br />I do not use an 18-200 optics, just of the mentioned trade-offs in optical quality associated with a super-zoom. However, I have a 18-55 kit-lens<em>, </em>which @35mm has a similar optical performance as my AiS-35mm/f2 @f3.5 (I did that test a long time ago with a D70s). I don't like it on the long end though, because it is very soft.<em><br /></em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Elliot writes <em>"Shouldn't every Nikon lens, regardless of cost, give excellent images?"</em></p>

<p>Well, no. No lens gives excellent images, only the photographer does, but the fact remains that different people have different needs and different requirements, as well as differing levels of demand placed on optics... at different times. The 18-200 is clearly not the best match for the pro or very serious photographer who is printing large. As much as I loved mine, I would freely admit this in a heartbeat. To try and use it for images that require very fine detail is simply not wise. To use it on a vacation, as I did, to capture 6MP images (this was 2006)... well, that is what it was made for, and it does that very nicely.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>In my opinion which is based entirely on my personal use of 3 previous and my current copy of the lens, the 18-200mm should give great IQ on any body it is used on, including the D7000. If the photographer is not getting good results, he/she needs to determine what the problem is and correct it - the lens could have an issue or it could be technique.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Elliot, I am sure that in your mind, you get "great IQ" from the 18-200, mainly because you have different standards for "greatness." However, most other people are a lot more demanding than you are and that is why most of us don't like the long end of this lens. I have tested three copies of it, 1 version 1 and 2 version 2, which all have the same optical forumula. Authorities such as Bjorn Rorslett and Thom Hogan have reported the same issues.</p>

<p>The original 18-200 DX was introduced in November 2005, along with the D200. Back then, most Nikon DX users had the 6MP D70, D70S, and D50. The 18-200 was an instant hit and there was shortage for almost a year. However, as Nikon added the 12MP D300, D90 ... at affordable prices from 2007 and on, the 18-200's shortcomings are becoming more and more obvious when pixel density increases. Peter Hamm was a strong advocate for the 18-200 early on. I was surprised that even he decided to sell his a year or two ago.</p>

<p>Elliot, if you still love the 18-200, that is fine. However, I would suggest that you stop telling people to send theirs in for repair or question their technique. Doing so is merely wasting everybody's time. I don't think anybody has doubts about Bjorn Rorslett or Thom Hogan's techniques. I have no doubt about my technique either and I get superior results from high-quality optics. However, superzooms such as the 18-200 and my own 28-300 are showing their limitations on high-pixels DSLRs, and the only solution is to switch to better lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Peter Hamm was a strong advocate for the 18-200 early on. I was surprised that even he decided to sell his a year or two ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still am an advocate for it, for non-serious amateur photography. Fact is, I normally used it in the 18-70 range anyway, and the 18-70/70-300 VR made WAY more sense. I never tested it on my D90 against the 70-300 (since I didn't possess them at the same time) but my gut is that the 70-300 has WAY higher image quality, based on what I've shot with it. I was afraid I'd miss the ability to go from 18-200 in a single move, to be honest. But I don't miss it as much as I thought I would. I do know I like the way my 18-70 handles (except for that pesky cramped up zoom range from 18-24) much better, and I did test that lens against the 18-200 and found them identical.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>However, superzooms such as the 18-200 and my own 28-300 are showing their limitations on high-pixels DSLRs, and the only solution is to switch to better lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As wonderful as those lenses are for their intended (read: casual) purposes, this could not be truer imho, and remember I'm a huge fan of these lenses. Suggesting that they are good first choices for serious photography is potentially misleading.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...