What I REALLY learned about the 18-200VR

[bruce_margolis]

I've had the 18-200 lens for a while but last month I had the chance to really

test it out on my D80. Instead of shooting newspapers or brick walls, I used

it on vacation and took lots of pictures. Hundreds. I wanted to see real

world results so I used it more than ever before. And I learned some things,

about the lens as well as the camera.

 

It surprised me that 62% of my shots were in the 18-55 range with almost 2/3

of those at 18mm. Another 27% were in the 70-200 range. There were quite a

few instances where an 18mm shot was followed on-the-fly by one at 200mm.

 

I also learned that VR is fantastic. Whether in a bus, a bouncing boat, or a

speeding car, some shots were actually quite crisp. Center crops at 100% were

pretty good. Corner crops showed some weakness but enlargements up to 8x10

generally look okay.

 

Nearly all photos required some PS adjustments. Usually it was basic stuff

but some needed more contrast while others more sharpness, especially later in

the day. BTW, I am not very good with PS so I am sure the photos can be

improved.

 

With so much use, the downsides to this lens are more obvious. First, it is

not real strong at either end. When I had time to switch to my 12-24, there's

noticable improvement at 18mm. Most of the difference could be fixed in PS

but given a choice, the wide angle lens is better.

 

Also, the 18-200 begins to weaken after dusk, especially at the long end.

Some of the wider evening photos were decent even shooting 1/8 handheld but

others just couldn't hold focus well. Longer exposures required a monopod. A

tripod, of course, would have helped. Hunting was rare but did occur in low

light, again at the long end. Zoom creep is a nuisance but I am getting used

to it.

 

Yes, there might be noticeable distortion at the wide end. And yes, this is a

superzoom so expect trade off of convenience over sharpness. But both of

these problems can be addressed in PS.

 

To some, the lens is overpriced. Comparing it to a combo of 18-70 with the 55-

200VR based on B&H prices, it costs $150 more. For that you get the benefits

of one lens so less to carry around, VR throughout the range, less risk of

dusty/dirty sensor, and the chance to get some photos you otherwise might mess

because of time changing lenses. Do you sacrifice quality over using two

comparable focal length lenses? Maybe. Others can test that.

 

The 18-200 is not a lens for those who don't use this focal range, prefer two

lenses, or have faster sharper lenses like the 17-55 and 70-200VR and the time

to set up shots.

 

I prefer two lenses but when on vacation, time is often short and wide/long

opportunities at the same time can be frequent. If you need an expanded range

quickly, don't like to -- or can't -- change lenses, or are unable to steady

the camera at long shutter speeds, the 18-200 is realy an exceptional lens.

 

Aparently there are bad copies of this lens out there. Mine is definitely not

one of them.

 

Examples are posted at...

[carl_becker2]

Sounds like you use close to three of my favorite focal lenghts. 17, 50 and 180. I use primes and have to change the lens but I like the speed and quality more than not having to change the lens.

[jay_hopkins]

Thank you for this real world test and observations. These paragraphs are far more insightful

than any of the other reports I have seen and give me a better perspective on how to evaluate

this or any other lens.

 

Jay

[william_hooks2]

I just finished using this lens as my primary on a Sierra Nevada backpack and was very happy with it. I also use the 10.5 Fisheye and 12-24 DX on these trips, if weight is not a factor and both solutions work well for me.

 

I have both the 17-55 DX and 70-200 VR, but these are used mostly for urban and standard landscape shots.

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>"Instead of shooting newspapers or brick walls, I used it on vacation and took lots of pictures."</i><P>

What a novel idea - to use it as it was intended to be used. :-)

[simon_hickie1]

I picked mine up today. I hope to do some comparisons with

my 18-70, and 28-200 lenses - weather permitting (we've had snow & floods today in the UK midlands). A quick play in the shop showed I could get a pretty sharp shot @ 200mm @ 1/25th with VR on without really trying too hard.

 

My rule of thumb would probably be a reciprocal of 1/5th of indicated focal length (e.g. 1/40th @ 200mm) for reliable sharpness when handholding with VR on.

[dan_k6]

I still have absolutely no idea why Ken Rockwell thinks this lens is the greatest thing in the world. It's a good lens at best.

[patertech]

"Aparently there are bad copies of this lens out there. Mine is definitely not one of them."

<br>

I have 18-200. How can I tell if I have a bad copy? Is there anything obvious? What kind of a test do I have to do to find out? I read here that some people sent their 18-200 to Nikon for adjustment. I shot these with 18-200 do you think I should be concern with my lens quality or work on my skills?

 

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6058121">Picture 1</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5987940">Picture 2</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5987953">Picture 3</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5987852">Picture 4</a>

[briany]

Bruce - great photos, thanks for posting. Were those nighttime shots on the opening page hand held or on a monopod? While they're not perfectly sharp, they look great for 1/2s exposures.

[fred_bonnett2]

Very nice review. The main problem with the lens is that 8x10's are as large as you can confidently shoot for. Great lens for vacation snapshots.

 

One of those point and shoot cameras with an 11:1 zoom ratio would be even more convenient.

[ronald_moravec1]

Yours does not look like a bad sample. I do notice some falloff in sharpness towards the corners, but this is probably within design perameters. It is also hard to be sure with three dimensional objects.

 

It seems to give a nice crisp center. If I could not get the corners to be almost as sharp, I would be disappointed.

 

The portrait seems to be a little soft overall. Don`t know if you missed focus, shot wide open and that is as good as it gets, or you softened it some in Photoshop.

 

I would probably be happy if this is the type of thing you usually do,

 

For consumer grade lenses like my 18/70, 55/200 vr, your 18/200, we should be pleased. Fantastic for the money, and you have to spend a lot more for just a bit better.

 

I selected the 18/70 and 55/200 VR. They don`t match my Leica lenses, but close enough

[thomas_fiege]

thanks Bruce for this "real live!" test.

 

I would like to hear some more of this real live test here because lab is lab and live is live and this is often a bit different. Maybe something like this can be in the review section of photo.net to give a better overview what is possible to do with the lens. Then there would maybe be less question about is that lens good at... and it would be easear to compare some lenses.

[bruce_margolis]

Brian, the reason for including the night photos was just to show how well/poor the lens works in the real world. Obviously, some of the end result relates to the quality of the photographer so if I suck, my photos will suck. :-)

 

On the first page, all the night photos were shot with the pod. On the second page, there are four evening photos. The last two were handheld.

 

The first two were resting the camera on a wrought iron bar across the canal. They really show what I mean by the lens weakening as focal length increases. The first is 18mm, pretty clean for a 1-second exposure. The next one at 44mm loses much sharpness. The same shot at 200mm would be totally blurred. Just an aside, they were shot at 1600 ISO so enlargements would show quite a bit of noise unless you are really good at tweaking in Photoshop.

[iambaxter]

Bruce it looks like you had a great trip to some great locations. And I agree with you on all points. The 18-200 is a great lens for traveling with. That is the main reson I bought mine. I'm told old and to lazy to carry around 2 bodies and 4 lens and flash and tripod/monpod and filters and....... Last two trips I went on I used the 18-200 for almost 80% of my shots. I walked around most days with 1 body, 1 lens and 1 flash. When I'm at home I will use 3 different lens regularly. As long as I don't have to carry them around all day.

[bruce_margolis]

Ron, you might be right about the falloff in the corners being within Nikon parameters but I think we would agree no matter how much there is, our perception is it's too much. As I said above, it is definitely noticable in the shots, some more than others. I would think spending a little time with Photoshop would remedy much of it.

 

Fred, I am not sure about the enlargement limit. I have done 8x10's and they came out pretty good. I'm sure some of them would be fine at 11x14. Could I go larger? Of course, but at what price to image degredation? I don't know but one of these days I will try a super enlargement because that will definitely hightlight the weaknesses.

[elliot1]

Nice job. I was going to sell mine until I had Nikon look at it and 'fix' it. I love it and use it all the time. A very capable lens, and in my opinion, a bargain! It is amazing how so many people love it, and so many others don't.

 

I use DXO software and amongst the many things it does, and does well, is correct for lens sharpness, or lack therof. You might want to try the full version 1 month demo to see if it corrects the images to your satisfaction. It also corrects for distortion.

[elliot1]

I forgot to mention how beautiful your shots were - impressive composition and color! Amazing how 1 lens can do so much!

[bruce_margolis]

Thank you, Elliot. For those who may be curious about color quality, saturation, limits, etc, the best examples overall probably are on pages 7 and 8.

[simon_hickie1]

Great job Bruce! Sadly, my testing will be in the back garden. At least my second copy actually works!

[heartyfisher]

Hi all, I have done a similar addhoc testing of my 18-200vr.. I also have an 18-70 and 12-24 to compare it with. To summerise

18-200 definalty not as sharp as 12-24, and 18-70 is also clearly sharper and more contrast at the wide appertures IF you compare side by side images @ 100% crop the difference is obvious. Other wise I think you wouldnt notice much.. I was very disapointed with the IQ after I got over the amazement of super zoom and VR however I have come to accept the lower IQ of the 18-200vr. If I stop it down a little It becomes quite acceptable I now try not to use it wide open.

 

I too recently did a profile of my shots and for me I am about 65% at 200mm, 30% at 18mm and 5% at around 65-70mm. A fair proportion say 30% of my shot at 200 I am wishing for more tele.

 

I am now considering a 2 camera system. But I cannot seem to find a satisfactory lens combination to go with the 12-24. sigh.. I am eyeing the 120-300f2.8 sigma.. or 70-300VR or 80-400VR or 70-200VR + TC or 200-500 tamron. also consdering a 400 or 500 prime. sigh so many combinations to consider..

[bruce_margolis]

Taking the time to look at the after-the-fact focal range was really eye opening for me. I would have thought that maybe half my shots were in the 70-200 range. I wasn't even close.

 

Looks like you use yours more at the long end. Lots of choices out there. Just an IMHO, I don't know that you would be real happy with the 80-400. I have the non-VR and my biggest complaint is that it is slow. I consider it a tripod mount lens though it is somewhat okay with good light. Haven't seen any test shots but my gut feeling is that the 70-200VR with t/c will substantially outperform the 80-400.

[heartyfisher]

Yes the profiling was a real surprise to me too.. I thought I would be taking quite a few in the 35-50 range as that is the "Normal" Focal lenght. But I have no shots in that range at all! I had a few in the 65-100 range which were portrait type shots.. most of my shots were from 135-200.

 

I think you may be right about the 80-400.. Thats why the front runner for me at the moment is the 120-300F2.8 I dont really mind carrying around a tripod.. I usually have my trypod on my camera a lot of the time anyway.. so its just going to be more of a fixture if I have the Sigma 120-300 as my main lens.. It gets great reviews for IQ.. but I am quite taken with VR. And I think I will miss not having VR. Sigh...

So its back to the 400 Prime for occations when I want longer.

 

Hmmm.. That could work.. One camera with the 18-200 VR and the second camera with either 12-24 or 500 or 85F1.8 or 150 Macro depending on requirements..

 

My copy of the 18-200 was rather disapointing IQ wise. It then totally stopped focusing. After I sent it back for repairs it came back sharper than before! Still the main areas of weakness of the 18-200 IMHO is the terible Bokeh and Slow Lens. So its weak for event photography, and portrait. ie not fo weddings!

[bsd230]

About half the photos I have posted on here were shot with the 18-200. Yes I wish it was sharper but it's versatility is unmatched. I just went on vacation and found it very useful. I will be selling my 60mm micro and adding a 18-50 2.8 Sigma and a 70-200 for when weight is not an issue.

I agree, I'm tired of people pixel peeping brick walls and junk of that sort. Go take real world photos then make an opinion.

[kevin_b3]

I've had the 18 - 200mm for close to a year now and have not been disappointed. I work as an investigator and am required to shoot crime scenes. The department I work for issues us a Canon 35mm, but a few times I've taken my D70s with the 18-200 and an SB800. With this combination, I can really fly through a scene taking photos. The versatility of the lens is great and I am glad I own it. I am one of those who absolutely HATE having to change lenses back and forth.

[fred_bonnett2]

For real convenience at the same price why not get one of those "point and shoot" cameras with an 11:1 zoom ratio. Much lighter and smaller with the same quality of results?