Nikon lens

The 18-200 is the same performance as the 18-55 kit lens in terms of sharpness etc.
 
Phil Young said:
Why not???

It shows a sharp lens that nobody will say otherwise to and a lens that peoplhe are calling soft...

I think I've proved that it indeed NOT a soft lens...
Click to expand...

I wouldnt say it was soft just not as good as the 70-300vr. Check any of the reviews mate I am sure they will say the same.
 
Omg. Phil Rockwell is out in full flight here. It's laughable you are comparing one of nikons sharpest lenses to the 18-200. I think when people see you are showing direct comparisons of the 2 they will think you are bonkers, as I do
 
TonyNI said:
The 18-200 is the same performance as the 18-55 kit lens in terms of sharpness etc.
Click to expand...

The 18-55 is a sharp lens as well!!! LOL

Seriously, what do you guys define sharp as???

18-55
55-200
55-300
18-200
70-300
12-24
105
50
85


They are all sharp. Are some better than others? Yes. Are any soft? No.

24-120 variable aperture: that's a soft lens to me.

I just don't think the 18-200 is getting the credit it deserves. Are my images above soft? Either they are sharp (albeit not AS sharp as the 105) or I don't know what I'm talking about and should give up my camera today...
 
I'm not meaning to insult you I just think that you comparing an 18-200 IQ to a 105 macro is absolutely insane.
 
Soda Farl said:
Not any more I upgraded to the Nikon 70-200 vr2
Click to expand...

So you think a lens you owned was better than one that you've used. That's what I would expect.

I am saying there isn't a hugely noticeable difference in sharpness from the 18-200 and the 70-300. Could be that I haven't used it enough, but in any case, they are still both sharp.
 
Most glass is reasonable shsrp these dsys apart from that awful 24-120 though the 18-200 is the least good in the current nikon line up. The 70-300 vr is there best non pro zoom.
 
TonyNI said:
Omg. Phil Rockwell is out in full flight here. It's laughable you are comparing one of nikons sharpest lenses to the 18-200. I think when people see you are showing direct comparisons of the 2 they will think you are bonkers, as I do
Click to expand...

COMPARE not compete.

COMPARE:
Verb
Estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between.

Is it really bonkers to measure the sharpness based on a notably sharp lens?
 
Soda Farl said:
Most glass is reasonable shsrp these dsys apart from that awful 24-120 though the 18-200 is the least good in the current nikon line up. The 70-300 vr is there best non pro zoom.
Click to expand...

:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

I give up.

I've supplied some images, OP I hope that helps more than the obviously valuable opinions from other...users.
 
I've upgraded from a 18-55 and 55-200 kit lens to a 18-200 MK2 and its a completely different league. Is the MK2 worth it over the MK1? Possibly I find the 18mm Lock quite handy.
 
Sorry phil for moving through the various nikon models/lenses and realising that the likes of the 18-200 is guff compared to other gear I have used.
 
MarkLP said:
I've upgraded from a 18-55 and 55-200 kit lens to a 18-200 MK2 and its a completely different league. Is the MK2 worth it over the MK1? Possibly I find the 18mm Lock quite handy.
Click to expand...

Lol you serious? I guess you have to defend your purchase but seriously it just isn't.
 
The general consensus is that this lens is poor on the D7000. Google it you won't have to go far. The price attached to this lens is embarrassing. I have no more to say on this topic that has entered ken Rockwell esque madness
 
Soda Farl said:
Lol you serious? I guess you have to defend your purchase but seriously it just isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes of course I'm serious. I wouldn't of bought it else...


EDIT/ D7000 performance is surely irrelevant as the OP has a D300?
 
Last edited:
Good well natured debate this unlike our battles of old eh Phil lol.

Anyway I am busted and am away to bed. P.S that 18-200 is pure muck.
 
Here's an F8 200mm shot.

This goes out to everyone because I'm beginning to question my sanity!

IS THIS SOFT?!?!?!
734360_10152658984550305_1580160390_n.jpg


482470_10152658984495305_1854483770_n.jpg
 
Phil the bottom of a milk bottle would be sharp at f/8
 
TonyNI said:
Phil the bottom of a milk bottle would be sharp at f/8
Click to expand...

:lol:

I had the two kit lenses, the 18-55 and the 55-200, both vr, sold them and bought the 18-200 vr. Wish I hadn't. The kit lenses were equal if not better. The price of the 18-200 is a complete joke. You May as well buy a sigma or tammy and save some money.
 
Just before I go to work, I'll just add that I'm glad I've come across this thread as I have to say that I found the 18-200 if not exactly soft, quite disappointing. Initially this was on my D300 compared to shots taken with my 12-24, but recently I was looking through my photos and shots taken with a 55-200 DX kit lens did look sharper. I just reckoned that the 18-200 had suffered a knock or something but I'm glad to see other's opinions regarding er, lack of sharpness, shall we say.
 
buxtonmick said:
Just before I go to work, I'll just add that I'm glad I've come across this thread as I have to say that I found the 18-200 if not exactly soft, quite disappointing. Initially this was on my D300 compared to shots taken with my 12-24, but recently I was looking through my photos and shots taken with a 55-200 DX kit lens did look sharper. I just reckoned that the 18-200 had suffered a knock or something but I'm glad to see other's opinions regarding er, lack of sharpness, shall we say.
Click to expand...

If I was comparing it directly to my 105, 12-24 or even the 55-200 expecting it to be in the same league, I would be quite disappointed too...

I find it is very good in it's own right. I don't use it for landscapes, I have a sharper lens. I don't use it for Macro's, I have a sharper lens.

What it does is give you an all in one solution that is very acceptable. There is a small price to pay with IQ but not enough to warrant not getting it IMO.

The only thing I would and have been fighting the case of is the fact that above anything, the lens is not soft when used correctly...
 
Phil Young said:
And a crop from the 105mm f2.8 VR as my sharpest lens:
542738_10152658678980305_148765596_n.jpg

f3

Crop from the 18-200mm @95mm
24311_10152658679000305_1080569724_n.jpg

f3
Click to expand...

The 2 shots of the blue nose certainly show a significant difference in detail to me.

Phil
An ex owner of an 18-200
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Young said:
Phil I said there was a noticeable difference.

I'm saying it's not soft.
Click to expand...

I suppose since soft is a qualitative term we are both entitled to our respective opinions.

But my opinion is the correct one....;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Young said:
What it does is give you an all in one solution that is very acceptable. There is a small price to pay with IQ but not enough to warrant not getting it IMO.
Click to expand...

Exactly. No point comparing a "superzoom" to a prime. I have a 28-300, plenty of people knock it and say it is crap. But, If I want to take one lens and one only, that lens is the 28-300.If I want to take a load of lenses, then the 28-300 stays at home,simple as that really.


The superzooms are better than they were, but still cannot compete with primes or many a mid range zoom.
 
fracster said:
Exactly. No point comparing a "superzoom" to a prime. I have a 28-300, plenty of people knock it and say it is crap. But, If I want to take one lens and one only, that lens is the 28-300.If I want to take a load of lenses, then the 28-300 stays at home,simple as that really.

The superzooms are better than they were, but still cannot compete with primes or many a mid range zoom.
Click to expand...

Ade, you need to read my posts below that. Particularly the one with the definition to compare.

I wasn't trying to compete it with a prime. All's I was doing is saying "it is sharp. Not as sharp as xxx but still sharp".

I also said above, if I was going out for a particular shot, I would take a particular lens which is probably not the superzoom.
I've also said you do compromise IQ a bit.

Sorry for the abrupt manor, I'm getting tired of saying it's not soft sad people not reading my posts clearly...
 
Phil Young said:
Ade, you need to read my posts below that. Particularly the one with the definition to compare.

I wasn't trying to compete it with a prime. All's I was doing is saying "it is sharp. Not as sharp as xxx but still sharp".

I also said above, if I was going out for a particular shot, I would take a particular lens which is probably not the superzoom.
I've also said you do compromise IQ a bit.

Sorry for the abrupt manor, I'm getting tired of saying it's not soft sad people not reading my posts clearly...
Click to expand...

I think you have misunderstood me mate, I was agreeing with you totally.
 
Phil Young said:
Apologies old chap, I thought you were indicating I shouldn't have compared the 105 and the 18-200.
Click to expand...

No,compare away,I like my super zoom and unless you really pixel peep, then it is more than adequate for the majority of users.

I genuinely believe that people are too obsessed with certain aspects of the technical side of photography rather than looking at the end result. People read on the internet and become more obsessed with sharpness, as an example, and forget to look at the overall image.

Yes, the technical side is important, of course, but it is not the be all and end all of photography.

In my opinion, which some will agree with, many probably don`t.

Pet hate time......."This is a 200% crop and it does not look sharp enough"..........don`t bloody crop to 200% or stand within an inch of the bloody PC then......Rant over...........:D
 
Last edited:
I owned the 18-200 for quite a while. I had a very good example and used it as my 'holiday' lens. really couldn't fault it. Actually I could. The lens creep drove me mad.
I also owned the 70-300mm vr for a while. Without any doubt, the 18-200mm was better. Having the extra length was nice, it was sharp, but not as good as the 18-200mm.

It's all about what you want/need from your gear. One man may be happy with an image, another may not. I would happily recommend both lenses.
If I didn't have the kit that I have now, I would probably go for the 18-200mm vr II.

Kev.
 
fracster said:
Pet hate time......."This is a 200% crop and it does not look sharp enough"..........don`t bloody crop to 200% or stand within an inch of the bloody PC then......Rant over...........:D
Click to expand...

:lol::lol:
 
I'm going to defend the 18-200 as well. Yes, its not as sharp as my 2.8 lenses, that's a given. But if I want a single lens for a day out with the kids, then this is my goto lens.

No changing of lenses, full range, pure convenience, you won't miss a shot/moment.

I'd happily snap a family moment caught in reasonable quality with a 18-200 than a missed shot cos I was fumbling changing lenses any day. It has limitations, but it also has its advantages.

I think that sums it up for me. :)
 
Thanks for all the input guys. Loads of different opinions on 18-200. No mentions on the 18-135? Would this be a better lens on my d300. since I'm also thinking of upgrading my 70-300 as I've seen the 70-300 prices are comparable to the 18-200 would there be no real need for the 18-135?
 
bb40 said:
Thanks for all the input guys. Loads of different opinions on 18-200. No mentions on the 18-135? Would this be a better lens on my d300. since I'm also thinking of upgrading my 70-300 as I've seen the 70-300 prices are comparable to the 18-200 would there be no real need for the 18-135?
Click to expand...

Have you considered 2nd hand Will? A used Sigma 70-200 2.8 can be had for around the same price as a new Nikon 70-300 VR. I picked up mine for £350 in the classifieds.

Not sure you'd get that much going from 18-70 to 18-135 apart from a little extra reach, especially if its sharpness you seek? The usual next step after the 18-70 would be a 17-55ish 2.8 lens (Nikon, Tamron, Sigma)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top