My 18-200 lens a bad copy?

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Granted, I just acquired the lens a couple of weeks before the vacation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1. It's never a good idea to take brand new gear on an important trip.</p>

<p>2. Did you use VR?</p>

<p>3. How careful were you about focusing accurately?</p>

<p>4. Did you expose accurately? Underexposed shots can look "noisy."</p>

<p>5. How did you sharpen the D90 photos?</p>

<p>6. DID you sharpen the D90 photos?</p>

<p>I'm not even going to comment on the Top Ten List that you referenced.</p>

 

[stephen_worth]

<p>Ken Rockwell does show his testing. He's done side by side comparisons of 100% shots of various camera bodies and high ISO, 180-200mm range comparisons, pro midrange zooms, etc.</p>

<p>The 18-200 VR is perfectly capable of capturing sharp, great looking images if the photographer is knowledgeable enough to be able to use it to its strengths and not try to make it do things it isn't designed to do. If the OP wants to know what the problem here is, he needs to come back and be willing to check a few things. The images he posted could very well be his fault, not the lens.</p>

[dave_kim3]

<p>I have the D90 and used to have the 18-200 'till I sold/traded it. <br>

I'm not a pro photographer, and knew that getting the 18-200 was only for the sake of convenience during travel. Having lowered my expectations for it's performance, I was satisfied with the results. I did, at the same time have a 50mm 1.4D prime, which was just amazing compared to the 18-200... <br>

Keep in mind though, that as opposed to a regular P&S, you have much more 'control' over your camera settings - which puts more responsibility on you...</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I feel like I have really not expressed myself very well in this thread.</p>

<p>Shun,<br /> I am a fan of the Nikon 18-200mm VR and do not think it is a dog. That's not what I said.</p>

<p>Kevin,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If Robert really needs to know, I suggest he rents a pro quality wide angle and compare results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't need to rent a lens. I do know the difference, and probably more so than you do.</p>

[j_w13]

<p>This was my mom's lens. I believe this lens along with her camera fell off the car when backing out of the driveway. Maybe this has something to do with the sub-par performance.<br>

Yes the second picture was taken with the 18-200.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun,<br />I am a fan of the Nikon 18-200mm VR and do not think it is a dog. That's not what I said.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robert, I understood exactly what you said. I also would <strong>not</strong> classify the 18-200 as a "dog."</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I believe this lens along with her camera fell off the car when backing out of the driveway. Maybe this has something to do with the sub-par performance."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the lens was dropped it's very likely that optical elements and/or the lens mount were knocked out of alignment. But you would need to conduct a more appropriate test to determine this. It's almost impossible to reach any useful conclusions regarding apparent sharpness from these upward angled photos of buildings.</p>

[david_smith35]

<p>Do you use a tripod for any of your shots?</p>

[dirk d.]

<p>Ummm big factor/Important information you should have disclosed in your post "lens fell off my moms car before trip" Really and you fail to mention this before shaking up the bee hive with your lens assesment?<br>

That like saying this damn Porshe just doesnt run right, must be a lemon oh by the way I put oil in the gas tank could that affect the way the car runs. Stupid off handed comments are sometimes the basis of unfair condemnation of products and companys who work hard to gain the publics trust.</p>

[dirk d.]

<p>Many factors will effect sharp focus, is this lens going to be as critically sharp as a fixed focus lens probably not. It would really be unrealistic to expect that it would. Is this lens a capable performer yes indeed. Are there better lenses for your Nikon, no question. In the 18-200 range? perhaps, but his lens does wide range quite well. I have over a dozen Nikkors and think the quality of sharpness is quite good.<br>

Stop down your lens, use a tripod for long shutter speeds it looks like a dark day maybe bumping up the iso was in order and make sure your IS Image Stabilization is switched on when not using a tripod, conversely you must make sure to turn off your IS if the camera is mounted on a tripod. Oh yah one more thing, remember to take the camera off the car before driving. </p>

[billsymmons]

<p>Nothing wrong with the 18-200 shot. Just DOF. remember that, as has been pointed out, the P&S DOF is far greater at any aperture than the DX DOF. Also the set up on most P&S cameras is sharper than the default setting Nikon typically uses.<br>

I think the problem boils down to technique</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Here is a direct A/B comparison between the 18-200 and 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, Version 1. Everything was captured with a D300S on a Gitzo 1325 tripod with 1-second exposure delay. In the case of the 70-200, I mounted the lens on the tripod.</p>

<p>The 18-200 I used was a loaner from Nikon; I used that for over a month. That 18-200 is a Version 2, but optically there is no difference between Version 1 and 2. I have used Version 1 also in the past with similar results.</p>

<p>It is very obvious that the 18-200 is fairly soft at 200mm, and stopping down to f8 does not help much. I also treid it at f11 and it remains soft at f11, but for such as long lens (300mm FX equivalent), even f5.6 is on the slow side. Pay attention to the dark-to-white transition on the vent frame; there is very obvious chromatic aberration for the 18-200.</p>

<p>The 70-200 is a bit soft at f2.8 but improves a lot by f5.6. Chromatic aberration is much better controlled. Keep in mind that at the time I only had Version 1 of the 70-200. Version 2 is even sharper.</p>

<p>For more casual photography during travel, it is hard to beat the convenience of the 18-200.</p>

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VoIT-221989584.jpg">

</P><div></div>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Thank you for doing this comparison Shun. I'm surprised there is not an improvement in performance of your sample of the Nikon 18-200mm between f5.6 and f8. When using my 18-200mm at 200mm, I get my sharpest images at f11. I set my camera to Aperture priority, use f11 and auto ISO.</p>

<p>If you have time, what do the results look like at the center of the image?</p>

<p>At f5.6 the two lenses are not that far apart in performance, in my opinion.</p>

[j_w13]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun</a> , thanks for your test sample. The 18-200 certainly is a little soft.<br>

<br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=777485">A. Dirk</a> , I simply forgot to put that info in my original post. There was no physical damage on the lens itself. In fact, I couldn't figure out if the lens was giving me soft image issues until well after I started shooting with it. I thought it was me, but the more I shot, the more I realized that something didn't seem right. I figured it's either the nature of the lens itself or perhaps a result of some accident.</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>I don't think there's any doubt that a pro grade lens is going to be sharper than the 18-200 at 100%. The real question is "is it sharp enough". Except for the most demanding technical application the performance of the 18-200 at 200mm is certainly good enough.</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>You should find out for sure if Mom dropped the lens and if she did I would suggest you send it in for a checkup. As Shun's super-magnified copyrighted test shots show there isn't enough of a difference between the 18-200 and the expensive f2.8 that would show up in most pictures at regular size. You're Cuba pics should have been better.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Here is the exact same lens and camera at 28mm.</p>

<p>I have sitting in a Zodiac inflatable boat, hand holding with VR on. There was plenty of light with snow all over. I used 1/1600 sec at f8, ISO 200 on the D300S. I also had a UV filter on to protect the lens since I was at sea.</p>

<p>On the wide end, I think overall sharpness is quite good, although still not quite the same as high-end lenses. What bothers me most is the chromatic aberration.</p><div></div>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>If your Nikon 18-200 VR fell off your mother's car to the ground, it could and probably did sustain damage, even if not visible on the outside. The Nikon 18-200 VR is an extremely complicated optical design and an impact to the lens could have knocked one or more lens elements out of alignment, at the least. You really should send the lens to Nikon to have it checked out. You might as well send the camera, too as that may have sustained damage as well.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>Another positive aspect about having the Nikon 18-200mm VR is that it transports you to beautiful exotic places.</p>

<p>On a more serious note, I think this example shows how the Nikon 18-200 f3.5-5.6 can shine as a all-around, walk-around or float-around lens.</p>

<p>The below snapshot was taken with a Nikon D70, Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 VR, 40mm, f4.5@ 1/20sec (VR on).</p><div></div>

[sven_felsby]

<p>This week, I will entertain myself and all of you with some sample shots comparing my ancient 200/4 AI and my 18-200. Any bets?</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>As long as you shoot your ancient 200mm f4 AI at between 18-150mm. Oh, that's right, it can't do that. ;-)</p>

[hal_b]

<p>The 18-200 is worst at 200, so this will be an easy contest in favor of the 200mm AI.</p>

[ron_snyder6]

<p>This lens will be fine for those who post pics on the internet or don't enlarge more than 8x10, but anything larger & the image quality really suffers. I typically print to approx 12x18 & sometimes much larger & found this lens to be soft in comparison to either my 16-85 VR or 70-300 VRll, both of which are satisfactory. I shoot for competition, & good image quality is mandatory. I owned my 18-200 for only a few weeks when I found it just didn't measure up to what I needed. I replaced it with the 16-85 which provides MUCH better results. I always have my camera mounted on a heavy tripod. mirror locked up & shutter released with a cable release. If you only plan on hand holding the camera while shooting, this lens will be fine.</p>

[ron_snyder6]

<p>When looking at the side by side images provided by Shun Cheung, look at the stucco wall at f8. That softness is there throughout the entire image, just better seen because it's a texture. To me, that softness is totally unexceptable. That is one of the factors that separates a great image from an ok image. You decide what's important to you.</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>The biggest factors that separate a great image from an OK one are lighting and composition. The way textures look blown up bigger than an 11x14 print can render are way down the list.</p>