If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nikkor Part 2
Well, I took this lens down to Vigan and then on tour this weekend to
Aparri and Claveria. So far I have taken about 500 images with this lens. I tried using the lens in all sorts of situations, including pictures from within a moving vehicle and gusty conditions. It has its strong points and weak points. I think it is better than the 24-120mm VR which has been the recipient of so many terrible reviews. It does show the weaknesses of an 11.1x zoom range. Sharpness and focus: The lens focuses quickly enough and I have not noticed any hunting. The lens is also light weight enough to track a butterfly in flight and you can keep it focused on the bug long enough to get a picture, albeit not a very good one. Try that with your 70-200mm VR! I believe that with practice I could do much better. The lens appears to me to be somewhat softer than Nikon's more expensive lenses, but not beyond the ability of reasonable post-process sharpening. This is not a lens for those that like to blow up a small portion of their photo. It is a good lens for those who like to use the whole image, where the slightly soft focus is less noticeable. I would consider this lens to be about as sharp as the kit lens -- better than you have a reasonable right to expect, but still showing the limitations of extreme zooms like this. I find it works well for my style of photography which is more documentary than static. I would not use the lens for still lifes or high quality landscapes (but then, digital cameras really are not very good for that type of photography anyway). I suspect that a lot of the soft focus issues that some other people have had with this lens have more to do with depth of field. Inexperienced photographers learning to use a 200mm lens will have a tough time learning to deal with the depth of field, and this lens is going to attract a lot of inexperienced photographers. (It will also attract the experienced photographers who want a 'fun' lens -- one that they can just take with them without a lot of gear and enjoy a day of photography.) Lens fla I was able to induce lens flare in only one set of images -- photographs of the Quirinao Bridge with the rising sun in the background. I had to shoot almost directly into the sun. Nevertheless, the flare was small and could be easily edited out. There were three bright spots. Chromatic fringing, etc.: You can induce it and see it under a magnifying glass, but it is really not noticeable in ordinary photography. Really, anything you read about this in reviews is something you can usually safely ignore. It is not an issue except under extreme circumstances with modern lenses. I had to shoot directly into the sun to see any at all, and if you do that you are just as likely to get even worse color shifting from the digital sensor than you are from the lens. Distortion: Slight barrel distortion at all focal lengths. It is not bad, though, and is only really noticeable when shooting window frames and the like. I did not bother to correct it in most of my images. I found the greatest exaggeration in shooting a portrait view of the bell tower of the Vigan cathedral with the lens at its widest angle. Aside from making the tower look slightly pregnant, the distortion was not as bad as that caused by the vertical perspective. Both were easily corrected at the same time. I found the barrel distortion to be fairly uniform throughout the focal range; slightly more at the wide angle, of course. Ruggedness: I am hard on equipment. I keep cameras in the car in the hot tropical sun. I take them to the beach and expose them to salt water and sand. I shoot pictures of flooding in raging typhoons and tropical storms. I also take pictures on mountain glaciers and in bitter cold. I drop things all of the time. We will see how this lens holds up. So far it has not malfunctioned at the beach, even though it did get a good splash of salt water. Nikon says not to let their lenses get too hot because of the plastic parts, but I really do not have much of a choice. I am in the sun all of the time. So far I have not had trouble with any Nikkor lens that I can attribute to the heat. Am I happy with this lens? Yes. I can say that this lens meets or exceeds my expectations of a such a lens. This is a great amateur lens. Most photographers will not mind its limitations -- the beginners won't notice or won't care; the experienced ones will be impressed that the errors are so small for such a wide zoom ratio and close focus capability. Sure, for crystal clear distortion free images I will continue to use the heavy expensive glass. But this is the lens for my vacation snapshots and just having fun. You can have a ball with this lens and take some pretty decent pictures, too. I would recommend it to anyone looking for a good vacation lens or for general photography. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nikkor Part 2
Thank you CJ. I didn't wait for your report and bought one last week. Your
report confirms I haven't wasted my money. I did find noticeable vignetting from 70mm increasing to 200mm with the D50 set on program mode. It's not really a problem that post processing can't fix. -- Joan http://joan.colley.name:85 "cjcampbell" wrote in message ups.com... Well, I took this lens down to Vigan and then on tour this weekend to Aparri and Claveria. So far I have taken about 500 images with this lens. I tried using the lens in all sorts of situations, including pictures from within a moving vehicle and gusty conditions. It has its strong points and weak points. I think it is better than the 24-120mm VR which has been the recipient of so many terrible reviews. It does show the weaknesses of an 11.1x zoom range. snip |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nikkor Part 2
Joan wrote: Thank you CJ. I didn't wait for your report and bought one last week. Your report confirms I haven't wasted my money. I did find noticeable vignetting from 70mm increasing to 200mm with the D50 set on program mode. It's not really a problem that post processing can't fix. I have noticed significant vignetting as well, but only with a filter attached, especially a polarizing filter. The lens hood is easy to knock askew and that will cause vignetting, too. I have seen vignetting in all the DX lenses except the 10.5mm fish-eye. Digital photographers got a little spoiled by using lenses with large image circles on small sensors. A lot of them have never known anything else, so they don't remember that vignetting was considered normal on almost all lenses. Once Canon went to a 35mm sensor and Nikon started making lenses with smaller image circles, vignetting was back. The one thing digital photography gives that we did not have before is that now vignetting is much easier to correct. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nikkor Part 2
"cjcampbell" wrote in message oups.com... Joan wrote: Thank you CJ. I didn't wait for your report and bought one last week. Your report confirms I haven't wasted my money. I did find noticeable vignetting from 70mm increasing to 200mm with the D50 set on program mode. It's not really a problem that post processing can't fix. I have noticed significant vignetting as well, but only with a filter attached, especially a polarizing filter. The lens hood is easy to knock askew and that will cause vignetting, too. I have seen vignetting in all the DX lenses except the 10.5mm fish-eye. Digital photographers got a little spoiled by using lenses with large image circles on small sensors. A lot of them have never known anything else, so they don't remember that vignetting was considered normal on almost all lenses. My experience certainly does not bear this out. I've used the Nikkor 17-35 f2.8 AF-S on the F100, F4, and F5 and have seen NO vignetting at 17mm or any other focal length. By using the proper polarizing filter, none exists there either at 17mm, although using a polarizer at that focal length doesn't give uniform results across the frame. But no vignetting! Obviously none exists with this lens on the D2 series of bodies either. Bob Once Canon went to a 35mm sensor and Nikon started making lenses with smaller image circles, vignetting was back. The one thing digital photography gives that we did not have before is that now vignetting is much easier to correct. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nikkor Part 2
I saw no vignetting at the wider angles on the 18-200.
-- Joan http://joan.colley.name:85 "Robert Brace" wrote in message news:tb0zf.248882$2k.148128@pd7tw1no... My experience certainly does not bear this out. I've used the Nikkor 17-35 f2.8 AF-S on the F100, F4, and F5 and have seen NO vignetting at 17mm or any other focal length. By using the proper polarizing filter, none exists there either at 17mm, although using a polarizer at that focal length doesn't give uniform results across the frame. But no vignetting! Obviously none exists with this lens on the D2 series of bodies either. Bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nikkor Part 2
"Robert Brace" wrote in message
news:tb0zf.248882$2k.148128@pd7tw1no... "cjcampbell" wrote in message oups.com... Joan wrote: Thank you CJ. I didn't wait for your report and bought one last week. Your report confirms I haven't wasted my money. I did find noticeable vignetting from 70mm increasing to 200mm with the D50 set on program mode. It's not really a problem that post processing can't fix. I have noticed significant vignetting as well, but only with a filter attached, especially a polarizing filter. The lens hood is easy to knock askew and that will cause vignetting, too. I have seen vignetting in all the DX lenses except the 10.5mm fish-eye. Digital photographers got a little spoiled by using lenses with large image circles on small sensors. A lot of them have never known anything else, so they don't remember that vignetting was considered normal on almost all lenses. My experience certainly does not bear this out. I've used the Nikkor 17-35 f2.8 AF-S on the F100, F4, and F5 and have seen NO vignetting at 17mm or any other focal length. By using the proper polarizing filter, none exists there either at 17mm, although using a polarizer at that focal length doesn't give uniform results across the frame. But no vignetting! Obviously none exists with this lens on the D2 series of bodies either. Bob Once Canon went to a 35mm sensor and Nikon started making lenses with smaller image circles, vignetting was back. The one thing digital photography gives that we did not have before is that now vignetting is much easier to correct. Your experience doesn't involve the 18-200mm lens, either. The 17-35 is one of the best zoom lenses ever made by Nikon and is arguably the best super-wide zoom in the world--apples and oranges. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nikkor Part 2
"Matt Clara" wrote in message . .. "Robert Brace" wrote in message news:tb0zf.248882$2k.148128@pd7tw1no... "cjcampbell" wrote in message oups.com... Joan wrote: Thank you CJ. I didn't wait for your report and bought one last week. Your report confirms I haven't wasted my money. I did find noticeable vignetting from 70mm increasing to 200mm with the D50 set on program mode. It's not really a problem that post processing can't fix. I have noticed significant vignetting as well, but only with a filter attached, especially a polarizing filter. The lens hood is easy to knock askew and that will cause vignetting, too. I have seen vignetting in all the DX lenses except the 10.5mm fish-eye. Digital photographers got a little spoiled by using lenses with large image circles on small sensors. A lot of them have never known anything else, so they don't remember that vignetting was considered normal on almost all lenses. My experience certainly does not bear this out. I've used the Nikkor 17-35 f2.8 AF-S on the F100, F4, and F5 and have seen NO vignetting at 17mm or any other focal length. By using the proper polarizing filter, none exists there either at 17mm, although using a polarizer at that focal length doesn't give uniform results across the frame. But no vignetting! Obviously none exists with this lens on the D2 series of bodies either. Bob Once Canon went to a 35mm sensor and Nikon started making lenses with smaller image circles, vignetting was back. The one thing digital photography gives that we did not have before is that now vignetting is much easier to correct. Your experience doesn't involve the 18-200mm lens, either. The 17-35 is one of the best zoom lenses ever made by Nikon and is arguably the best super-wide zoom in the world--apples and oranges. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com Interesting point Matt. However, my comment was put specifically after the point "vignetting was considered normal on almost all lenses" and simply pointed out I have not seen that "normal" characteristic at all with a wide Nikkor zoom. Further, I have not seen it in any of my Nikkors over the many years I have used them. In the DX lenses, I can understand the greater possibility of it occurring, but I have not encountered it. Neither apples nor oranges! Bob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nikkor Part 2
"Robert Brace" wrote in message
news:MM9zf.148079$tl.101040@pd7tw3no... "Matt Clara" wrote in message . .. "Robert Brace" wrote in message news:tb0zf.248882$2k.148128@pd7tw1no... "cjcampbell" wrote in message oups.com... Joan wrote: Thank you CJ. I didn't wait for your report and bought one last week. Your report confirms I haven't wasted my money. I did find noticeable vignetting from 70mm increasing to 200mm with the D50 set on program mode. It's not really a problem that post processing can't fix. I have noticed significant vignetting as well, but only with a filter attached, especially a polarizing filter. The lens hood is easy to knock askew and that will cause vignetting, too. I have seen vignetting in all the DX lenses except the 10.5mm fish-eye. Digital photographers got a little spoiled by using lenses with large image circles on small sensors. A lot of them have never known anything else, so they don't remember that vignetting was considered normal on almost all lenses. My experience certainly does not bear this out. I've used the Nikkor 17-35 f2.8 AF-S on the F100, F4, and F5 and have seen NO vignetting at 17mm or any other focal length. By using the proper polarizing filter, none exists there either at 17mm, although using a polarizer at that focal length doesn't give uniform results across the frame. But no vignetting! Obviously none exists with this lens on the D2 series of bodies either. Bob Once Canon went to a 35mm sensor and Nikon started making lenses with smaller image circles, vignetting was back. The one thing digital photography gives that we did not have before is that now vignetting is much easier to correct. Your experience doesn't involve the 18-200mm lens, either. The 17-35 is one of the best zoom lenses ever made by Nikon and is arguably the best super-wide zoom in the world--apples and oranges. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com Interesting point Matt. However, my comment was put specifically after the point "vignetting was considered normal on almost all lenses" and simply pointed out I have not seen that "normal" characteristic at all with a wide Nikkor zoom. Further, I have not seen it in any of my Nikkors over the many years I have used them. In the DX lenses, I can understand the greater possibility of it occurring, but I have not encountered it. Neither apples nor oranges! Bob Ah. The only Nikon lens I have that I've seen vignetting in is my 80-200 afd. Although, now that I think about it, I believe that's usually described as light fall-off rather than vignetting where there's some actuall blockage such as the polarizer you guys are talking about. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
18-200mm AF-S VR DX Nikkor Part 2
"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com... I have noticed significant vignetting as well, but only with a filter attached, especially a polarizing filter. The lens hood is easy to knock askew and that will cause vignetting, too. If that lens is anything like the other Nikkors I've used with petal-shaped hoods, the hood is easy to knock askew only if you haven't tightened it enough. On the Nikkors I've used, the hood locks into place with a distinct click; after which, it doesn't come off unless you want it to do so. So just for fun, you might try twisting it a bit harder. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best 80 to 200mm lens for D70 | jvolcek | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | February 7th 06 02:19 AM |
Tele Takumar 200mm f5.6 | chris | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | October 21st 05 07:38 AM |
Minolta question: Sigma 400mm f/5.6 versus Minolta APO 200mm f/2.8 and 2x APO converter | Hamilton Davidson | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | January 17th 05 01:35 AM |
FA: Pentax 200mm F/4.0 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar Late Model Screw Mount Lens | Marvin Culpepper | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | October 7th 04 12:01 AM |
FA: Pentax 200mm F/4.0 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar Late Model Screw Mount Lens | Marvin Culpepper | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | October 7th 04 12:01 AM |