Done with the 18-200mm VR. Need replacement suggestions..

[derek_thornton1]

<p>You have a lot of answers here. I am sorry if I repeat what someone else has said. I did not know that Canon had a 18-200mm lens. I have heard of the 28-200mm and it is a horrible lens, at least the one I looked at was. If you dont have a lot invested you could switch brands. You could send your lens in for repair. You can also repair yourself. Go to staples and get some rubber bands, the fat small bands are great. Just place the band 1/2 over the zoom grip, 1/2 over the barrel, walaa.</p>

<p>If you dont like making many lens changes the 18-200mm is your best bet.</p>

[trevans]

<p>Shuo, would you care to share specifics on your experience with the 16-85? I think it would be useful, as many people (myself included) are considering this lens.</p>

[marc_henry1]

<p>I have to say that in the 18 months I had a 18 - 200 VR I didn't have a problem with creep and the DoF was about that to be expected. I would have loved it to open up to f2.8 or even f1.4 but you have to see what you are getting for your money. I paid £410 for mine new from amazon when they first came out and got 18 months of excellent service. I sold it for £465. I only sold it because I moved to a D700 and it wasn't practical anymore. This is a very good everyday lens,  the VR really works and one of the less discussed beenfits is that you are changing lenses far less often hence a much cleaner sensor. <br>

 <br>

I found that I could cover pretty much everything with that lens and would happily go out for the day with just it and a 50mm f1.8. Less to lug around means more freedom to wander !<br>

 <br>

Marc</p>

 

http://www.secondcapture.com

[vegagonzalez]

<p>"If your 18-200 creeps when set to 18mm, then it is broken. When it's at 18mm, it should lock there. Send it in for repair".<br>

I'm pretty sure your nikkor lens 18-200 mm VR is not broken, be cause I recently bought a new one and I've been having exactly the same problem since the moment I opened the box. I think this is something Nikon should take in consideration for further designs and productions. As a "nikonian" it is hard to accept but Nikon has to put more attention on quality!!!<br>

Best regards.<br>

CEV</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 18-200 isn't for everybody. I love mine, but today, I wouldn't buy it. I'd buy the 16-85.</p>

<p>Then I'd have a couple of lenses for "special stuff. For me, that's the 35mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8, which have pretty nice bokeh.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>Tim, just to keep a long story short...</p>

<p>The 16-85 by itself is quite a good lens. Although it's slow and has vignetting at 16mm, it's quite sharp at f/8 and the VR works well. Mine got dropped and landed on its extended barrel. It has been soft (fuzzy/smudgy/low contrast) ever since. </p>

[commtrd]

<p>Yep you're dreaming...even if there was such a thing as an 18-200 that was a constant f1.4 aperture, you could neither afford it or even remotely be able to carry it comfortably. Can't fight the laws of optics. Or economics. Such a lens would be massively unaffordable by all but the most well-heeled photographers. It would be pretty cool to have one though...</p>

[phoenix_kiula]

<p>Thanks to all who have replied.</p>

<ol>

<li> The creep is there in a brand new copy of 18-200 VR too. The creep is NOT there in the Canon equivalent. How? Nikon will do well to study. </li>

<li>I can learn DoF and distances and advanced physics. What I know is this. I took a D300 with an 18-200VR and took a shot of something in the shop at 35mm. Then I took a Canon 50D with 18-200 from them and did the same thing at 35mm too. The bokeh on the Canon lens was spectacular. Will a study of depth of field physics tell me why?</li>

</ol>

<p>While we're dreaming, it'd be cool to have a 10-400mm in f1.4. Some of us might even fork the dough for the convenience and the quality.</p>

[larrybc]

<p>In your original post, you mentioned that the Canon lens' DOF really impressed you. Now you're talking about its bokeh. The responses regarding DOF calculations refer to your DOF comment, which is not necessarily the same thing as bokeh.</p>

 

[phoenix_kiula]

<p>A beautiful, shallow DoF leads to creamy bokeh. That changes the aesthetic of the photograph. What exactly is the confusion in that?</p>

[psychotonomy]

<p>The confusion comes from you starting your post talking about DOF, and now talking about bokeh. Good bokeh is a matter of personal preference, but DOF calculations are not. Lenses with identical apertures and focal lengths will have identical DOF ranges, whether you understand the physics behind it or not.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Visibly shallow depth of field is a function of aperture, focal length, and the distances between camera, subject, and background. It is completely independent of lens maker. Depth of field for a Canon lens at 30mm and a given aperture while shooting at a given distance is essentially identical to that from a Nikon lens used the same way. Same as <em>any</em> lens.<br /><br />Those kit zooms (no matter who makes them) are slow. f/3.5 or so on the short end, and quickly reaching f/5.6 on the long end. Compared to the faster prime lenses that one normally refers to when talking about shallow DoF, you can't <em>get</em> shallow DoF out of those zooms. Yes, you can throw the background out of focus if you use the right combination of distance, FL, and aperture... but that's true for <em>either</em> 18-200 lens. There is no difference.<br /><br />When we talk about bokeh, it's usually a reference to the <em>aesthetic nature/quality</em> of the areas that are out of focus. Are you referring to the <em>degree</em> to which the background is out of focus, or the optical <em>nature</em> of the rendered blur in the out of focus areas? These are not the same thing. The discussion above has been centering on depth of field, which is lens-independent. You are now (possibly) straying into a completely different subject, which touches on numbers of diaphram blades, glass recipes, and the many other factors that contribute to bokeh <em>quality</em>. <br /><br />These super zooms are optically very, very complex. Their bokeh behavior (as it relates to quality, not degree!) is all over the map as you change focus distance and focal length. Nikon's 18-200 has busy-looking, crunchy bokeh at some combtinations of FD/FL/A, and quite pleasant results at others. This has <em>nothing</em> to do with how in-or-out of focus a given subject or its background is - that part is universal across all lenses that can hit the same combinations.<br /><br />If you do a little Googling for "Canon 18-200 bokeh quality" you'll get exactly the same sentiment from people who use that lens: the <em>quality</em> (not amount!) of the bokeh varies with all of the variables being changed in that complex optical recipe. Pleasant enough one moment, and jarringly edgy or ring-like the next.<br /><br />If you're all about bokeh quality, you have to get into high quality primes, or pro-ish fast zooms with narrower zoom ranges than these super-zooms. This isn't a subjective thing, it's a laws-of-physics thing.</p>

[larrybc]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4579529">Phoenix Kiula</a> wrote:<br /><em>A beautiful, shallow DoF leads to creamy bokeh. That changes the aesthetic of the photograph. What exactly is the confusion in that?</em><br />No confusion. My point is that you didn't say anything about bokeh or even shallow DOF regarding the Canon lens in your first post. You only said that you were impressed by the Canon lens' DOF. That's why people were responding with DOF calculations. Bokeh, or the characteristics of the out of focus areas, is something entirely different.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>It's a bit hard to believe a superzoom can have <em>spectacular</em> bokeh. Maybe really quite nice, but outstanding bokeh is more the territory of lenses like Canon 85 f/1.2 and Nikon 85 f/1.4.</p>

<p>If you value good bokeh a lot, then prepare to invest in long fast lenses, which allow to get that effect easily and usually do good (Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 or the 70-200VR). On the short focal lengths, during "normal" use, the bokeh is not that noticable due to the fact the DoF is long, unless you always prefer to stand some 30-50 cm from your subject. So a bokeh test at 35mm - sorry, I think it's kind of irrelevant for most uses. Comparing them at 70~125mm would have been far more interesting.</p>

<p>And the to me good proof that "a shallow DoF leads to creamy bokeh", is not a true statement: the 50 f/1.8 Nikon. It's bokeh is nervous and slightly distracting, and to my eyes certainly not creamy (but at €100, it's a nice lens to have).</p>

[john_cummins1]

<p>You Must be dreaming.....A 10-400mm in f1.4 would weigh 20lbs. and have a lens the size of Dinner plates.......No Thanks!</p>

[cmulcahy]

<p>Switch to canon if you think their version of the 18-200mm is so much better. I think this thread is funny because both lenses have been tested extensively by many pros and experts and the differences of the two lenses are minute.<br>

But if you think there's a huge difference then that is all that should matter to you. </p>

<p>It sounds like lens creep and bokeh are very very important issues to you. I'm wondering why on earth you are using this lens in the first place? If you want good bokeh try using the 85mm 1.4. (Doesn't have lens creep either) </p>

<p> I think you could get a dozen suggestions of lenses that are better then the 18-200mm both in bokeh and lens creep.......canon or nikon. I'm using a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 and a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S. Neither has lens creep, both have nice bokeh, and both are better lenses then the 18-200mm IMO. I also have a 50mm 1.4 and a 28mm 2.8 and neither have the issues you speak of.</p>

[phoenix_kiula]

<p>Chad, that's exactly what I was looking for. The alternative lenses. Let's leave the 18-200mm criticism behind.<br>

I'm settling on this:</p>

<ol>

<li>50mm f/1.8 (the 1.4 may be better to pixel peepers but this one looks very fine to me)</li>

<li>Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 (expensive but worth it, it seems from shots on Flickr) or the <strong>16-85mm </strong> </li>

<li>Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 (again expensive, but worth it) or <strong>70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G</strong> (more affordable) or <strong>55-200mm</strong> (really cheap!) </li>

<li>Nikon 10-24mm or <strong>Tokina 11-16mm</strong> or <strong>Tokina 12-24mm</strong> </li>

</ol>

<p>Now that I understand that I should have a combo of lenses, my question is this -- can you help me decide between the 2, 3 and 4.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Pheonix: You're now asking a very different question. If you read your original post, you'll understand why people were responding to your either/or proposition with the Canon 18-200 in place of the Nikon. <br /><br />I can assure you that the bokeh <em>quality</em> of the Nikon 16-85, 70-300, and 55-200 won't be appreciably better than the 18-200 you already have. Neither are those lenses any faster when wide open, and their max apertures vary with focal length. Qualitatively, they're all going to be in essentially the same league as the 18-200 when you're not stopped down to f/8 or f/11... at which point they're all nice and sharp, and at which point none of them or any other lens, on the same camera body, produce shallow depth of field.<br /><br />I'm still not convinced that you've digested the fact that control over depth of field is not the same as <em>quality</em> of the rendered bokeh. That you're even mentioning the 17-55 and the 70-200 in this thread completely changes the dynamics of the conversation, since those will produce wildly better results than the others you've mentioned. They're also heavier, more expensive, and more conspicuous to shoot - but they completely change your expectations and strategies. <br /><br />On the 50/1.8 you mention: first, I presume you have a body with a built-in focus motor, since the 50/1.8 isn't an AF-S lens, and requires mechanical focus drive from the body. But ignoring that for the moment: it actually does <em>not</em> have good bokeh. Sure, it produces very shallow DoF when you want that, but the <em>look</em> of the OoF elements is notoriously funky. I know, because I have one. I like the lens, and appreciate the nice bright viewfinder and short tele field of view on a DX body... but it is NOT the lens I'd reach for when looking for buttery, soft, gorgeous bokeh. Nikon's new 50/1.4 AF-S is <em>somewhat</em> better in that regard, but Sigma's 50/1.4 HSM is the 50mm bokeh king, for roughly the same price as the Nikon 50/1.4. The qualitative differences between that lens at the 50/1.8 are enormous.<br /><br />But that's only an issue if you actually <em>care</em> about the quality of the bokeh, not the fact that it's there. For a lot of people an out of focus background is enough, and talking about whether it's full of odd doubled lines, ring artifacts, etc., is just splitting hairs. You need to decide how important that is to you.<br /><br />Regardless, if you start carrying a 17-55/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 in place of an 18-200, you're going to feel very different about hauling the camera around. Despite having plenty of specialized primes, and even the luscious 70-200/2.8, the 18-200 is what rides around on my D300 for typical use. I break out fast primes, or a 10-20mm ultrawide, or the big zoom, when the cirumstances call for it. But the 18-200 is far too useful for everyday walk-about use. I'd miss it.</p>

[cmulcahy]

<p>Good post Matt<br>

Many good points made. This is a strange thread. I think it hits some nerves with many photographers when someone is making statements that are a bit critical and really out of the realm of common sense in terms of photography. To criticize a lens like the 18-200mm in one breath and then ask if the 70-200mm would be the way to go is funny and irritating at the same time.</p>

<p>I have the 50mm 1.4 and I like the bokeh compared to the 18-200mm, 70-300mm, or any of the other consumer lenses mentioned. Though I do agree it's not great. I think you just need to pay closer attention to your back ground if shooting a portrait w/ a nikon 50mm lens.</p>

<p>Of all those lenses I do think the 16-85mm is the best consumer lens nikon makes for most photography. </p>

 

[cmulcahy]

<p>Phoenix<br>

The lenses you mention are among the best lenses made by nikon and are common in many professional shooters bags. But the price tag is hefty, they are heavy, and they require some know how....otherwise you are wasting a lot of $. I'd suggest spending some money on classes and educate your self. Then you'll be able to get the most out of any lens. You also might consider spending about $300-400 on a good tripod if you are going to use those lenses. </p>

<p>the 50mm 1.8 or the 1.4 are great little lenses. They aren't ideal portrait lenses if you are being as critical as you were in your original post. For me I'm happy w/ the 50mm 1.4 shooting a portrait most of the time. What makes that lens special is it's ability to shoot in low light and shallow DOF...and small size and price tag as well. If you want a top notch portrait lens then look at the 85mm 1.4.</p>

<p>17-55mm nikon is a pro lens. If you are in the pro glass market then you migth want to compare it w/ the nikon 24-70mm 2.8 as well. The 16-85mm is a very good lens for much less money...but you cannot compare it to the previous two I mentioned. </p>

<p>The 70-200mm 2.8 is the jewel lens that most pro users either own or covet. If you aren't sure what you want between the 55-200mm, 70-300mm, or the 70-200mm 2.8 then I'd suggest buying the cheapest one and learn more about photography before you invest the kind of $ you are talking about. The fact that you were satisfied w/ the 18-200mm as your one lens makes me think you should learn a bit more before investing the $ in to the big guns. </p>

<p>I think it's great that finally someone is thinking about glass instead of the camera body. If $ means nothing to you .....then get the best.</p>

[wilson_davalos]

<p>As a photographer you should never try to use a all purpose lens. You are just asking it to do too much. Your lens will only work in the middle ranges. I use a Nikon 17-55 mm 2.8, The new Sigma 50 mm 1.4, & a Nikon 70-200 mm 2.8. Personally I would not use anything over 2.8, even if I'm shooting with great available light. The reason being is the build quality on the lens. These 2.8 lenses and faster are workhorses. You can feel the weight and see the speed of the autofocus. <br>

As for my Sigma 50 mm 1.4.... it's already know as the best 50 mm that you can buy. Sigma really did a great job with this lens. <br>

Check it out</p>