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.

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

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.

"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.

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

"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

"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

"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

"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.