Would you like to see D200 w/18-200?

[nwphotog]

I had a minute to do an 18, 200 and a couple in-betweens.

 

www.godsworldphotography.org/d200/<div></div>

[erickpro]

not impressed, just as expected from a 18-200mm zoom in our era

 

 

thanks for posting though

[nwphotog]

The new Nikon 18-200 I should say . . .

[cabophoto]

Robert,

 

I tried the D200 last Friday and was very impressed. High ISO performance was also excellent. And yes, I also tried the 18-200 and didn't like it at all.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[erik_loza]

Is it fair to judge a new lens by the crop of one handheld photo at an odd angle?

[antonbar]

Carsten,

 

Sorry for offtopic, but I loved your online gallery very much.

Those are very nice images.

 

Best regards,

Anton.

[ShunCheung]

If chromatic aberration exists, it will exist regardless of whether you are hand holding or put it carefully on a tripod. The information missing here is the focal length used, aperture, ISO used, and how big of a crop this is, etc. If this is a tiny portion of the entire frame, this amount of chromatic aberration may be considered acceptable. If this is a large portion of the entire frame, this amount of chromatic aberration may be very bad.

[dan_brown4]

Can't wait to get a D200, not even a little interested in the 18-200. "Do everything" lenses

always turn out to be poor performers.

[bernard_frank]

Let's not jump to any hasty conclusion before we know eactly what this is. Because if this

is an almost full frame crop, the 18-200 has got to be one of the worst lenses for

CA ever produced by Nikon. I can't believe it is that bad. Looks almost like anti-Nikon

propaganda.

 

Please, Robert, tell us exactly what crop of the original image this is, as well as all relevant

details. Thanks.

[bernard_frank]

It is a very small part of the entire photo. I'd say about 10%. And it's been shot in

November of 2004, according to the data ;)

[nwphotog]

Nov. '04 . . .I'd say that the rep hadn't even had time to set her camera yet. She had only recerived it that day(saturday, 12/10). Like I said, I could only grab it and the lens for a quick minute to do any quick testing. I intended to put that sign at the edge to check sharpness. After I got home, I noticed the chromatic aberration problems.

 

As to a crooked shot, well yes. It was Nikon days (daze) at the local shop and the rep had just gotten the d200 in that morning. Everyone wanted to see it and the 18-200. I was happy to hold and use it for the time available. Others can put it through the formal tests. IF you go to the d200 page i made (www.godsworldphotography.org/d200) and look at the bottom photo (click for full sized) you will see the leaf in the lower left is showing the same problems. As much meta data as I could pull is there.

 

Anton, Thank you, so very much!

 

 

NWP.

[nwphotog]

Oh, yes, the photo was altered to remove the license plate from the car in the photo. Others are not altered.

 

Robert

[ilkka]

"Looks almost like anti-Nikon propaganda"

 

This is not anti Nikon and not propaganda. This is anti-long-zoom-range-lens fact. What do you expect? More than ten time zoom range? Why does Nikon make a 70-200 lens that costs several times more and people actually go and buy it?

[hash]

Actually the sample pics from the Sigma 18-200 I have seen elsewhere in a direct comparison with the Tamron 18-200 look better. The Tamron was showing similar effects but on the Sigma they were conspicuously absent.

 

I'm keeping my 24-120VR for now! ;-)