PDA

View Full Version : My 18-200 Nikkor came in!



timmciglobal
12-20-2005, 08:00 PM
Got my Nikon 18-200 today!

Only had chance to take some crappy shots of some signage and hanging electrical box at work today but here are my first impressions.

Build Quality: It's a TANK. The zoom ring is VERY stiff, almost too stiff, takes deffinite effort to zoom. Very well cammed both focus and zoom rings. Lens shade is plastic but built well, includes the distance scale, VR on/off switch, Auto or manual focus switch and Normal or Active mode for VR on/off switch. It's a relativly big lens but espescially when zoomed out to 200 extends to around 12".

Features: VR works. It works REALLY REALLY well. The focus system is fast, goes from infinity to close very very quickly, deffinitly quicker then canon 28-135 IS does. Also to note is VR is totally silent in operation outside of a "click on click off". Internal focusing so no issues with frontal element movement.

Image Quality: Deffinitly superior to most consumer glass, and the tamaron/sigma alternatives fitting this all in one. Though it's not a 2500$ lens and it shows. There are some CA issues, very small cyan/red fringe on extreme highlights at corners especially. There is vingetting (dark corners) and deffinite barrel distortion.

So what do I think after plunking down $781.33 after tax? Suprisingly good but I've not used it where I intended to yet, which is casual use around town. I'm going to post some samples tommorow, especially outdoors when I get chance to take them. That is going to be the real question, as to the sharpness and quality wide open and CA issues in bright conditions vs stopped down and how much the vingetting effects the image.

Tim

erichlund
12-20-2005, 08:11 PM
Congrats on the lens. Other samples I've seen from this lens have been turning out very well. I hope to have mine in the next few days, though if I don't have it before Xmas, I may cancel my order with Samy's and go with another vendor. Of course, it won't do me much good if I only get the lens. I'm waiting on a D200 to use it with.

One more thing. Don't worry about the stiffness of the rings. That's a good thing, as they are sure to loosen up a bit over time. That's much better than starting a bit loose and becoming useless.

Cheers,
Eric

ClickCardo
12-25-2005, 12:06 PM
Tim

I have a D50 with the D70s kit lens and plan on a telephoto. Specifically the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM for Nikon AF. What do you think of that combo versus your VR?

kanderson42
12-26-2005, 04:20 PM
ClickCardo,
you may want to look at the nikon 80-200 f/2.8 instead of the 70-200 VR you mentioned. It goes for about $900. The VR is nice if you want to hand hold shots with slow shutter speeds but wont help anyone for sports because it only corrects camera shake, not motion blur.

kanderson42
12-26-2005, 04:22 PM
oops i posted in the wrong forum.

erichlund
12-26-2005, 10:47 PM
Well, I got the call at 4:45pm today. My 18-200 had arrived at Samy's. So we finished watching the movie we were watching and headed down to pick it up. I'm off for the rest of the week, and my wife has to work, so I'll have a chance to put the camera (D200) and my lenses through their paces.

Hope everyone is having as nice a holiday season as we are,
Eric

BTW: I also noticed the stiffness of the zoom. But I think I noticed something else. It seems that it's probably related to getting all those sections moving in the same direction. This lens has three sections of barrel, rather than the usual two, and the stiffness feels sort of like overcoming an over centered arm, if that makes any sense.

D70FAN
12-29-2005, 02:12 PM
Well, I got the call at 4:45pm today. My 18-200 had arrived at Samy's. So we finished watching the movie we were watching and headed down to pick it up. I'm off for the rest of the week, and my wife has to work, so I'll have a chance to put the camera (D200) and my lenses through their paces.

Hope everyone is having as nice a holiday season as we are,
Eric

BTW: I also noticed the stiffness of the zoom. But I think I noticed something else. It seems that it's probably related to getting all those sections moving in the same direction. This lens has three sections of barrel, rather than the usual two, and the stiffness feels sort of like overcoming an over centered arm, if that makes any sense.

So Eric, what's the word? In checking Jeffs review pics I am not real impressed with the 18-200 VR, but this goes agains all of the other shots that I have seen on-line.

It would be nice to get your input on this...

Thanks.

timmciglobal
12-29-2005, 03:22 PM
Here is some sample shots, downsizes images here but with links to the original big ones.

Let me say this, so far, here is my one liner. It's a great "consumer" lens. The price tag is NOT a "pro" lens it's a great consumer lens. That being said, just at christmas this year I had shots I 100% deffinitly would not of gotten without VR and without a wide angel lens and telephoto on at the same time. Switching lenses during casual shooting which MOST of us do here isn't as practical as it may seem, especially with dogs, kids and family all around.

Pros:

VR is amazing. It makes this lens worth it in spades. The clean shots at 1/30th @ equiv focal of 300 mm (200 mm on lens) just simply can not exist without VR or a tripod. Active mode works well in car or moving.
Focal length range is amazing, perfect 1 lens solution.
Focuses fast and silent with full time manual override.
Built like a tank, very stiff ring with very high build quality.
Included hood and pouch is a nice touch at the price.

Cons:

Barrel distortion is a real issue. It's deffinitly noticble when shooting anything with a straight edge at wide angel. It's fixable in CS2 but it's deffinitly an issue.
Vingetting wide open and CA issues at widest end of lens, disappears stoped down a stop or two.
Relativly slow F 3.5>5.6 (rasises quick quickly so assume the lens is "f 4.8" on average.


Here are some sample shots though, taken at work because we've had the worlds worst weather last week and half.

VR On, 200 mm, 1/30th sec exposure F 5.6 ISO 450 EV + 0.3, Spot Meter
http://pictures.divergentservices.com/200vronsmall.jpg
Original:http://pictures.divergentservices.com/200vronoriginal.jpg

VR Off, 200 mm, 1/30th sec exposure F 5.6 ISO 520 EV + 0.3, Spot Meter
http://pictures.divergentservices.com/200vroffsmall.jpg
Original: http://pictures.divergentservices.com/200vrofforiginal.jpg


Tim

D70FAN
12-29-2005, 03:35 PM
Thanks Tim. It has always appeared that VRII works very well. My concern is normal, indoor and outdoor, non-VR, shots. Guess I will just have to bite the bullet and buy one.;)

timmciglobal
12-29-2005, 04:11 PM
I've got a bunch of shots from x-mas tell me what you want to see george and I'll post or take some shots.

Tim

coldrain
12-29-2005, 04:33 PM
So Eric, what's the word? In checking Jeffs review pics I am not real impressed with the 18-200 VR, but this goes agains all of the other shots that I have seen on-line.

It would be nice to get your input on this...

Thanks.
I too was looking at the photos of the D200 + 18-200VR posted by Jeff.
For fun, compare these two photos:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_n1-review/DSC00006.JPG

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d200-review/DSC_0110.JPG

I am not nearly as impressed as I was with the photos posted by Nikon... I guess not even Nikon could cheat the laws of 18-200 lens-dom?
And maybe the difference is that these are full size not scaled down, not post processed images (showing shortcomings you will otherwise not see)?

And I see that sadly the D200 still has a slight tendecy to moire effects :(
(look at the tower tip to see the blue bands appearing).... This again will mean that the sharper the lens, the more moire will show up (try a 60mm Nikkor Micro on a D70, that lens is SO sharp that the tendency for moire gets a lot bigger).
I really was looking forward to the D200 being all it seemed to promise (I know I seem to be a very biased Canon boy, but still my favorite camera is my Nikon FTn Nikkormat), but for now I can not help to feel a little disappointed.

timmciglobal
12-29-2005, 04:47 PM
Oh and let me say, as a canon fanboi too, I'm very impressed with the lens for what it is.

I think the extra 250>300 over the sigma/tamron is well worth it for the Vr alone and I've found the picture quality deffinitly to be higher. The focus speed to be much quicker and massivly quieter. I think the lens is a fantastic all in one lens with some issues that keep it out of being the "perfect" lens.

Keep in mind, I'll take my $100 50 1.8 over a 24>70 F2.8 L any day of the week in terms of quality so price isn't the only factor that determines lens value, you have to look at every aspect. VR as shown in the shot is priceless in that example where no possible way without a tripod would you get a useable hand held shot at 1/30th at 200 mm without it. Blured shot is a blured shot.

Tim

coldrain
12-29-2005, 04:56 PM
Oh and let me say, as a canon fanboi too, I'm very impressed with the lens for what it is.

I think the extra 250>300 over the sigma/tamron is well worth it for the Vr alone and I've found the picture quality deffinitly to be higher. The focus speed to be much quicker and massivly quieter. I think the lens is a fantastic all in one lens with some issues that keep it out of being the "perfect" lens.

Keep in mind, I'll take my $100 50 1.8 over a 24>70 F2.8 L any day of the week in terms of quality so price isn't the only factor that determines lens value, you have to look at every aspect. VR as shown in the shot is priceless in that example where no possible way without a tripod would you get a useable hand held shot at 1/30th at 200 mm without it. Blured shot is a blured shot.

Tim
I agree that the VR is a really good feature of the lens, but the shots posted on the net weeks ago just seemed to make this lens be something very impressive... now it shows it is a compact all in one zoom. The VR makes it just so expensive for its target audience, which is a shame. (IS has that annoying tendecy too, come on Canon and Nikon, the GLASS may be expensive to produce, but VR/IS is just a mass produced article that can really go down in price a lot! You can put IS/VR in an S2 IS and 8800 too...)

timmciglobal
12-29-2005, 05:23 PM
I don't know coldrain, I'll go outdoors and see if I can't post a few nice shots. Keep in mind those shots look like they were taken at neutral setting, up the contrast a bit in cam or post process and you've got alot of "jump" out of them, perhaps that is one of the issues especially compared to something like a P&S cam with higher contrast or a L lens which has the "L" color.

Your right though, 499$ would of made this lens an idiot proof buy. I'd still like to see a 1199 package D50+ this lens, I still belive it's a far better buy for most joe avg folks then say a 70>300 G or D lens.

Tim

Esoterra
12-29-2005, 06:04 PM
This feed back is excellent. I often wonder why Nikon spends so much time invested in VR glass, when it would make more sense to build VR into the camera itself- hopefully bringing down the price for VR technology and turning any lens you own into a VR lens kinda. I think there is a brand out there that does this. Is it patented ? Or is this just another way for Nikon to make money?

D70FAN
12-29-2005, 06:23 PM
This feed back is excellent. I often wonder why Nikon spends so much time invested in VR glass, when it would make more sense to build VR into the camera itself- hopefully bringing down the price for VR technology and turning any lens you own into a VR lens kinda. I think there is a brand out there that does this. Is it patented ? Or is this just another way for Nikon to make money?

I'm not sure you want to hang that on Nikon alone. Seems that Canon has the same problem with it's consumer IS lenses.

So far Konica Minolta is the only camera with built in AS, but even that system isn't fool proof. But I must admit that after using the 5D for a day I was duely impressed for the price.

Also keep in mind that both Nikkor and Canon pro quality VR/IS lenses are top-notch... and priced that way.

D70FAN
12-29-2005, 06:37 PM
I too was looking at the photos of the D200 + 18-200VR posted by Jeff.
For fun, compare these two photos:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_n1-review/DSC00006.JPG

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d200-review/DSC_0110.JPG

I am not nearly as impressed as I was with the photos posted by Nikon... I guess not even Nikon could cheat the laws of 18-200 lens-dom?
And maybe the difference is that these are full size not scaled down, not post processed images (showing shortcomings you will otherwise not see)?

And I see that sadly the D200 still has a slight tendecy to moire effects :(
(look at the tower tip to see the blue bands appearing).... This again will mean that the sharper the lens, the more moire will show up (try a 60mm Nikkor Micro on a D70, that lens is SO sharp that the tendency for moire gets a lot bigger).
I really was looking forward to the D200 being all it seemed to promise (I know I seem to be a very biased Canon boy, but still my favorite camera is my Nikon FTn Nikkormat), but for now I can not help to feel a little disappointed.

I actually felt that way about the 350D at first, but once people started using decent lenses the pictures turned out very nice. In the case of the 18-200 VR it was not just initial Nikon pictures, but other websites postings as well. Some really nice shots out there.

The problem with Jeffs pictures are extreme softness in every shot. Moire is not a problem if the sharpness and contrast are there, but all of the pictures just flat suck. I can't help thinking that Jeffs lens may have been a bit out of whack, so I will give the lens a shot anyway... after I check the stores return policy ;-)

erichlund
12-29-2005, 10:35 PM
Well, I'll try and have something posted in the next couple of days. I have a shot taken in the store with the VR turned on. I spotted on a round ceiling light fixture. If anything would produce moire, this would, yet it's a very clean image. It's very sharp, but I'm not sure if that's the 1/250s or the VR. Probably a little of both.

I guess a lot of people are expecting 20-200VR performance out of this lens. Frankly, that's nutty. It's a consumer lens for those of us willing to shell out a few extra bucks for the best in class. It's fast, it's quiet, it's rock steady (with the VR), but it's not perfect glass. I haven't tested it completely, but it's at f5.6 at 135mm, and f5.3 at 75mm. So it's slower than the 18-70, but then there's the 4 stops of VR performance, so for static objects, it can be hand held in pretty low light. Definitely not a round ball lens (for those of you that like that sort of thing).

I have to agree that the barrel distortion is significant at wide angles, and a very slight pincushion at full telephoto. The first is worth mentioning, but the pincushion is negligible. I'll have to do some range tests to see where the barrel distortion becomes more reasonable. I haven't noticed any vignetting yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Just that my testing today had too many limits.

I've had other obligations until today, so I haven't done much shooting. I'll get out and do some tomorrow.

I now have 4 lenses. In addition to the 18-200, 50 and 35, I picked up a used AI-S 55 f/2.8 micro-Nikkor. I'm just figuring out how to use it, but I got a pretty good picture of what's likely the last rose of the season (at least in our yard). Manual focus is easy if the focus ring has enough throw that the least little movement only makes a small change in the focus. These auto focus lenses have such a short throw to support fast focusing that it makes it difficult to focus manually.

BTW: I know I need new glasses. The camera's diopter adjustment doesn't provide enough for me to shoot without glasses, but I have to leave some adjustment in if I want to focus manually. However, when I do have the adjustment set, it's very easy to focus with this camera, especially with the aforementioned micro-Nikkor. The viewfinder is a dream compared to the D70. Unlike the D2X, it also has a selectable grid, a very nice feature.

Cheers,
Eric

K1W1
12-29-2005, 11:36 PM
I have to agree that the barrel distortion is significant at wide angles, and a very slight pincushion at full telephoto. The first is worth mentioning, but the pincushion is negligible. I'll have to do some range tests to see where the barrel distortion becomes more reasonable. I haven't noticed any vignetting yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Just that my testing today had too many limits.
Cheers,
Eric

Check out Ken Rockwells thoughts on the 18-200. He's posted reasonably detailed figures on what he feels is needed to correct the distortion at various focal lengths.

coldrain
12-30-2005, 04:02 AM
I actually felt that way about the 350D at first, but once people started using decent lenses the pictures turned out very nice. In the case of the 18-200 VR it was not just initial Nikon pictures, but other websites postings as well. Some really nice shots out there.

The problem with Jeffs pictures are extreme softness in every shot. Moire is not a problem if the sharpness and contrast are there, but all of the pictures just flat suck. I can't help thinking that Jeffs lens may have been a bit out of whack, so I will give the lens a shot anyway... after I check the stores return policy ;-)
I did not like the quality of the 350D either, but I knew it was tested with the kit lens, and that it was a 100$ lens that was already rumoured to have quite some sample variation... Not a lens I wanted anyway. The 18-200 VR is not a lens like that though, it would be a lens one would want and it is not 100$.

The softness is not a reason for the moire though. The softer the lens, the less fine detail and the less moire tendency you will see. The sharper the lens, the more fine detail will show up on more surfaces, making moire appearance more likely in a camera that has a tendency to show moire artifacts.... Moire patterns show up when the detail approaches the maximum resolution ability of the sensor, and the camera's processing tries to get more detail out of it (for instance with sharpening and contrast enhancement routines), moire tendency is very camera dependent. The D70 will show more often moire patterns with the Nikkor AF f2.8 60mm micro than with the AF-S 18-70 DX kit lens, because its optical resolution will always be more than enough to reach the maximum resolution treshhold of the D70's sensor. So I find it a bit of a disappointment seeing some moire in that photo, even if the softness minimizes its moire effect (I always check that photo of Jeff's reviews, it is sort of his "moire pattern tower of doom").

mpeskin
01-03-2006, 09:12 AM
Just got back from an Arizona trip using the 18-200 VR with my D70. The pictures from the trip are posted on my Flickr page here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mpeskin/sets/1737559/). These pictures were shot in RAW mode, then processed using Nikon Capture. In some cases, Photoshop CS2 was used to do a little additional retouching or to composite exposure-bracketed images. The set includes some photos taken at low light inside a museum which really show off the VR, and I really appreciate the fact that there are some shots I don't think I could have gotten with any other lens. For example, the combination of small size (for easy handling and quick shooting) and big zoom, together with the VR, made this shot possible:

http://static.flickr.com/37/81381206_18f1a01e18_b.jpg

Cheers,
Mark

coldrain
01-03-2006, 09:52 AM
That is a very nice photo, mark, and I am sure VR helps a lot! I would be happy to make such a photo with mt 70-200 f4.

Payne
01-04-2006, 07:55 PM
Hey Coldrain, I guess you should check this link out:

http://www.potatobear.com/ND200/D200G.htm

I guess you shouldnt judge any given camera by its softness or moire.
The new Nikon D200 is probably as soft as the 20D (even at +2 and with a L lens mounted on it).
also, the softness you've already seen on this page (dcresource.com) is not because of the 18-200VR but by the in-camera sharpening which IMO is almost zero on the D200. Either the Nikon D200 or the 20D need a bit of post-processing to get the optimum image quality. Besides, the person who took those shots SHOULDNT be called "photographer" :p - as you know, most important than the camera, is the person who is behind it.

The XT is also soft and colors are a bit dull (IMHO) thats why I leant towards the Nikon D50 (sharper, great colors and very low noise levels at high Isos) - Im on the verge of getting the 18-200VR (this weekend, I hope) - and I'll be posting some shots taken whith this lens + my Nikon D50.....Im pretty sure, the results are gonna be totally different. Stay tunned.

erichlund
01-04-2006, 10:34 PM
I guess you shouldnt judge any given camera by its softness or moire.
The new Nikon D200 is probably as soft as the 20D (even at +2 and with a L lens mounted on it).
also, the softness you've already seen on this page (dcresource.com) is not because of the 18-200VR but by the in-camera sharpening which IMO is almost zero on the D200. Either the Nikon D200 or the 20D need a bit of post-processing to get the optimum image quality. Besides, the person who took those shots SHOULDNT be called "photographer" :p - as you know, most important than the camera, is the person who is behind it.

The XT is also soft and colors are a bit dull (IMHO) thats why I leant towards the Nikon D50 (sharper, great colors and very low noise levels at high Isos) - Im on the verge of getting the 18-200VR (this weekend, I hope) - and I'll be posting some shots taken whith this lens + my Nikon D50.....Im pretty sure, the results are gonna be totally different. Stay tunned.

If I can figure this out, here's an example of a photo taken with my D200 and AI-S 55 f2.8 micro, before and after processing. BTW: The main rock was a 25th anniversary present a year and a half ago. The rest of the ring was for Christmas, this year.

Before: http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/gallery/1098862/1/51111839
After: http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/gallery/1098862/1/51111843

As you can see, my post processing skill are probably not perfected yet, but it does sharpen up quite nicely in Capture.

These are the first photos put on this site, so you won't find anything else there...yet.

Cheers,
Eric

coldrain
01-05-2006, 02:49 AM
Hey Coldrain, I guess you should check this link out:

http://www.potatobear.com/ND200/D200G.htm

I guess you shouldnt judge any given camera by its softness or moire.
The new Nikon D200 is probably as soft as the 20D (even at +2 and with a L lens mounted on it).
also, the softness you've already seen on this page (dcresource.com) is not because of the 18-200VR but by the in-camera sharpening which IMO is almost zero on the D200. Either the Nikon D200 or the 20D need a bit of post-processing to get the optimum image quality. Besides, the person who took those shots SHOULDNT be called "photographer" :p - as you know, most important than the camera, is the person who is behind it.

The XT is also soft and colors are a bit dull (IMHO) thats why I leant towards the Nikon D50 (sharper, great colors and very low noise levels at high Isos) - Im on the verge of getting the 18-200VR (this weekend, I hope) - and I'll be posting some shots taken whith this lens + my Nikon D50.....Im pretty sure, the results are gonna be totally different. Stay tunned.
Why should one not judge a camera for moire artefacts? I do not get that.
The D200 seems again to show some moire, and this was with a very soft lens, a lens that seems to have a problem, so with a sharper lens, it would be worse. Personally I do NOT like a camera to produce moire artifacts, and you will not see a 20D or 350D or Pentax *istDS produce any moire.

Also, I never stated the D200 is "soft", I said I am not impressed by what I have seen of real world photos from the 18-200VR, they look not at all as good as the photos published by Nikon a month ago. From the early photos this lens looked to be something special, and now it looks like it is just like the other ultra zoom consumer lenses, but with VR.

I do not understand why a critical note gets people with brand loyalty to not read posts for what they are, and seemingly to read what is not there. I looked at the photos and I was, and am, disappointed by the lens, and by the moire tendency. And for the colours of the D50, they are almost identical to what a 350D produces. If you bump up the saturation and the sharpness in-camera, you get the same results as with the D50 (except its slight moire tendency). Congratulations on a nice camera, btw.

Payne
01-05-2006, 05:06 AM
[QUOTE]Why should one not judge a camera for moire artefacts? I do not get that.

'Cuz Nikon provide a tool to remove moire.....simple - we're talking on digital photography, right?

and I prefer some moire(D50) rather than very soft images (XT).


The D200 seems again to show some moire

none so far.


and this was with a very soft lens, a lens that seems to have a problem

have you drawn a conclusion based on the pictures posted in this site :confused: ? quite weird, since til now, many sample images have been posted at Dpreview.com and on some japanese websites.

you easily criticize Nikon lenses, but what about the Canon 17-85 IS (poor quality lens and also expensive) - the 100-400L (just check out the next sample: http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5d_preview/originals/img_0072.jpg (is it sharp? - even with the 5D (the sharpest Canon camera) dont wanna see this lens mounted on the soft XT or 20D)


From the early photos this lens looked to be something special, and now it looks like it is just like the other ultra zoom consumer lenses, but with VR.

actually, it is a consumer lens - what did u expect for the price? have you ever tried the canon 28-300L? have you seen some images taken with this lens? the Canon 28-300L doubles the price of the Nikon VR, however the softness of this lens is probably worst than the Nikon lens.


I do not understand why a critical note gets people with brand loyalty

hahaha.....:D brand loyalty? me? or you?


And for the colours of the D50, they are almost identical to what a 350D produces. If you bump up the saturation and the sharpness in-camera, you get the same results as with the D50

hmmm, probably it happens in your dreams my friend. ;)

coldrain
01-05-2006, 05:32 AM
[QUOTE=coldrain]

'Cuz Nikon provide a tool to remove moire.....simple - we're talking on digital photography, right?

and I prefer some moire(D50) rather than very soft images (XT).



none so far.



have you drawn a conclusion based on the pictures posted in this site :confused: ? quite weird, since til now, many sample images have been posted at Dpreview.com and on some japanese websites.

you easily criticize Nikon lenses, but what about the Canon 17-85 IS (poor quality lens and also expensive) - the 100-400L (just check out the next sample: http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5d_preview/originals/img_0072.jpg (is it sharp? - even with the 5D (the sharpest Canon camera) dont wanna see this lens mounted on the soft XT or 20D)



actually, it is a consumer lens - what did u expect for the price? have you ever tried the canon 28-300L? have you seen some images taken with this lens? the Canon 28-300L doubles the price of the Nikon VR, however the softness of this lens is probably worst than the Nikon lens.



hahaha.....:D brand loyalty? me? or you?



hmmm, probably it happens in your dreams my friend. ;)
Brand loyaly and silly remarks: YOU. I am commenting on moire (you CAN'T get it away just like that, do you really think the detail that should have been under there magically reappears??? oh well.) and on results of ONE Nikon lens. What do you do? You make it all of a sudden about ALL Nikon lenses, for one. You make it about YOUR D50, also.

I do not remember this thread or my posts to be about either. Also, I am commenting on posted results, and make clear what specific results I am commenting on. You can look at the results and judge for yourself.
Another point: it just became apparent to me that the 18-200VR is nothing as spectacular as it was made out to be, it is a good comsumer level lens. THAT is what my posts are about, and your zealot like frame of mind can not judge my words for what they are.

And again, saying that 350D photos are soft just means you do not have a big understanding of what DSLR photography is about. And I do not think you have any experience with a 350D, just up the sharpening and saturation on a 350D or lower them on a D50, and you will have a very hard time telling which is which.

You are the one making this about Nikon vs Canon, you are the one who is (weirdly enough) beginning to defend your choice for a D50 in a D200/18-200VR thread, and make it about Nikon as a company instead of about specific pictures made with one particular lens on one particular camera. Stop making this thread into a silly flame war, please.

coldrain
01-05-2006, 05:36 AM
Oh and another thing, show me where I ever was positive about the EF-S 17-85 IS USM. Really, just read my posts again and you will MAYBE get the right meaning this time. And leave your Nikon zealotry at home. My most precious camera is a Nikon, and that does not keep me from having a critical eye.

Payne
01-05-2006, 06:22 AM
tell me something, do you think moire affects these images?

http://www.pbase.com/image/51669236/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/51954107/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/47192806/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/54329381/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/52799498/original.jpg

I guess you should go out more often and take some pictures and stop discussing silly matters.
The moire effect is noticeable only on areas containing repetitive detail, and it appears on very small areas (tiny areas that DO NOT affect the overall image quality) - so, how many of your shots have this kind of pattern? - probably one out of ten - however to you, the moire effect is the only reason to buy a Canon - silly way of thinking - but I do not wanna change your point of view, it's just I guess there are some people who know nothing on digital photography and they always try to justify their buy by stating silly arguments.

best regards and dont get mad, just take pictures.

coldrain
01-05-2006, 06:55 AM
You are the one defending YOUR "brand", your D50, when it was not about a D50 in the first place, and which was not attacked in any way, it is about a brand new camera with a much higher pricepoint, and I have NOWHERE said that the D200 is a crap camera, now have I?

Now can you please stop poluting this thread with your stepped on Nikon toes? This, and you, are really getting silly.

Thank you.

And if you ever want to know my reasons for my DSLR choice, why don't you in future just normally ask me about it. Stop your no-one-may-look-critical-at-a-Nikon-product rants.

Payne
01-05-2006, 07:07 AM
You are the one defending YOUR "brand", your D50, when it was not about a D50 in the first place, and which was not attacked in any way, it is about a brand new camera with a much higher pricepoint, and I have NOWHERE said that the D200 is a crap camera, now have I?

Now can you please stop poluting this thread with your stepped on Nikon toes? This, and you, are really getting silly.

Thank you.

And if you ever want to know my reasons for my DSLR choice, why don't you in future just normally ask me about it. Stop your no-one-may-look-critical-at-a-Nikon-product rants.

Probably Ill never undesrtand your point. what is everything about? moire, D200(soft images), 18-200VR (soft lens) - uh?
you have answered nothing - the only thing you know to do is repeat and repeat the same thing - if I talk on 18-200VR you say "it's not about 18-200 but moire on d200" if I talk on moire you say "no moire the D200 is not a crap camera" - :confused:

you probably need to clarify your mind a bit :D
although I must recognized that you and your arguments made me laugh. :D
I guess your nickname should be "Cold brain" rather than Coldrain.
warmth regards.:p

coldrain
01-05-2006, 07:27 AM
Probably Ill never undesrtand your point. what is everything about? moire, D200(soft images), 18-200VR (soft lens) - uh?
you have answered nothing - the only thing you know to do is repeat and repeat the same thing - if I talk on 18-200VR you say "it's not about 18-200 but moire on d200" if I talk on moire you say "no moire the D200 is not a crap camera" - :confused:

you probably need to clarify your mind a bit :D
although I must recognized that you and your arguments made me laugh. :D
I guess your nickname should be "Cold brain" rather than Coldrain.
warmth regards.:p
Oh great, now you, the silly zealot, is starting to name-call. *sigh*
Fine, just for you, who has a reading difficulty, i will again spell it out.
Jeff Keller took the D200 +18-200mm VR on a standard shooting trip like he does EVERY camera he reviews.

He posted the results of his trip. I looked at the photos. So should you. What one immediately notices is that these, full size, not post processed JPEG's look less than we had expected from earlier Nikon publications of this 18-200 lens. The lens makes unsharp photos (not SOFT from a camera but UNSHARP from a lens). Also, there is quite some CA to be see in corners in wide angle. Ok? Do you understand? See how it is not about the brand Nikon? Or about your D50? Or about Nikon lens line-up? Good.

Now for the moire. I posted the link to the photo where you can see moire, even though the photo with this lens is very unsharp, you still see moire. Just like you see moire with the D70(s) and to a much lesser extent the D50. Do you get that? good. Should moire possibility matter to one? That is up to the individual to decide. Can I observe a tendency for moire in a certain camera? Of course I may. It is an objective observation, one that everyone, including you, can make by looking at said photo. Do you get me now? Good. Now try to stop being silly.

Payne
01-05-2006, 08:12 AM
"The lens makes unsharp photos (not SOFT from a camera but UNSHARP from a lens). Also, there is quite some CA to be see in corners in wide angle. Ok? Do you understand? "

haha....oh my.., I never met a person so smart as you....how do you know "the lens makes unsharp photos"???....haha.....very funny....it simply has no sense....I've seen several images of the D200 with the razor sharp 85mm f1.8 mounted on it....all of them look a bit soft....so, according to you, the 85mm is also a "soft lens" , right?

People who own the D200 (I guess you should sing up on the Dpreview forum since this forum is quite slow) has already tested the camera with many lenses (razor sharp lenses) and they've concluded the D200 has a poor in-camera sharpening, similar to the Canon 20D and your beloved XT, but IT IS NOT REALLY A PROBLEM, since it is easy to fix it by setting the sharp parameter at +1, do you know how to do it? do you have any idea how to increase the sharpness on a digital camera? (dont know how come you talk about softness when you own the king of softness camera = XT) anyway, this is an open forum so you are free to say lot of inconsistencies.

on the other hand, CA is a problem that is visible even by using Leica or Zeiss lenses (have you ever heard about those brands??? - probably not) L lenses and expensive Nikon lenses.....See again the 5D review posted at Dpreview.com and you'll see CA and softness on images taken with L lenses......SO, it's not a brand problem, the real problem is YOU.....you dont wanna understand that those problems you see on the 18-200 VR are also found on any lens of any given brand.....you own an L lens.....and I know this lens produces CA under certain conditions....I guess, you are a blind zealot who only see imperfections on other brands but not in the brand you own and use.


Should moire possibility matter to one?

maybe only silly and frustrated persons :)

coldrain
01-05-2006, 08:31 AM
haha....oh my.., I never met a person so smart as you....how do you know "the lens makes unsharp photos"???....haha.....very funny....it simply has no sense....I've seen several images of the D200 with the razor sharp 85mm f1.8 mounted on it....all of them look a bit soft....so, according to you, the 85mm is also a "soft lens" , right?

People who own the D200 (I guess you should sing up on the Dpreview forum since this forum is quite slow) has already tested the camera with many lenses (razor sharp lenses) and they've concluded the D200 has a poor in-camera sharpening, similar to the Canon 20D and your beloved XT, but IT IS NOT REALLY A PROBLEM, since it is easy to fix it by setting the sharp parameter at +1, do you know how to do it? do you have any idea how to increase the sharpness on a digital camera? (dont know how come you talk about softness when you own the king of softness camera = XT) anyway, this is an open forum so you are free to say lot of inconsistencies.

on the other hand, CA is a problem that is visible even by using Leica or Zeiss lenses (have you ever heard about those brands??? - probably not) L lenses and expensive Nikon lenses.....See again the 5D review posted at Dpreview.com and you'll see CA and softness on images taken with L lenses......SO, it's not a brand problem, the real problem is YOU.....you dont wanna understand that those problems you see on the 18-200 VR are also found on any lens of any given brand.....you own an L lens.....and I know this lens produces CA under certain conditions....I guess, you are a blind zealot who only see imperfections on other brands but not in the brand you own and use.



maybe only silly and frustrated persons :)
Idoit. I will not respond to your crap anymore, since you are really too crap to be true. I will however respond to others in regards to the subject, namely what we think of the photos posted on here of the D200 and 18-200 VR. You, sir and an idiot. And this is the photo with the moire and the not so good result from the 18-200VR. Which I am not allowed to notice, because I own a Canon. And which most probably George Riehm also is not allowed to notice, even though he HAS a Nikon D70.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d200-review/DSC_0110.JPG

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_20d-review/IMG_0312.JPG
This is the same shot taken with the 20D, take into account that it was taken with quite a highend lens, an EF 28-70 f2.8L. If mr idiot still can not see what the camera does and what the 18-200 does, I don't know. Anyway, some people just can not read when it is about a brand they have chosen, anything critical works like a red piece of fabric works on bull.

Payne
01-05-2006, 08:49 AM
Dont be so Idiot my friend.
You can not compare shots taken in different months and under totally different environmental conditions.

A PROPER comparison can be found here:

http://www.potatobear.com/ND200/D200G.htm

ah!!! and the lens used it on the canon shot, was the 24-70 f2.8 not the 28-70 f2.8 - probably a fair comparison will be by using the Nikon 28-70 f2.8 mounted on the D200.

Also I notice the D200 image looks overexposed, and it's obsviously an unfair comparison.

you know nothing my friend on digital cameras and also on lenses and on anything related to the digital world, and really I never met a person with such a poor ability to analyse and understand so simple things.

you can insult me, if you want - but it only shows the type of person you are - and dont expect to get flowers when you only give cr@p. - poor guy, you really suck!!!

jcon
01-05-2006, 09:31 AM
:( Payne(in the a@@) I do believe saying coldrain knows nothing about digital cameras is way off base, spend some time reading other threads and posts and you will see he has given some very insightful info and suggestions to people looking for it. If you disagree with his thoughts, fine, thats your right, but the rubish you have brought to this thread is unwaranted.

tekriter
01-05-2006, 05:46 PM
If I may take this away from the heat for a while, I must say as a long-time Nikon head that Jeff's shots with the 18-200VR surprised me. I would hope that Jeff (are you listening??) would send back his example for another one to test. If his copy was not new in the box, but a passed-around test lens, it may be in poor shape.

The shots on his test page didn't just look like a consumer level lens, to me they looked worse.

Of course I have no way to get to his exact shooting spot to try my lenses, but the lack of sharpness seems worse than my Sigma 18-200, which most here say is a fairly good lens.