Nikkor 18-200 Decision

<p >Hello Nikonians,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Can you help a Canon shooter with a Nikkor lens decision?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >A couple of years ago I purchased a Nikon D90 kit at Costco for my girlfriend. The body came with both a Nikkor 18-55 f/3.5–5.6G lens and a Nikkor 55-200 f/4.5-5.6G lens. She really enjoys the camera, but often has trouble deciding which lens to use when we stroll around shooting, so I’m considering replacing both of those lenses with a Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G. The convenience would be great, but how about the image quality? Would it be better or worse or the same? Any comments would be appreciated.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Many thanks,</p>

<p >Dave</p>

<p>None of those lenses would be considered among Nikon's best lenses as far as image quality goes. The 18-200 is extremely popular because of its convenience. If convenience is what your friend wants, I would say go for it. For users of those lenses, I wouldn't worry about image quality; most of that is determined by the capability of the photographer, not the lens.</p>

<p>I should point out that you do pay relatively a high price to have 18 to 200mm all in one slow f5.6 lens. Convenience comes with a cost, but I am sure you are well aware of that already. It is fairly well known that the 18-200 Nikkor is very good on the short end but somewhat poor near 200mm. The 18-200 has a metal mount, so you do get slightly better lens construction quality.</p>

<p>I think Sigma makes one that is cheaper and has the Canon L type red ring around the lens! It could be very impressive to carry around! (see note below)</p>

<p>Seriously, a lot of money for a not so great lens. You will note that most of the top end zooms rarely, if ever, break through a 3x barrier. Lens design gets very complicated the more ground that is covered and at some point it is all about compromises.</p>

<p>note: that was totally a joke. I know nothing about this lens or its quality, but it can't be too good at that price!</p>

<p>Hi Dave, id just like to add that i have this lens and i use it with my d300 in the daytime(lots of light) its pretty good quality, but as Shun said, its kinda slow in low light. It is great for travel, extremely versatile and fairly lightweight.<br>

I would highly recommend a circular polarizer, it seems to improve IQ.</p>

<p>I get GREAT results with this lens on my D90. If you print 8 x 10 or smaller, you will get great results. The "weaknesses" of this lens don't show up as much in real photos (properly shot) as many of the detractors would like to say they do. I've had it for 4 years, and my very rough tests since I got my D90 show that for some reason I can NOT explain, it's a little sharper in an 8 x 10 or smaller than on my D50. Go figure. My other lenses are about the same on either camera, aside from the reo</p>

<p>That said, for a little less money, the 16-85 is probably WAY better at every focal length, plus the 16-18 range is way more useful than the 85-200 range. Hear me out. If you shoot at 85mm and crop in to what 200mm would be, you still have enough resolution for a 5 x 7 or 8 x 10.</p>

<p>Either lens is slow in low light. That's why I always have my 50mm f1.8 (started using it more lately) and my 35mm f1.8 in the bag.</p>

<p>The problem lies in that David's left out what is needed to give proper advice, like what his GF uses her D90 for? Does she like working in low light levels? What's the biggest print size she uses?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the 18-200 VR and like Peter it can produce great photos up to 8x10 at all focal lengths and apertures. The VR gives 3 to 4 stops so that helps if she shoots stationary subjects in low light. I wouldn't use it for fast moving subjects in low light. Its weakness is at 135-200mm, but even there it only shows up in prints larger than 8x10.</p>

<p>It is a very expensive lens. The Sigma 18-200 OS and 18-250 OS and Tamron 18-270 VC are similar in IQ and much less expensive. The Sigma's weakness is that its OS is not as good as Nikon's VR. The Tamron's weakness is that it focuses slower than the Nikon and Sigmas.</p>

<p>Hi David,<br>

When I first got into digital I bought a D40. I also got a Nikon 18-200 and at first I thought it was really cool. All of that range. Then as soon as I figured out a little more about the camera I didn't feel so good about it anymore. I'm guessing I had it for about 3-4 months and all I got from it were decent snap shots. Sold it and never looked back.</p>

<p>phil b<br>

bentron, ky</p>

<p><em>The problem lies in that David's left out what is needed to give proper advice, like what his GF uses her D90 for? Does she like working in low light levels? What's the biggest print size she uses?</em></p>

<p>Good point. She was a professional wedding and portrait photographer in the film days, but is now mostly a family and travel photographer, which means posed and candid portraits and then anything interesting she sees while on vacation. And, believe it or not, we seldom print anything. Right now, most of our images go into computer slideshows and email attachments or into dusty folders on the hard drive.</p>

<p>Both the Sigma and Tamron are 6.3 at the long end, a further weakness with auto-focus.</p>

<p>During a trip to the Antarctic last fall, I had both the 18-200mm version 2 and 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version 1 with me. I seldom print any image also, but even I merely look at JPEG images, I can easily tell which 200mm image was captured by the 18-200 and which was captured by the 70-200. The 18-200 is softer, and it has very serious chromatic aberration. The colors look unnatural from the 18-200 such that I have little trouble picking out images captured with it by just looking at the computer screen.</p>

The 18-200 is a good lens for daylight shooting. The only problem is around 135 mm it's great below that and good out at

200. It sounds like it's just what your gf needs. Don't hesitate. She'll be happy.

<p>Since she currenltly has the exact same range in 2 lenses, why not check which range is most important? Use the EXIF data to see what matters most. Peter's suggestion for the 16-85VR could fit the bill if you're often at 18mm, and mostly between 18 and 70; if there is a lot of shooting in the ~70-200 range, in which case the 18-200 makes far more sense. Both are fine lenses, but for image quality, the 16-85VR does have an edge.</p>

<p>I agree with many comments here. Even though the 18-200 has its IQ shortcomings (at low light, at the long end, zoom creep), its convenience and range makes it my most frequently used lens when walking around. After all, if I don't use a lens, it matters not how good it is.</p>

<p>When I switched from film to digital, I had a heck of time digesting the 300 page manual, figuring out what all the AF knobs/switches and menu settings mean, and how they work in concert. For the longest time, I blamed the poor focusing on the lens, without realizing that the problem lied in my erroneous settings.</p>

<p>Hi Dave. I have a similar suggestion for you as did Wouter. Why doesn't she just use the 18-55 for a while and forget about the 55-200 for now? I've read suggestions by photographers to go out and shoot for a day using only one lens, in order to get the know that lens' capabilities. When you think of it, 18-55 is really a pretty usable range. </p>

<p> The idea of looking at the EXIF data to see the focal range where the majority of her pictures lie is a good one. If she could live with 85mm at the long end, the 16-85 is hard to beat.</p>

<p> As to whether the 18-200 Nikkor will do, one way is to look at the Flickr users' pool for that lens:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_18-200_vr/pool/</p>

<p> In spite of the reviews one sees about the 18-200, Frans Lanting uses one for his walk-around kit.</p>

<p> Good luck with your search.</p>

<p>I am glad to see actual users of the 18-200 commenting on their experiences ( mostly positive ) While it may have its shortcomings, the convenience and relative quality make it a very attractive lens. I certainly love mine. Practically speaking, unless you are travelling by yourself, the time needed to change lenses can be a distraction and make the process of taking pictures less enjoyable.</p>

<p>Save your money. It's no better than what you have (except for convenience). You are so limited by aperture, that your pictures will all look like they came from a point and shoot.<br>

I personally would rather have two prime lenses; 85mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2. (Not as convenient as either option) AND, both primes will work when you eventually upgrade to Full Frame.<br>

With these two primes and a few steps forward or backward, I have noticeably better shots!<br>

Good Luck,<br>

Paul Michael</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here's a shot at 180mm with the 18-200 lens. I don't see any problems. Check out the reviews on this lens on the internet. Some call it the "miracle" lens. For casual non-professional use it is way above the rest, I think.</p><div></div>

<p>Andrew, if you want to know why people say the 18-200 is soft on the long end, you need to capture some subject with sharp edges and contrast. Images of people under soft light can hide a lot of problems. See my A/B comparison against the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S version 1 here: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00VnWP">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VnWP</a></p>

<p>The 70-200 version 1 itself is by no means the sharpest lens around to begin with.</p>

<p>I personally do not own any f5.6 lens for good reasons; it is difficult to use them indoors as AF tends to hunt. Even though I don't necessarily shoot at f2.8, it is nice to have that for AF purposes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And, believe it or not, we seldom print anything. Right now, most of our images go into computer slideshows and email attachments or into dusty folders on the hard drive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, for the OP's stated purposes, using any cheap lens will hardly make any difference. Just keep in mind about the indoor limitations, which is shared by their existing 18-55 and 55-200 lenses.</p>

<p> " that your pictures will all look like they came from a point and shoot." This is the type of poorly informed reply that I expected. Fortunately, in the reality based world, we have actual users reporting actual positive experience with this lens, myself included. The image quality is excellent and the convenience can't be beat, both of which were the OP's concerns. If he wanted to switch lenses back and forth he would not have posted! I don't recall any mention about switching to full frame, so what is the point in a reply that responds to non existent queries?</p>

<p>Yes, it's become another consumer-lens-bashing thread. Fact is, a well shot photo at f8 (or f11, but not, I feel, beyond that) shot with this lens on a D90 can look as good as any same-focal-length lens printed at a reasonable size... Above 135, perhaps a bit soft in 8 x 10s, but I have printed and shot some lovely stuff with it, even at the long end.</p>

<p>For on-screen viewing (the future, it seems, of photo viewing for many more of us than I'd ever have guessed), as the OP describes in his follow-up, this lens is certainly capable enough.</p>

<p>If your girlfriend was happy with the lenses you mentioned, she will be okay with the 18-200 for sure.</p>

<p>For pixel-peepers, it is obviously soft (edit: obviously soft at the long end), the difference in real-world photo usage is what you have to ask yourself. For me, it's good enough, although I long for some fast f2.8 zooms (which I can't afford) and would rather have the 16-85 today. (I bought mine when it was "the lens" for a trip like the one I was about to take. I'm so glad I did...)</p>

<p>From the original post, it seems like convenience -- specifically not having to change lenses -- is the #1 goal. <br>

With that in mind, I would have to say that if the price is acceptable, then the 18-200 is a very, very convenient lens. I have taken literally thousands of images with mine, and I have taken it on trips as far afield as Bali and Iceland. <br>

If I am in a situation where I don't want to have to change lenses, and where I have good light (or can use flash) then it is the "swiss army knife" I would reach for. It is definitely a little soft at 200mm, and there is some distortion at 18mm, but overall, it sounds like it could be just the thing for David's girlfriend. If she wants a low-light lens, this isn't it, and it's not a great birds-and-wildlife lens, but given what she's replacing, I have a feeling she's going to be pretty happy with it...<br>

All the images in <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/PeterRafle/2009_10_03_DFCA_Rocktoberfest?authkey=Gv1sRgCK2Y15z93ZO59wE&feat=directlink">this album </a>were taken with the Nikon 18-200 VR.</p>

 

<p>Shun:<br>

The lens you are comparing (the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S) is selling for approx. $2,400, if I am not mistaken. I am sure the original question on this thread was not about which of the Nikkor lens is the best, regardless of price.</p>

<p>Hello again.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the great information. I've been teasing the girlfriend that she's "causing trouble on Photo.net" since this has turned into such an active thread.</p>

<p>In reference to the focal length question, she and I have different starting points. I shoot a Canon 40D and almost always start the day with my Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which is incredibly sharp. As needed, I'll pull out my 70-200 f/4 IS, which is also incredibly sharp. My girlfriend is just the opposite. She always leaves the hotel with the 55-200 attached and the 18-55 in my backpack. I'm a "big picture" guy and she's a "fill the frame" girl.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br />Dave</p>