The New Nikkor 18-200: Is it worth getting???

[michael_colgan]

Im really curious to know how the new Nikkor 18-200mm is. I've got

the standard 18-55 and i'm really looking for more of a zoom with

still the wide angle.

 

So if anyone has this lens or has used it, could you tell me its

pro's and cons'?

 

Appreciate it- Michael

[joseph_linzner]

An extensive review/test can be found at kenrockwell.com. Ken loves the lens without reservation.

[kenneth_rhee]

It's a great lens. It will be not only upgrade in terms of high zoom but also from 18-55mm in your case. Think of it as more of 18-70mm extended to 200 with VR in terms of quality. Great all purpose lens and it doesn't want to come off my D200.

[eric friedemann]

With all due respect, I like Ken Rockwell, but he loves too much without reservation. This sometimes causes him to make untentionally amusing statements like this one about the 18-200mm Nikkor: "I have yet to find any flaws optically or mechanically other than the distortion ..." (Stated another way: "(o)ther than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?")

 

 

Setting aside the pesky distortion issue endemic to 11x zooms- barrel or moustache distortion on the short end and pincushion distortion on the long end- my reservation would be that the 18-200mm Nikkor retails for $750. That's a chunk of change for an ametuer lens; particularly when the Tamron 18-200mm, which admittedly lacks AFS and VR, retails for about half the price.

 

 

If you lack the upper body strength to carry two zooms and you have the money, by all means, get the 18-200mm Nikkor. But let's not confuse a good jack-of-all-trades lens with great zoom lenses that have less ambitious focal lengths and better optics (i.e. the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX or the 70-200mm f/2.8 Nikkors).

[ottocrat]

Thanks Eric, you've put your finger on exactly why I've been hesitating over this purchase. Ken is great when you need reassurance that the expensive Nikon item which you've just bought on impulse was not a huge mistake; he's less help when you're trying to make an objective purchasing decision. The distortion is what really has me worried about the 18-200, I need to see some proper reviews before I'll jump on this bandwagon.

[john schroeder]

I don't like super-zooms. I understand why many photographers would want the convenience but I feel they are just too much of a compromise. The 18-200 VR is very expensive and just not worth the price. If the lens were $550.00 compared to Tamron's $400.00 lens I would have a kinder disposition but would still not buy one for myself. A super-zoom might be the right choice for you but I would much rather carry two or three lenses for increased image quality.

[bwcombs]

Michael, try the lens out for yourself at a retail counter. That is

truly the only way to make a sound decision. (I know, I am

experiencing the same ordeal now on another lens selection.)

 

As for Ken Rockwell: I value his opinion. Sure, he is probably

wrong a good bit of the time, but so are the majority of the

contributors to this and other such forums most of the time. If I

learn one thing from any forum, his or any others, anything

positive whatsoever, it was worth it.

[cliff_lesergent]

I had to laugh reading after the typical photo.net responses above... lots of "wisdom" from people who have never used the lens.

[eric friedemann]

"(T)ry the lens out for yourself at a retail counter."

 

 

Good luck finding the lens at a retail counter. Due to a wholly inadequate number of lenses being produced- a Nikon specialty- the 18-200mm Nikkor is backordered out the wazoo. At my store, there are so many orders to purchase this lens sight-unseen, it will probably be July or August before we have a lens to use as a demo to show to customers.

[eric friedemann]

Cliff, all I need to know is that the lens has an 18-200mm focal length to know the types of distortion the lens will exhibit- its a matter of physics, not subjective observation based on use. But if you like subjective observation based on use, even Ken Rockwell- who we've already established "loves" the lens- finds distortion at every focal length:

 

 

18 mm: Barrel.

 

 

24 mm: It's neutral, however the complexity of the lens give a very slight wave to straight lines running along and parallel to the edges. (What Ken means is that the lens exhibits some barrel distortion at 24mm.)

 

 

35 mm: Pincushion.

 

 

50 mm: Pincushion.

 

 

70 mm: Pincushion.

 

 

95 mm: Pincushion.

 

 

135 mm: Pincushion.

 

 

200 mm: Pincushion."

[richard_laepple]

The question is: what do you plan to do with the lens? I think for documentary photography e.g. it may be a great lens. Who cares about the destortion in newspaper pics?!

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, it's all a question of how much you value your time. Personally I want the pictures I make to be as good as they can be so the amount of enlargement or the visual effect is not compromized by my lazyness.

 

I wish Nikon would make something like a 20-80mm f/4 constant VR lens, with FF support from 30-80mm and 20-30 could be DX only. f/5.6 is just too slow.

[brian_caldwell]

The 18-200 is DX format only. Therefore, distortion is irrelevant. Why? Because you can completely correct it with software, and the effect on image sharpness is undetectable.

 

If the lens could be used with film the distortion thing might have some relevance.

[armando_roldan]

Does Rockwell even have a 18-200mm? I notice he very good at giving reviews for lenses he never tried.

 

I really enjoyed the review he gave the D2h....most of the website was him snivalling about ONLY a 1/250sec top flash sync.

 

don't get my started.

[lex_jenkins]

If the lens exhibits only barrel and pincushion distortion, sure, those are easily corrected via software. PSP X has excellent tools for this. But as far as I know there is no easy fix for waveform distortion.

 

Waveform distortion is hardly noticeable in candid photos of people. But it could spoil travel photos of lovely old buildings. Since superzooms tend to appeal to travelers who want an all-purpose rig for convenience on vacation, they should be aware of the potential limitations of any superzoom.

[eric friedemann]

Distortion is not "irrelevant." Why? As even Ken Rockwell admits when discussing the 18-200mm's wide angle barrel distortion: "(I)t's a little bit complex, so it doesn't correct completely."

 

 

What does Ken mean by "complex" "barrel" "distortion" that "doesn't correct completely." I suspect he means that the 18-200mm exhibits moustache distortion on the wide end.

 

 

Beyond that, shooting with the 18-200mm means always having to do lens distortion correction on all shots at all focal lengths. I would prefer, to the greatest extent possible, getting an image right when I shoot.

[xoz]

I just got this lens (I liver near Tokyo) after a week of order (Jan. 31, 2006). I think I got lucky because the salesman said that there are so many orders but nikon can't keep up with the supply. I told him that I will be leaving Japan soon so the salesman prioritized my order... If you are a foreigner, the store gives much lower discount and they are very accomodating to the foreigners. This lens is *made in Japan* (expensive and limited workers) which implies that they cannot produce as fast as the demand requires unlike if this lens is assembled in Thailand or China. I have a suspicion that the new VR tech is a top secret and they don't want the production to be placed in other countries to avoid piracy of their tech. I only saw one store with a demo lens while other stores only accept orders.

 

About the lens? I really like its contrast and sharpness. The distortion is almost similar with my nikon 18-70 mm DX but the VR system works very well. I have also a nikon 24-120mm VR lens and I was worried that it will have similar technology. As you may know, the 24-120 lens is soft and the VR is very inconsistent. With this new lens, it seems that nikon really improved the VR system as well as the sharpness and contrast of the lens. I have to use low sharpening in the camera option of D70 because the normal sharpness is too sharp for me. I got a 80-200mm (2.8) AF lens (very high quality optics) which is famous for its its sharpness and contrast... I would say that the 28-200mm lens is not that far in those areas except that it is a slower lens... but with VR as well as it can focus within 0.5m in all focal angles, it allows you *lots* of creative choices. This is the best lens I got together with the 80-200mm which I seldom use because of its weight. For those who have not tested this lens and half-guessing its performance, I really encourage you to try the demo lens (if you can find one). It simply has a good combination of many features that will allow you more freedom in making your compositions.

[w_watson]

Whoa, what is this a canine fest. You guys sound like dogs sniffing each other. Ken Rockwell

does a great job objectively reporting for good photographers. Not necessarily pros. This is a

huge market and he does a great service. Do you think the market would be better off

without him? I do not think so. I own all the latest nikon gear; D2X, D200, 70-200 VR,

12-24mm, etc. And he gets it mostly right. Take it easy on the man, he is a good resource.

[misha_weidman1]

We're about to move to digital from a Canon Elan IIe and have decided to ditch Canon for Nikon, perhaps on nothing more than a "grass is greener" basis. We haven't bought anything yet. We are serious amateurs and we like sharp shots, but cannot realistically afford time or money in medium format. We thought about getting the 12 - 24 plus the 70-300 but too expensive. We love the idea of one lens for its convenience and dust minimization, but not at the expense of sharp shots. Given that we're trying to decide between one consumer lens (with VR) and two supposedly good but nevertheless consumer oriented zooms, does that change the equation?

[joseph_henry]

I have used this lens for month and am very impressed. I have done direct comparison shots with Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 and see little difference after correcting for distortion.

 

I have done test prints at 13"x19" and am hard pressed to see the differences between the 18-200 and 80-200 f2.8

 

I find the creative aspects of such a flexible focal length range far out ways the minute differences. Even better several of my clients cannot see the differences.

 

The only major problem with the lens is the very poor boken at close focus. I know when to anticpate this and use the 80-200f2.8 if the smooth tonal vairations of a lens with little boken effect will benefit my goal for the photo.

[ilkka_nissila]

As for the distortion being easy to correct, for every image you need to play with different settings of the transform which is supposed to correct it. This takes time which would not be necessary to spend if one used a decent lens.

[verona_r]

To Michael and Misha, I have your answer here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ErJ4&unified_p=1

 

To others who are doubting 18-200 VR, you should definitely test it out. As a walkaround for casual shooting, it's probably the best product on the market. VR-II is simply too good to be true.

 

What Ken Rockwell said about the 18-200 VR are quite true. His distortion corrections are right on (I've tried them myself).

 

Of course, for critical work, I will grab the primes and a solid tripod.

[nick_rochowski]

If you can get it, this weeks issue of BJP (British Photographer's Journal) has a test of the

Nikon D200 with the 18-200mm and also the more expensive 70-200mm. Interesting

stuff and some graph work to study aswell.

[ShunCheung]

The attached image was shot with a 24-50mm/f3.5-4.5 AF in Velvia film in 1998, before the digital era. That particular lens is quite well known for some serious barrel distortion at 24mm. In fact, a couple of years after this image was shot, I sold that lens mainly for that reason.

 

Do you think some distortion really matters in this image? I am using it as an example because it is one of my own personal favorites, probably because of the location it was shot: Antarctica.

 

In the digital era, it should not be all that difficult to come up with some distortion correction profile for each lens. That is, have some correction templates for the 18-200 at various focal lengths. Since the actual focal length used is recorded on each digital file, it should be very easy to apply the appropriate correction in PhotoShop or Nikon Capture, etc. Afterall, Nikon Capture has a way to "linearize" images from the 10.5mm fisheye.

 

I still don't like the 18-200 myself, though, because 200mm/f5.6 is simply too slow for me.<div></div>

[eric friedemann]

"Do you think some distortion really matters in this image?"

 

 

No, but Shun, seriously, that image contains no buildings or straight lines of any kind, including an irregular horizon line that would not show linear distortion.

 

 

"(I)t should not be all that difficult to come up with some distortion correction profile for each lens."

 

 

True enough, but there's no free lunch. Either you shoot with one or more better and perhaps more expensive lenses that don't require post-camera distortion correction; or, as has been pointed out, you wind up doing distortion correction on image after image after image after image for the life of the lens.

 

 

"Afterall, Nikon Capture has a way to 'linearize' images from the 10.5mm fisheye."

 

 

Having seen many "linearized" images from the 10.5mm, I would not buy that lens for rectilinear shooting. I'm also put off by the 10.5mm's color fringing. But to each his own.