Nikkor 18-200 Decision

[richardsnow]

<p>David --</p>

<p>I had the VRI version of the 18-200mm and had great results. It's a great walk-around lens and produces good results for casual photography. What makes this lens really the "ultimate walk-around lens" is it's convenience. </p>

<p>The lens does have a reasonable amount of distortion at both ends, but that's to be expected with anything that has an 11x zoom range.</p>

<p>As for IQ vs the 18-55 and the 55-200...really, for casual shooters, I don't think you'll find much difference. In semi-scientific, controlled tests, you'll see a difference, but I don't pixel peep, so it's a non-factor for me. It boils down to the convenience of not having to swap lenses to get your extra length. </p>

<p>As a side note, I'd buy the 35mm f/1.8 DX to go with this lens. It'll give you an "almost normal" perspective on the D90 and will give you great low light performance. My only complaint about this lens it that for a prime lens there seems to be a significant amount of barrel distortion on my copy...I just fix it in Photoshop if I find it detracts from the image.</p>

<p>Hope this helps,<br>

RS</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The lens you are comparing (the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S) is selling for approx. $2,400, if I am not mistaken. I am sure the original question on this thread was not about which of the Nikkor lens is the best, regardless of price.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, unfortunately, you are indeed mistaken. The lens I was using for the comparison is the version 1 of the 70-200. I paid $1400 for it about 5 years ago; recently it has gone up to about $1900. And as I explained to you in the Wedding Forum earlier today (see <a href="http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00WNJq">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00WNJq</a>), that lens is expensive mainly because it is an f2.8, which is 2 stops faster than max f5.6 for the 18-200 @ 200mm, not because it is particularly sharp, which the 70-200 version 1 is not. Version 2 and a lot of fixed-focal-length lenses around 200mm will easily beat it in sharpness.</p>

<p>What my A/B comparison demonstrates is that even though you stop down to f8, there is still a noticeable difference between good (but not the best) and consumer lenses. $700+ is a lot of money to pay to achieve such mediocre results at f5.6 and f8. If you go further down to f11, diffraction starts to become an issue for DX, and 200mm f11 is just too slow to be practical in a lot of situations.</p>

<p>During my Antarctic trip, a number of people had the 18-200 Nikon with them, but those are serious photographers who also had higher-end lenses. All of them point out that the 18-200 is poor on the long end so that they only use that lens for casual photography. Incidentally, I attended Frans Lanting's seminar a year ago. He indeed indicated that the 18-200 is good enough. I explicitely asked him about that, and he further explained only for casual images.</p>

<p>Again, for the OP's stated purposes, the 18-200 is just fine as long as you are willing to pay for convenience. It happens to be one of Nikon's all time best selling lenses. So clearly a lot of people like it. When you project digital images in slide shows, the projector lens will mask any sharpness differences anyway.</p>

[john_mcgill2]

<p>I have an 18-200 lens for a D80. Also, I have a Nikon 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, and 70-200 f2.8 for a D700. The problem I've experienced with the 18-200, beyond its slowness, is barrel and pin-cushion distortion, which are only noticeable depending on the subject.<br>

For a general purpose, walkabout lens, say for street photography and informal family events, the 18-200 lens is great. It is small and light weight and gives you a lot of flexibility compared to the other lens I own, which have their own advantages and disadvantages. I think for your girlfriend, and for what she is going to use the lens for, the 18-200 lens should be terrific.</p>

[john_mcgill2]

<p>I have an 18-200 lens for a D80. Also, I have a Nikon 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, and 70-200 f2.8 for a D700. The problem I've experienced with the 18-200, beyond its slowness, is barrel and pin-cushion distortion, which are only noticeable depending on the subject.<br>

For a general purpose, walkabout lens, say for street photography and informal family events, the 18-200 lens is great. It is small and light weight and gives you a lot of flexibility compared to the other lens I own, which have their own advantages and disadvantages. I think for your girlfriend, and for what she is going to use the lens for, the 18-200 lens should be terrific.</p>

[gary_krieg]

<p>I have the lens and I have shot and sold both landscape and cityscape prints up to 16x20 using a D300. So I would not limit this lens to 8x10 and smaller.</p>

[mel_cox]

<p>I think the 18-200 would be perfect for her. I get tired of people always blasting this lens. For the money it's a great lens.<br>

It's a great walk around lens and is capable of capturing great images. I took mine to China last year and used it most of the time........even in museums and darkened places. <br>

I dropped mine a few months ago onto concrete and the glass in the protective filter broke all to pieces. It hit with such force that I can't remove the remaining filter metal rim but the lens IQ is unchanged as far as I can determine.<br>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v161/melcox/China090809BeijingTempleofHeaven-1.jpg" alt="" /><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v161/melcox/China090909BeijingTiananmenSquare26.jpg" alt="" /><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v161/melcox/China091009BeijingHoutongsInnerC-3.jpg" alt="" /><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v161/melcox/China090409Suzhou39.jpg" alt="" /><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v161/melcox/China090609TaianMtTairace76a.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[paul_soohoo2]

 

<blockquote>

<p>"It happens to be one of Nikon's all time best selling lenses. So clearly a lot of people like it. When you project digital images in slide shows, the projector lens will mask any sharpness differences anyway."<br /> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>So to be sure are you saying that when we are talking about superior image quality i.e. lens A is "sharper" we are talking about what we will notice on say 16 x 20 or larger print?<br>

Assuming that there is a trend where exhibition grade prints are no longer the medium of choice for displaying photographs ( this is a purely hypothetical situation ) will a lens that has some sharpness deficiencies be less noticeable or indistinguishable from a high end lens because of characteristics of projection compared to printing?</p>

<p>The reason I ask is I still print a lot of my favorite photographs but I find myself doing more slide shows because it is much much easier to make a coherent story of say a vacation or location by slide show than building a portfolio of 30 prints and I never considered the image quality factor you mentioned.</p>

<br />

 

[hernan_enriquez]

<p>As usual there seems to be a certain snob element participationg in phorums, those who believe any consumer lens is not good, well, I have the Sigmas 18-200 and it could not e a better all-around lense, great results from it and while I keep shooting, others are too busy changing lenses and trying to look impressive in the process. Go with the Nikor 18+200 for her camera,she'll love it.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>To me all the images posted in this thread look like they were shot through a window or some such obstruction that reduces the clarity of the images. If it can be seen in a 700 pixel wide image, a good video projector should show it also, and without doubt any printed image.</p>

<p>You could argue that I'm picky but in my opinion the problems of the 18-200 are sufficient that they cloud the message of the photos.</p>

<p><em>I'm a "big picture" guy and she's a "fill the frame" girl.</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

For someone who prefers to shoot frame-filling details, one of the 80/70-200mm f/2.8 lenses would not be a bad place to go. While the newest version is always the most expensive, the older ones are very good also, and much, much better than any -f/5.6 zoom. Of course, they're heavier also. A 105mm f/2.8G AF-S Micro-Nikkor is a much lighter and somewhat less expensive lens that works well for tight shots and details and on DX it has good reach. Rather than the superzoom, consider these lenses.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Personaly I don't like the 2 zoom setup. I never like having a 28-70 2.8 and an 80-200 2.8 when I shot film. I found I either had to carry 2 bodies or swap lenses way to often. I also found I did not care for the size and weight of an 80-200mm 2.8. Very often I would take my slower 35-135 to avoid two bodies or lens swapping. Now with digtal DX bodies I am very happy with a Tamron 28-75 2.8. I find it just works well for me. Great for portraits and also nice for holiday snaps.</p>

[fishit]

<p>I have owned a 18-200MM for some time now and I find it to be the best all around lens for my D300. It has limitations but if as mentioned set at F8-F11 it provides some high quality pictures in a wide range of situations. It does one thing great, versatility. The picture quality is good and great is some situations. It is not fair to compare this lens to F2.8 lens. But if you want a single lens for all around use the 18-200vr is the lens to buy.<br>

I keep it on my camera as a default lens. I shoot a very eclectic group of pictures and find it has suited my needs now for well over 3 years. I think your girl friend will be very happy with the lens based on what you mentioned she wants to use it for in her photography.</p>

[robert_k1]

<p>Mel's China images of people are good examples of the softness at the long zoom end. There could also be focusing problem, such as the bird cage being more focused than the white gown model's eyes. The last one is also challenging to focus well. Both are in defused lighting and probably at the long end. These are the situations I had the most problems with until I settled with the AF settings that work somewhat better for me. This lens loves high contrast under bright lighting, at the wide side.</p>

<p>Sorry, comments not meant to be criticisms, just illustrations.</p>

[tim_eastman]

<p>This shot was taken @ 62mm, F10 2.5 sec on a D80. I'm quite happy with it.</p><div></div>

[mel_cox]

<p>No offense taken at any comments on my pictures. I'm not a professional photographer but I'm proud of my photos. If I were shooting for National Geographic I'd have a reason to own professional, more expensive lenses.<br>

The point it that I tried to illustrate that the 18-200 is a flexible, good, walk around lens. I'm thrilled with the photos I've taken with it and highly recommend it to anyone considering a good walk around zoom lens. I think that anyone who considers themselves a decent photographer, should be able to get great shots from the Nikon 18-200.</p>

 

[michael_s10]

<p>I own the lens, and luckily, I bought the lens before I read about it on the forums. It takes such a beating by reviewers that I probably would have passed on it.</p>

<p>I rarely see a photo taken with this lens that wows me based on image quality. That is not its forte. Its forte is be being on the camera with the right focal range, and the right weight, so one can take casual photos as opportunities pop up. </p>

<p>It's the best zoom I have - I'm not sure that even if I had the 70-200 VRII that I'd want to drag it around when hiking, or doing other activities that aren't photography centric.</p>

<p>But in the end, I'm usually using it to take photographs of subject matter that in an of itself is unique - like family on location for example, or a moment in time shot. It's the subject matter that makes those photographs valuable to me, not the technicals.</p>

<p>When a photograph needs to be something other than a casual shot, there is a *lot* more that goes into the shot, not just a better lens - it's a whole set of equipment & techniques. This includes lighting, planning and/or staging the shot, post processing/retouching, etc.</p>

<p>But when I don't want to make a production out of things, the D90 and 18-200 does just fine :)</p>

<p> </p>

[patric_parker1]

<p>I have (and use) the 18-200, as well as some "better" glass like the 80-200mm 2.8 and the 35-70mm 2.8. While I like the faster zooms, and think i can get somewhat superior photos with them given a little time, when I am wandering around with my wife, or on vacation with the family, the 18-200 is perfect. The photos are not point and shoot quality (selective focus is easilty possible), but the convenience is point and shoot like. A great lens.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p><a>Michael S wrote</a>: "I rarely see a photo taken with this lens that wows me based on image quality."</p>

<p>I would modify this slightly, to say I rarely see a photo taken with <strong>any</strong> lens that wows me based on image quality. </p>

[jeroenbollen]

<p>Why don't you take a look at the www.<a href="http://www.photozone.de">photozone.de</a> site they objectively give information about lenses based on MTF-charts, Cas and vignetting. I was very pleased with all the information they provide and on those bases I've decided to buy a 16-85 for my D2X.</p>

[jeroenbollen]

<p>Why don't you take a look at the <a href="http://www.photozone.de">www.photozone.de</a> site they objectively give information about lenses based on MTF-charts, Cas and vignetting. I was very pleased with all the information they provide and on those bases I've decided to buy a 16-85 for my D2X.</p>

[jeroenbollen]

<p>Why don't you take a look at the <a href="http://www.photozone.de">www.photozone.de</a> site they objectively give information about lenses based on MTF-charts, Cas and vignetting. I was very pleased with all the information they provide and on those bases I've decided to buy a 16-85 for my D2X.</p>

[kevin cassar]

<p>Ok it should be expected that a $2000 lens will produce sharper photos at 200mm but the Nikon 70-200mm is hardly a carry around lens, costs 3 times as much and weighs 3 times as much. That said in my humble opinion the Nikon 18-200mm lens is possibly the perfect travel lens especially when you are going to be carrying it around all day. My wife thinks my D200 with the 18-200 lens is "too heavy" and the 70-200 adds a further kg to the kit. They say the proof of the pudding is in the eating so I'll submit a photo taken at 200mm wide open @ F5.6, NO PS Sharpening as produced by the camera. Judge for yourself.</p>

[sven_felsby]

<p><a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00Vbqr-214159684.jpg">00Vbqr-214159684.jpg</a></p>

[zaheer_b]

<p>The query is a very specific one. It is this:<br>

"The body came with both a Nikkor 18-55 f/3.5–5.6G lens and a Nikkor 55-200 f/4.5-5.6G lens. She really enjoys the camera, but often has trouble deciding which lens to use when we stroll around shooting, so I’m considering replacing both of those lenses with a Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G. The convenience would be great, but how about the image quality? Would it be better or worse or the same?"<br>

ie. would the 18-200 be better, worse or the same as the other two lenses Dave's girlfriend already has.<br>

I truly believe that the only response to the question, based on my experience at least, is a big YES.<br>

Nobody doubts that there are many lenses that are better than the 18-200 etc. etc. But the 18-200 cannot possibly be any worse than the 18-55 and 55-200 listed above.</p>

 

[zaheer_b]

<p>.</p>

[zaheer_b]

<p>going beyond the specific question posed by dave, the 18-200 really is a "unicorn" - an impossibility just a few years ago.<br>

there is a real danger of talking at cross-purposes here, so:<br>

1. if one is making money through photography, the 18-200 lens is obviously not the way to go.<br>

2. if one wants to actually enjoy photography and get reasonably good pictures that can be shared with friends, on online sites etc. quite obviously, this is the lens. given the high ISO capabilities of the D300 and D700, the not so good aperture issue is taken care of...for those who just want to experience the joy of capturing the moment and sharing it.<br>

3. if one's hobby is driven primarily by incurable angst over MTF charts, pixelanxiety etc. then it would seem that no lens or camera body would ever be good enough.</p>