Poor IQ from Nikkor18-200 3.5/5.6 VR on D7000

[craig_supplee]

<p>I recently bought the D7000 and have noticed that the pictures from my Nikkor 18-200 VR have worse IQ than when I used this lens on my old D40. For kicks tonight I tried a Tamron 70-300 4/5.6 that I bought several years ago for use on my N80. I always thought the IQ of this lens was a little lacking on that camera compared to the 28-105 I also had. Well the test pics I took tonight on the D7000 showed that the Tamron is killing the Nikkor 18-200 in sharpness. I had read that due to the 16MP sensor on the D7000, you need great glass to keep IQ high. I just don't understand why the Tamron lens that cost about one third of the Nikkor 18-200 is showing such better results. It focuses slow, but I don't shoot sports, so that is not an issue. What I would like to know is what would make a good wide angle zoom companion to the Tamron if I decide to use it over the Nikkor "superzoom". My budget if I decide to do this would be ~$600.00. Thanks.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>what would make a good wide angle zoom companion to the Tamron if I decide to use it over the Nikkor "superzoom".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the obvious choices are the tamron 17-50/2.8 VC or the sigma 17-50/2.8 OS. if you are ok with slow variable apertures, the nikon 16-85 VR might also deserve consideration.</p>

<p> </p>

[howard_m]

<p>have you tried AF fine tuning?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>have you tried AF fine tuning?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL. i dont think AF f/t has the magic to turn a lens which isnt that sharp to begin with into a sharper lens when used on a high-MP camera. it can correct slight front or back focus but the OP's problem isn't focus accuracy, it's lack of sharpness.</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>The 18-200mm VR was never known for its stellar image quality. As a superzoom, you lose image quality for convenience. I had the 18-200mm for a very short time, and sold it. I was appalled at how much worse it was than the decent inexpensive Nikon 18-70mm ED zoom.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sure the 18-200 isn't optically the best, and a D40 more forgiving than a D7000. But I know the older Tamron 70-300, and that's the equal of the Nikon 70-300G. Not a great lens by any means. So, the finding is somewhat surprising. Though the 18-200 is known to be worse the long end, and so are these 70-300 lenses. My 70-300G declines sharply after ~230mm, but that's still later than the decline of a 18-200 ;-) That said, I have a 70-300G and found in between f/8 - f/11 it's certainly capable. I've seen quite a lot shot with a Tamron, and it behaves the same.<br>

So, just to be sure we're comparing apples with apples here: 18-200 on a tripod, VR off, at f/8, around ~100-150 mm versus the Tamron, same aperture, same tripod same length ?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Well, I had the 18-70 and 18-200 at the same time and found them to be identical in image quality in the range they shared (and I've been reasonably certain that Dave Lee had a REALLY bad 18-200 and mine was quite good), but the long end of the 18-200 is definitely softer than a dedicated tele-zoom lens in that same range. No question. The 18-200 may simply not be up to the tight resolution of that sensor. It was designed when that kind of resolution didn't exist yet.</p>

<p>Also, concerning VR, if you use it wrong it can definitely soften your images.</p>

<p>here's an article to check out on VR. It might help. http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm</p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>IQ and sharpness "acceptability" are determined not by the lens, but by what YOU the photographer is willing to "accept".<br>

You can read all the MTF charts you want, but the proof is in your results.</p>

<p>The Nikon 18-200 while a engineering marvel, can not defy the laws of optical physics..no super zoom can and still be priced for the average consumer.</p>

<p>If you are finding IQ not what you want it to be, I highly suggest you stop using long excursion zooms and look into zooms with LESS FL excursion AND internal focusing.</p>

<p>Try out a 80-200 f/2.8 for instance..Great lens.<br>

The Tamron 18-50 has received many good reviews.<br>

The Nikon 50mm prime is amazing.</p>

<p>Bodies come and go, great lenses can last a life time.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>While some have expressed the same sediments as Dave, like a large number of others, my experience is totally opposite of his. I recently purchased my 4th copy of the lens (used from eBay) to pair with the d7000. It is the older version. (I even owned one of the first copies sold as I pre-ordered after it just after it was originally announced.) Each copy has given me exceptional IQ at all focal lengths, even at 200mm, even wide open. I did some quick tests with the lens I just got and it appears to be just as sharp as the previous copies, even at 200mm. I did a quick test at 200mm vs my 70-200mm and it held its own.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that IQ problems are usually related to technique unless there is something wrong with the lens and/or camera, which may in fact be the case here. It is certainly possible that your lens is 'off' a bit and it did not show up on your D40. I would suggest sending the lens in to Nikon for testing, especially if it under warranty. The 18-200mm lens should give you excellent IQ throughout its zoom range.</p>

<p>Some additional observations about the D7000 and IQ related to sharpness: I find I must add a lot more sharpening to my images (I shoot RAW) out of my D7000 as compared to my other Nikon DSLR bodies. But in the end, the images look great. I suggest you increase your sharpening and test again. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>How was your testing and comparison procedure? Did you put the D7000 in a sturdy tripod and compared the lenses at high shutter speeds?</p>

<p>It is well known that the Nikon 18-200 DX is very good on its wide end and poor on the long end. Its focal lengths where it overlaps with a 70-300 is where the 18-200 does not do well. It is much easier to make a zoom whose entire range is within the tele area. It should surprise no one that a 70-300 performs better. I have tested the latest $400 Tamron 70-300 Di VC and optically it is excellent (but mechanically mediocre); that lens would trash the 18-200 easily in the 70-200 range where they overlap. You pay a lot of money for the 18-200 to have the convenience of a super zoom, not for its optical excellence; the same is true for the 28-300mm AF-S VR I bought a few months ago.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the 16MP D7000 is very demanding on the optics. You need good lenses to realize its full potential. Images captured with my 500mm/f4 AF-S on the D7000 does not look as good at the pixel level compared to those from my D300 because there are simply too many pixels on the D7000. Eventually, I'll need to upgrade my long lens.</p>

<p>I posted an A/B comparison between the 18-200 DX AF-S VR version 2 and 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version 1 on a D300S body a year ago on February 19, 2010: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00VnWP">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VnWP</a><br>

There was no D7000 yet at that time so that the best DX body I had access to was the D300S. The difference in sharpness is very obvious at f5.6 and f8. Today, version 2 of the 70-200 is even better: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VoIT-221989584.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VoIT-221989584.jpg</a></p>

[stephen_doldric]

<p>I'm in Craig Supplee's camp. I have noticed similar results on a D90 vs a D40 with my 18-200 VR1. It seems so much better on my D40 and I have never been totally satisfied with the 18-200 on my D90. I have had the D90 body in for back foucs adjustments, but not the lens. I have not done any formal testing, but over time looking at photos between the D40 and D90 and they are just better out of my D40 when using the 18-200.</p>

 

[User_3607948]

<p>I add myself to those experiencing some puzzlement regarding D40 vs D7000 comparison using the same lens. Shun has the most reasonable answer: better optics leverage the MP count. I've also noticed problems wherever my fundamentals need to improve.<br>

So ... I need upgraded skills, upgraded gla$$, upgraded hardware to quickly process the larger files and upgraded wife to give me permission to spend all that time and money ;)</p>

[craig_supplee]

<p>Before I wrote last night, I had tried some tripod tests, Mup, VR off, with charts and steel lined rules on my 18-200 just to rule out a need to adjust the AF f/t. These seemed to come out sharp at the time. My new testing last night between the Nikkor 18-200 and Tamron 70-300 wasn't exactly scientific. I tried some shots hand held using flash at various matching focal lengths and apertures. In every instance the Tamron lens gave much sharper results in the monitor under full mag. Today at lunch I did the same thing only with faster shutter speeds shooting outdoors in the sunlight. Again you could definitely see the detail difference. The Tamron gives a sharper image. After reading several reviews on both the Nikkor 16-85 3.5/5.6 VR and the new Tamron SP 70-300 4.5/5.6, I took the plunge and ordered these. I just hope they will show a decent improvement on the D7000 over the Nikkor 18-200. I think my biggest problem is the fact that I have been shooting with various older medium format film cameras that give me 30 x 40 blowups without complaint. Even with the new D7000 I guess I will have to re-evaluate my expectations somewhat. Thanks to everyone for all your input.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you have a newer DSLR that has live view, such as the D90, D300/D300S and D7000, the right procedure to check sharpness is to mount the set up on a sturdy tripod; use live view and manual focus to tune focusing, and then check sharpness on the final image. That was how I tested the 18-200 on the D300S. </p>

<p>It is common knowledge that the 18-200 DX is not good on the long end. Check the reviews by Bjorn Rorslett and Thom Hogan; they both have the same conclusion. On a demanding DSLR such as the D7000, it is going to be a bigger problem.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Craig, I don't believe anyone is questioning your results. The real question is why? You need to troubleshoot to determine exactly why you are seeing this difference. You should not based on my experience with the same camera and lens combos you have used. </p>

<p>While the tests shots below are not scientific (they were shot at different times using my favorite [and most convenient] camera/lens testing subject), and I have only had the D7000 and 18-200mm lens for less than 2 weeks, I see no difference in IQ from the D40 vs the D7000 - In fact, I find the IQ superior on the D7000, probably a results of the extra megapixels. (FWIW I find my 18-200mm lens consistently sharp at 200mm and I have no explanation for this as I have no doubt the reports of poor IQ on the long end are factual). I added similar shots from the 70-200mm VRI and VRII.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Elliot, when you compare lenses, you need to show unprocessed crops at the pixel level. Your samples are obviously processed since 6MP, 12MP, and 16MP cameras should produce drastically different image sizes. Once you start shrinking the image from a 16MP camera to match that from a 6MP camera as you did above, you are hiding a lot of issues.</p>

<p>On the D7000, a lens needs to cover 4928x3264 pixels while that same lens only covers 3000x2000 pixels on a 6MP camera. Those lenses that do not have excellent resolution will not realize the full potential of the D7000. That is why I think we are approaching the limit of DX. It is pointless to add more pixels.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><br />The images I posted are unprocessed RAW images opened and setup in CS4, and I did indeed reduce the size of the the D7000 image. Those images were a collection of different test shots I have taken recently and as I stated in my original post, are a purely unscientific collection of images. But there is no doubt to me that my current copy of the 18-200mm is very sharp on the D7000 - I have taken quite a few photos with it and different focal lengths, nd have taken just a handful of comparison shots with other lenses to compare vs the 18-200mm. The results are consistent and always favorable.</p>

<p>By the way, I am not making any claim that the 18-200mm is better or even equal to other known 'better' lenses - just that I have found that my copy appears to give very good results on the D7000. The point of my comparison shots was to show that Craig's lens should give him good images on his D7000 just as mine does. Since his isn't, he needs to find out why. It is either a technique , body or lens issue. Although it appears at this point it may not matter since he is going to replace it anyway.</p>

<p>I will try at some point post a set of properly shot comparisons photos in the near future.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The point of my comparison shots was to show that Craig's lens should give him good images on his D7000 just as mine does.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elliot, you have not at all demonstrated that the 18-200 DX can produce technically sharp images @ 200mm on the D7000.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Actually the 18-200mm is very bad on the wide end, with horrible distortion, MUCH worse than the 18-70mm, which still has bad distortion. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Dave, </p>

<p>At the risk of extending what is becoming a ridiculous debate, the distortion is not "much" worse than the 18-70. In my testing in a "regular photo", they are about the same. If you are shooting architectural photography, you're crazy to use either of these lenses, but in real world photography, the distortion on these lenses' wide ends is inconsequential.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>All of those 18-nnn DX zooms have fairly serious distortion. As Bjorn Rorslett once points out, I also typically don't care about dirtortion at all. I don't use such lenses for architecture photography. For more casual or even landscape photography, as long as I don't place the horizon near the edge of the frame, distortion is a non-issue.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Peter, the 18-200mm has an extreme amount of distortion at 18mm, according to photozone.de, it measures 4.1%, an all-time high for all the lenses they have tested. The 18-70mm measures 3.5%. Hardly the same in my experience. The Nikon 16-85mm measures a more reasonable 2.5% at 16mm.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Really??? You're talking about a difference of .6% between the 18-70 and 18-200 (and only at the wide end) and you say it's a <em>huge</em> difference? Sorry, but that's not a "huge" difference at all. Probably not really "eye-measurable" even. I never had one single image I needed to correct for it in 4 years of owning the 18-200. Not one. If distortion is a key decider for you on a lens (because you're shooting, say, architecturally), any kit lens is going to be a bad choice.</p>

<p>Again, in REAL world photography, which is how I tested... there is no difference, and the distortion is a non-issue for me. I owned the two lenses together for a time to compare. I kept hearing about how much better the 18-70 was. I found them functionally identical in all respects including this. could not tell one image from the other at wide open down to f8 or f11.</p>

[craig_supplee]

<p>Ok, I did another non scientific test today. To take me out of the equation I used a tripod (Marfrotto 3221, pretty sturdy) and remote control. I didn't use Mup as I probably wouldn't use that if I was walking around with the camera. I took pictures at 200mm f5.6 and 70mm f5.6 with the Tamron 70-300 and Nikkor 18-200. Pics were of tree trunks,ivy, and my shed with barbed wire designs on it. The Tamron still showed sharper images, although the color was not as good as the Nikkor. I also tried my new Nikkor 35mm 1.8 against the 18-200 at the same setting of f5.6 and focal length. The prime lens was quite noticeably better which I would think should be expected. It was sharp with great color and contrast.<br>

My feelings are that while the 18-200 lens seemed fine on my D40, it just is not cutting it on the D7000. Is it just my lens, my eyes, the camera? Perhaps I got a less than perfect 18-200 from the beginning and just never noticed it on the D40. Who knows.<br>

This thread has waivered somewhat, but I would now ask this: did Nikon bring out the D7000 "prosumer" camera knowing that to get good results ( subjective I know) that the enthusiast or even pro would have to buy (or have) new optimum glass to achieve the benefits the 16 MP sensor can offer. A lot of people get caught up in the mega pixel race and while new cameras are fairly cheap, great glass is not. So is the D7000 a camera that can deliver great results but only through the use of 2K-3K cost of glass? If that is the case, a lot of people are going to be dissapointed.<br>

Maybe it's time to re-think using my Kodak Monitor Six-20 that can deliver 100+ MP pictures for those once in a lifetime shots.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Craig, since you state that your Tamron is giving you sharp images as well as your 35mm f1.8, your final glass statements don't make sense. It appears your camera is giving you good results but not with your 18-200mm lens. If you have enjoyed your lens on the D40, having your lens checked and perhaps corrected [if there is indeed a problem] may make the difference.</p>

<p> </p>