Found some great samples from the 18-200 VR

[sherlock]

Hey all,

I was browsing through the forums at dpreview and found these samples from the 18-200VR. To my eyes they look amazing, I don't know what you all think.

Here's the link: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1021&thread=17127844


Andrew

[coldrain]

Nice photos, but hard to tell about the lens, they have been scaled down and post processed. One thing you can say for sure is that the lens is not very soft at 200mm.

[Payne]

The 18-200VR is a good lens and it works fine with the D50. Im totally pleased with its performance :)

http://www.pbase.com/image/54988181/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/54988195/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/54988208/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/54988207/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/54988214/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/54988213/original.jpg

more here:

http://www.pbase.com/afukuda/cusco_puno

[coldrain]

The red pops up too much on your last photo, but you really make some very good photos! I especially like the field with the mountains and clouds, what did you do to make the colours in that photo so nice?

[Payne]

The red pops up too much on your last photo, but you really make some very good photos! I especially like the field with the mountains and clouds, what did you do to make the colours in that photo so nice?

all my shots are almost straight out of the camera I usually set the "contrast" at +10 (Photoshop) - no more, and about my "totoral shot" - I also love that image, the contrast between mountains and clouds is pretty impressive...but I did nothing with colors - just added a bit of contrast - the landscape is natural and I guess I took advantage of it.

regards,

[Bullitt]

Very nice pictures, vivid colors...
Anyone have any idea why my photos seem to wash out a bit at the long end but remain very sharp at the close end?

[erichlund]

It is not unusual for lenses to lose some contrast as they move toward their longest focal lengths. This is more prevalent in some lenses than others, and usually reflects my commonly used statement: "You get what you pay for". More expensive lenses "generally" have less tendency to this issue.

[Bullitt]

Could you recommend a lens comparable to the one I have now that may be somewhat sharper at all focal lengths...

[VetteD50]

Starting with the Farmhouse down to the Feb 7th sunset...these pics in my album were shot through a 18-200 Vr with a D50.

Except for the obvious post processing(sepia) on a few, they are right from the lens and camera.

http://photobucket.com/albums/a384/Wizardvette/

[erichlund]

Could you recommend a lens comparable to the one I have now that may be somewhat sharper at all focal lengths...
I'm not familiar with that lens, but have you tried stopping down to f8 and seeing what sort of sharpness you then get across it's range.

If you are still seeing softness, the Nikkor 18-200VR is pretty sharp once it's stopped down a bit (same f8). Even wide open it's not bad, but there is some minor vignetting and softness on the wide end. In the same 24-135 range, it's very sharp.

On the other hand, I haven't looked at lenses directly comparable to the one you have. I'm not that familiar with the non-Nikkor lines, but in Nikkors there's the 24-120VR, which saves you about $250 compared to the 18-200. Then there's the 24-85 f2.8-f4, which is a heavier lens but you get the 2.8 on the wide end and some better quality glass. A few dollars more than the 24-120.

George uses the Sigma 18-125 as his everyday walk around. I think he's been renting too much pro glass, becuase he's not talking in such glowing terms these days, but it's a lens you can get a lot of good performance out of.

With any consumer lens, you need to really find where it works best. If you want a lens sharp across all lengths and apertures, you generally have to go to pro glass or primes.

[jcon]

On the other hand, I haven't looked at lenses directly comparable to the one you have. I'm not that familiar with the non-Nikkor lines, but in Nikkors there's the 24-120VR, which saves you about $250 compared to the 18-200. Then there's the 24-85 f2.8-f4, which is a heavier lens but you get the 2.8 on the wide end and some better quality glass. A few dollars more than the 24-120.


I havent heard much about the 24-120 VR... I just got done looking at some photos on pbase and they seemed to be mixed results. Anyone have any suggestions on the quality of this lens? I wouldnt mind having a VR lens, and this lens is priced reasonably. I had planned on getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8(or the Nikon version) But if this lens is as good in quality, I may opt for this instead. I realize the Sigma is 2.8. Any thoughts on the 24-120 VR?

[D70FAN]

I'm not familiar with that lens, but have you tried stopping down to f8 and seeing what sort of sharpness you then get across it's range.

If you are still seeing softness, the Nikkor 18-200VR is pretty sharp once it's stopped down a bit (same f8). Even wide open it's not bad, but there is some minor vignetting and softness on the wide end. In the same 24-135 range, it's very sharp.

On the other hand, I haven't looked at lenses directly comparable to the one you have. I'm not that familiar with the non-Nikkor lines, but in Nikkors there's the 24-120VR, which saves you about $250 compared to the 18-200. Then there's the 24-85 f2.8-f4, which is a heavier lens but you get the 2.8 on the wide end and some better quality glass. A few dollars more than the 24-120.

George uses the Sigma 18-125 as his everyday walk around. I think he's been renting too much pro glass, becuase he's not talking in such glowing terms these days, but it's a lens you can get a lot of good performance out of.

With any consumer lens, you need to really find where it works best. If you want a lens sharp across all lengths and apertures, you generally have to go to pro glass or primes.

Eric, You may be right about renting pro grade lenses. I really enjoy using the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 D and the 70-200 f/2.8 D VR, but both are quite a lug, so I generally rent these for specific outings, like The Canyon, or Sedona where color, contrast, and bokeh are key.

I have rented the 24-120 VR and while the VR feature is nice the optics are less than satisfactory. In that focal range the Sigma 18-125 can easily kick its tail. It's time for Nikkor to rework this lens with some decent optics.

For $270 the Sigma 18-125 is, what it is... a more than acceptable day to day shooter. It's sharp from end to end, but it likes to vignette, shooting wide open at the extremes, with moderate barrel and pincusion distortion. Pro architectural photography is not it's forte. Both problems can be minimized in post processing, and in the end sharpness is the key. Like any other lens you have to learn how to use it.

Here is the best review I have read on the Sigma 18-125:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18125_3556/index.htm

[erichlund]

Using really nice lenses sure does tend to raise your expectations, doesn't it? :D

[D70FAN]

I havent heard much about the 24-120 VR... I just got done looking at some photos on pbase and they seemed to be mixed results. Anyone have any suggestions on the quality of this lens? I wouldnt mind having a VR lens, and this lens is priced reasonably. I had planned on getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8(or the Nikon version) But if this lens is as good in quality, I may opt for this instead. I realize the Sigma is 2.8. Any thoughts on the 24-120 VR?

As in my last post, In my opinion the Nikkor 24-120 VR is not worth mounting on the camera. I have used this lens twice (thinking that I may have rented a bad copy) and neither time was pleasant. Not a single Nikon user that I have talked to has anything good to say bout it. It's high time for Nikkor to rework it with better optics.

If you can afford the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR, (about $3000 for the pair) you will never be disappointed, regardless of the (Nikon) camera. They are not perfect, but they are darn close. Color, contrast, and bokeh are very nice. Fortunately, I can rent these locally for a reasonable fee.

From all that I have read on both the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG and 70-200 f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM, are very good as well, (about $1200 for the pair). No VR on the Sigma, but considering the price...;)

[jcon]

Thanks George! I value your thoughts and you confirmed what I have seen in sample photos. Looks like I will stick with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 for my indoor sports and save to get the Nikkor 28-70 2.8 for my wedding work. Thanks again!

[Esoterra]

I think its very easy to get caught up with the thought that if you buy a nicer lens than the one you have, you will start to take better pictures. When in reality, its all about your eye for the subject and that most lens' will allow you to get the shot you want once you learn how to manipulate the camera and environment the best you can for the shot you want. By the way... Where is lake titicaca? sounds like a dirty word doesnt it?

[D70FAN]

Using really nice lenses sure does tend to raise your expectations, doesn't it? :D

Yes, unfortunately, it does. It's why I have taken so long to get a midrange f/2.8 (24-70, 28-70, or 28-75). The Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 is incredible, so buying anything less feels almost uncomfortable. The same is true for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR.

This Nikkor pair goes for around $3000, and from my (rental) experience worth every penny. But for a non-pro a little tough to justify.:(

[jamison55]

By the way... Where is lake titicaca? sounds like a dirty word doesnt it?

There was an Animaniacs skit about that when I was in college (wow, I'm dating myself now)

[D70FAN]

I think its very easy to get caught up with the thought that if you buy a nicer lens than the one you have, you will start to take better pictures. When in reality, its all about your eye for the subject and that most lens' will allow you to get the shot you want once you learn how to manipulate the camera and environment the best you can for the shot you want. By the way... Where is lake titicaca? sounds like a dirty word doesnt it?

Sorry, I disagree. The advantage of a great lens over a good lens is LESS manipulation of the camera and environment... which will allow a higher level of confidence and creativity in the end product. No matter how good you are it is difficult to recover soft, low contrast images, colors filtered out, and CA, or flaring due to the lens. Additionally, Having to increase ISO two stops to compensate for a slow lens means lost detail.

I have taken some great shots with the Sigma 18-125, but shown side-by-side with a Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 print, there is no comparison. In many cases even post processing can't make up the difference.

The lake is in Peru... but you knew that didn't you?

To the naughty mat...

[Esoterra]

Sorry, I disagree...

Don't be sorry- we are all entitled to our opinions...although some people have some REALLY stupid opinions (not you of course)! :)

[Payne]

I think its very easy to get caught up with the thought that if you buy a nicer lens than the one you have, you will start to take better pictures. When in reality, its all about your eye for the subject and that most lens' will allow you to get the shot you want once you learn how to manipulate the camera and environment the best you can for the shot you want. By the way... Where is lake titicaca? sounds like a dirty word doesnt it?

totally agree with your statement above and btw, Titicaca means in spanish "Puma de Piedra" - it's not a dirty word, though if you isolate the word "caca" it means "crap"