My 18-200 lens a bad copy?

<p>It was soooo frustrating using my Nikon 18-200 lens on my recent trip to Havana. I would say that over 90% of my shots has some softness. And nearly every image above 100mm and below 35mm comes out soft. Granted, I just acquired the lens a couple of weeks before the vacation. My Lumix P&S with a 16x zoom puts my 18-200 to shame. Maybe I had a bad copy. The reviews were glowing and it made Ken Rockwell's Top 10 list. I feel so upset that I feel I have to go back and redo some of the shots with a better lens. Below, one shot was made with a Lumix (1/60, f/4, 4.1mm) and the other a D90 with the 18-200 (ISO 200, 1/320, f/8, 31mm). These were unedited. Guess which one was made with which:</p>

<p><a href="http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/?action=view&current=P1030590.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/th_P1030590.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a></p>

<p><a href="http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/?action=view&current=DSC_3602.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc152/asusenior/Photography/th_DSC_3602.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a></p>

<p>Your focus point appears to be all the way down the building at the keystone of the arch. If you want the building in focus from top to bottom, stop down a little. It's conceivable that your lens may be decentered. Is it always out of focus on the same side?</p>

<p>Those little panny's can do some really nice stuff sometimes. (I have a zS3.) For summer, not a once in a lifetime photo moment, I'll leave the bigger guns at home.</p>

<p>the second one is the 18-200, right?</p>

<p>after zooming to 100% on your photobucket page, i wouldnt say it's soft, just less contrasty. but if you were shooting at f/8, it's not going to get much sharper, if at all. don't think you have a bad copy; that's just as good as it gets. KR, btw, is almost single-handedly responsible for the 18-200 being $1k for a while, which led to it being totally overrated. even at $650, it's overpriced IMO.</p>

<p>interestingly enough, i was just in havana recently too. i had a d300, a tamron 17-50 and tokina 12-24--and a lumix lz8. the lumix wasn't sharper than my other two lenses, but did an okay job for snapshots.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Send the lens to Nikon. The Nikon 18-200 VR is capable of far better performance than that.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The reviews were glowing and it made Ken Rockwell's Top 10 list.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Paul, you have been a photo.net member for over 10 years. I would imagine that you know which review to trust. Most serious photographers in this forum understand that a 11x zoom has to be a major compromise. I got to talk to a number of people who actually own the 18-200mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR, and pretty much everybody knows that it is soft on the long end. My personal experience with it is similar to Bjorn Rorslett's: <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AFS18-200VR">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AFS18-200VR</a></p>

<p>The 18-200 is a great travel lens when convenience trumps absolute quality. Just don't expect miracles.</p>

<p>I hate to say this, but if I was taking an awesome trip like that, the very last lens I would bring is a consumer zoom, especially the 18-200.</p>

<p>An 35/85 prime set would have served you much better.</p>

<p>My 18-200 is iffy in the far corners wide open. But your shot shows at f8 and having no corner detail, it looks not so great. The top of that tower while near the edge isn't really in the "corner" I don't think this lens should perform this badly.</p>

<p>I know that the 18-200 mm may be soft at the long end, but it seems to me that it can produce rather acceptable results. Several months ago I made this photo of a neighbor's cat using my 18-200 mm, 1/160 at 5.6, Nikon D 50; I cropped this sample at 100 percent (or so I hope)</p><div></div>

<p>Some time ago I came into possession (through the generosity of a friend) of a AF-S VR Nikkor ED 70-200mm f/2.8G IF, and when the same cat sat on the same fence, I decided to try the great lens. My 100 percent crop doesn't completely correspond to the previous upload, but you may use if for comparison. The weather was usual Monterey in winter: foggy.</p><div></div>

<p>I must add that I did much more post-processing with the first shot</p>

<p>I agree with Peter. At 31mm , f8, and 1/320, second shutter speed, results should have been far far better.</p>

<p>BTW, Paul's test images were captured from near the base of some fairly tall buildings, shooting upward. In those cases the bottom of the building is much closer to the camera than the top of the building. You need a lot of depth of field to get the entire building sharp, from top to bottom. It should not be surprising that you don't get sufficient depth of field at f8.</p>

<p>Recall that in Paul's previous thread on this lens: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Vdf0">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Vdf0</a><br>

On January 30, I suggested:<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Paul, if you would like to find out whether your lens and camera are fine, you need to reshoot with a flat subject that is completely parallel to your sensor plane.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is failry meaningless to keep judging this lens or for that matter any lens that is not a tilt/shift with subjects that are not even close to parallel to the sensor plane.</p>

<p>Which model Lumix? If it's a P&S model with a tiny sensor, sure, you'll get very satisfactory DOF and apparent sharpness stopped down to as little as f/4 with a 4.1mm focal length. The hyperfocal setting is practically irrelevant. With the D90 and any 31mm focal length at f/8, you'd need to carefully estimate the hyperfocal setting to ensure satisfactory results.</p>

<p>And then you'd need to take into account the in camera processing for each. P&S cameras typically are optimized to produce JPEGs that will satisfy most casual viewers. A dSLR like the D90 would offer many options ranging from near-point-and-shoot ease to the more difficult settings in raw that would demand careful editing to produce optimal results.</p>

<p>And Photobucket is too slow and awkward to navigate to bother with trying to figure out which shot was taken with which camera, or the EXIF data for each. Of the hosts that offer freebie accounts, Flickr is much better for this sort of use for photo hobbyists.</p>

<p>In this previous thread, the OP never provided any info on what are his D90's AF settings:<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Vdf0<br>

A piece of equipment's optimal performance can only be achieved when the operator knows how to use it *well*. Without realizing that, he will continue to spin his wheels and blame the equipment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that it can produce rather acceptable results</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>To me that statement is highly (subjective.)</p>

<p>I bought the 18-200mm VR within months of it's release. I finally got around to selling it recently. The good news is that I only lost 150 bucks in the sale compared to what I paid for it.</p>

<p>The results for (me) were far from acceptable.<br>

I probably had the lottery mentality (hope springs eternal) when I made the purchase.<br>

I don't like changing lenses often, nor do I enjoy 2 camera bodies strapped to my body with pro lenses, so had the 18-200 produced better results, I would have been thrilled.</p>

<p>What do I do now?...I change lenses.</p>

<p>As for Mr. Rockwell..well; he seems to like what ever is selling at the moment.</p>

<p>If this lens were such a dog, I doubt that Nikon would keep it in their lens line-up. Therefore, I have to believe that the difficulty some people are having with this lens is due to shooting technique. If the OP has been having problems with this or any lens, he should send it back to Nikon to have it examined. If he still can't get acceptable images after it returns, he should sell it or learn how to use it. It may not be the lens for him. To get the most out of the Nikon18-200mm one should have some knowledge of basic photography technique. I'm not trying to say anything pejorative about the OP, but it's time to send the Nikon 18-200 VR in to Nikon to determine if the lens is at fault or the photographer.</p>

<p>That lens is known to be somewhat soft at it's best. I had one too. I no longer have it. I replaced mine with the Nikon 16-85. It it much sharper than the 18-200 it replaced.</p>

<p>Robert, the 18-200 is not a "dog," but any 11x zoom has to be seriously compromised optically; there is no way around it. This lens is very popular mainly because of its convenience, not because of its optical quality. I have tested multiple samples; at 200mm, the 18-200 is clearly soft and inferior to the 70-200mm/f2.8 version 1, which itself is not the best 200mm lens to begin with. Chromatic aberration is also a problem throughout its zoom range.</p>

<p>In two threads, the OP has still not shown even one test sample where the subject is a large flat item that is parallel to the sensor plane. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with his lens. I see no point to send it back to Nikon; doing so is merely wasting everybody's time and shipping cost.</p>

<p>I agree completely with your assessment of the lens Shun. I wish I had stated it as well. </p>

<p>However, for the edification of Paul, I would send the lens to Nikon and have it checked out just to eliminate that variable. Subsequent to the return of the lens, the truth of the matter should become all too apparent. </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VbcU<br>

Providing you stop down to f/8 it is not that soft at all.</p>

<p>"..a dog"</p>

<p>Another subjective term.</p>

<p>To the average photo enthusiast who shoots in program mode, it's fine.<br>

To the advanced amateur...maybe ok.<br>

To a working professional?....No way. Ya..a dog in this use.</p>

<p>If Robert really needs to know, I suggest he rents a pro quality wide angle and compare results.</p>

<p>I think the result is quite right with this lens. I agree with the others that said that for shooting a large subject like a building so close, you should have stopped down more, or even focus a little further (the tower maybe? ).</p>

<p>Edit: Also, Ken Rockwell is not a benchmark, IMHO.<br>

Edit2: Your Lumix is excused to produce larger depth of field, due to smaller absolute focal length(s).</p>

<p>maybe the OP just needs an excuse to go back to Cuba. lol.</p>

<p>seriously, i think one has to lower one's expectations with the 18-200 VR. if you're expecting prime-like sharpness from an 11x consumer lens and relying on Ren Kockwell's recommendation, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.</p>

<p>OTOH, if you just want to take average pics without the hassle of changing lenses or carrying a lot of kit, the 18-200 is fine.</p>

<p>not much more that can be said, except that the OP <em>was</em> shooting at f/8, and his results are consistent with most everyone else's experiences with that lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...and it made Ken Rockwell's Top 10 list.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hehe *chuckling*, was that the icing on the cake for you? Reading KR can make you feel better about yourself if you shoot film, but that's about the extent of the value. You can use his reviews as just one more point of reference, but everything he says is highly subjective. He doesn't do any real testing, and if he does, he never shows his results. He only says, "I've looked at both examples under the 40x loupe, and I'm telling you, it's sharper." I doubt he actually bothers to inspect samples anymore. He just shoots for a while and then sits in his armchair wearing a red smoker's jacket, with a bourbon in one hand and a cigar in the other, silently reflecting and inventing words to describe his emotion. This gets spewed onto his blog in no discernible order. Most of his reviews are regurgitated from press releases before the product release, anyway.</p>

<p>Also, you have to be aware of the date of Ken's reviews. He goes through "phases" wherein he will rave about a certain concept while berating all others for a time (i.e. film, cheap glass, expensive glass, all-in-one zooms, primes, pocket flash, Leica, MF SLR's, or the most recent: Canon P&S! Before that it was Casio P&S). I think he likes to focus on one aspect of photography that he feels is being neglected by the commercial market, and push it until he feels he's proven its worth to the world.</p>