Do any of you own this lens? What is your opinion of it? I'm thinking of purchasing it since I may want to start doing some portrait work...mainly candid shots of children (low light indoors, and at more of a distance outdoors). Perhaps some studio work later on when I can find some space inside. I also think it may be a good lanscape lens. Let me know if you would recommend it or if there are other lenses you would recommend. thanks!!
It's a great very sharp all around lens, but it must be stopped down to at least F8 - F11 for acceptable corner sharpness. At a max aperture of F5.6 when at 200 mm, even the silent wave motor can't make the lens focus very fast. On a pro body with good autofocus like a D1H D2X or even a D200 you will minimize focus hunting. I am not sure how well it would work on D80 on down to a D40. It has difficult to correct wavy distortion at the wide end, some chromatic aberration that can be corrected in photoshop or a raw converter, and fair to good resistance to flare. Being a slower lens (3.5 is the max aperture at the wide end), you are not going to get the depth of field control you have with a true portrait lens with an opening of 1.4 or 2.0. The bokeh or out of focus areas are fair but somewhat acceptable in most cases. For landscape 18 mm is ok, but wider is usually better.
While its a great all around lens, the prime or pro-level zooms with the wider maximum apertures of 2.8 will be a better bet in most cases for what you want to do. They will also be substantially more expensive.
Some recommendations:
For landscape - Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24, Nikkor 12-24
For portrait/low light - look at this comparison - with an eye on the nikkor 85 1.4
Posted by David Schoen on June 11, 2007 at 1:38 PM
I ordered this lens from B&H and it took about 8 weeks to get it. The one I received was a dud. The left side of the images were tack sharp but the right side was very soft. I have returned it and am awaiting a replacement.
http://www.photocritiq.com/set?setid=954 click on the whitewater kayak thumbnail
I also own the 12-24 and really like this lens. Look at the same link and click on the other whitewater image in portrait mode which was made at 12 mm.
I have this lens, and it does exactly what it was made to do. A great all around lens. I was carrying around way too much gear when backpacking and this lens has allowed me to lighten the load.
However, as mentioned above, for a portrature I would also suggest a prime lens. No question. With film, the 85mm f/1.4 was the standard.
With digital, I would wonder if the 50mm f/1.4 may be a better choice?
Also, is it necessary to spend the extra money fot the f/1.4's instead of the cheaper f/1.8's?
I've heard and read good things about this lens Alice, but have to wonder about using it in the low light situations you mentioned since it's pretty slow. If you feel ok about that I would say go for it. I use the 70-200 2.8VR and it's incredible for portraits, but obviously lacks the wide side.
I have the 18-200 Nikkor and like it for outdoor use as it is incredibly versatile and light weight. Last weekend I used it for some shots of a bridal party that I took from the top of a step latter...I didn't have the time or inclanation to be running up and down the step latter changing lenses and the 18-200mm range on my D200 (27-300mm in 35mm equivalent) covered everything I wanted to do. For low light I'm currently using the 50 f1.4. It exhibits more CA than I would like and it feels like a piece of junk, but, other than the CA, it works well. Most of the available light interior work I do is with the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 17-35mm f2.8...both I which I really like for their speed and sharpness.
The 18-200 is to slow for indoor use where I personally want atleast an f2.8 lense.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on June 12, 2007 at 10:02 AM
The 18-200mm lives on the end of my D200 except when the 12-24mm is there. Incredibly versatile lens for such a range. I have used it for landscapes to macros with excellent results. Also makes travel photography easy as a walk-around.
I have it and a D80. It's a good lens and it's a nice, handy lens, but it's not a great lens. If you used a tripod, and were in the middle of all it's settings, it'll do a good/real good (but not excellent) job. I haven't compared it head to head against my "pro" lenses but as far as a carry around lens (and camera) I'm really enjoying it and getting "good enough" quality out of it.
In low light, it's going to hunt a lot, and it's not a fast hunter, either. At long distances, you're going to get a bit of vignetting in the corners (fixable in PS of course but that does add more time and effort)
Posted by Basil Greber on June 12, 2007 at 3:59 PM
It's certainly a nice allround lens, but for the things you mention, the lens is either not wide enough (landscapes), or not fast enough (portraits). Also, the price premium you pay is pretty hefty. How about a 85/1.8 AF-D combined with a Tokina 12-24/4 DX? That would be killer for both things you want to do.
If you are careful about exposure, it is possible to successfully use the 18-200 at the shorter focal lengths indoors. It is very sharp wide open especially in the center up to about 100 mm. The VR helps by all but eliminating motion blur. I have taken street scenes at night in Manhattan using ISO of 1600 with more than acceptable sharpness and noise levels. If your exposures are not spot-on, you will blow highlights or underexpose with a buildup of noise in the darker areas. While the focusing is reasonably fast, at the longest focal lengths it does hunt in low contrast light. Thankfully, the silent wave motor design allows you to grab the focus ring and manually adjust focus, overriding the automatic operation, without changing setitngs or adjusting switches on the lens or camera.
Studio work is challenging with this lens, since the zoom mechanism does not lock. The lens will creep up or down depending on which way its pointed.
It is not a pro lens, so do not expect the build quality (use of metal, fit and finish, dust and weather sealing, weight) of one. It is an excellent "kit" lens, which Nikon is noted for. This one does have a metal lens mount. Their optics are top notch, but the mechanics just won't last.
I used this lens exclusively for several months until I acquired additional glass. It compares to the image quality of my Nikkor 80-200 2.8, as long as I stop it down to F8. Center sharpness is judged to be pro quality, with MTF50 figures in the excellent range (over 1950 at all lens openings below F11 and focal lengths), with good results in the corner and edge regions. Unless you are shooting into the sun (flare) or very highly contrasted scenes (CA), you will not be disappointed with the image quality at all. Candids in good light will be no problem at all.
Portraiture is another story, demanding incredible sharpness and the ability to shoot your subject at a wide lens opening, to provide depth of field-based isolation, and still get razor sharp detail in eyes and/or hair. You want a lens with a 1.4 or 1.8 max aperture, since these are designed to be used at or near their max lens openings with no image degradation. Actually, many of these lenses do not improve by stopping down, and some even lose significant amounts of resolving power as you close down the aperture. Another feature of a portrait lens is the construction of the diaphragm, which will usually be 9 leaves, and as close to a perfect circle as possible. This is to ensure that the out of focus areas (bokeh) are smooth and non-distracting. Bokeh is a weakness of the 18-200, and to a lesser degree, the 80-200 and the 70-200 Nikkors. It is also the strength of the 85 1.4 making it the most desirable lens in the Nikon offering for portrait work.
If you are shooting jpgs you might want to familiarize yourself with raw, which gives you a bit more latitude and greater detail. Depending on the raw converter you are using, you will be able to correct any CA, distortion, color balance and color casts, and a host of other adjustments. Converters such as Raw Shooter and Capture One offer an excellent batch mode that makes short work of adjusting a large number of images.
My guess is that you will probably get an 18-200, which would not be a mistake at all. Eventually you will scour ebay and other sources for used lenses and find a wider lens for landscapes and a true portrait lens.
Posted by Kent Staubus on June 13, 2007 at 7:37 PM
I have the Nikon 85mm f1.8 and really like it. I use it mostly for night photography when I need the speed, but it works very well for portraits too (on my D80.) My one complaint about it is it's a flare hound. However, keep in mind that I often take photos with three strong headlights from an oncomming train beaming directly into the lens from fairly close range. Not everyone will do that, LOL! I thought I got a bargain on it used, from eBay. Have only borrowed th 18-200mm VR. It struck me as a pretty useful "general purpose" lens, especially good as a travel lens. I ended up not buying it because it was not wide enough for me, and I wanted more speed.
I have it and love it. Probably 80% of my shots have been with this lens, with the exception of the super-long range wildlife shots when I need my 500 mm + TC. (See my posted shots here and in my gallery)
It is the lens I have on the camera when travelling, to grab a quick shot of wildlife.
I feel it does a great job for landscapes, and I often use it for my panos. The vignetting is irksome, but easily corrected in PS.
Feel free to email me for more info.
Sandy - MoonshadowRN@yahoo.com
It's a really handy travel lens for us when dust and lens changes are issues, Alice. It's also useful in pro applications for action, events and some location work. My wife has found it especially useful as a wedding reception lens.
Having said that, it does have its shortcomings for studio portrait work. While my wife frequently uses a 24-120VR in the studio, she found the issues others have cited here to be bothersome with the 18-200. While we still use our 20-35 f/2.8's, 35-70 f/2.8's and 70-200 f/2.8's for shots with critical DOF, any of our several 24-120VR's functions well enough for general use in the studio and better than the 18-200.
I wouldn't part with the 18-200 because I travel and shoot on location lots, but it's not my "go to" lens for critical situations- especially in the studio.
Discussion
12 repliesIt's a great very sharp all around lens, but it must be stopped down to at least F8 - F11 for acceptable corner sharpness. At a max aperture of F5.6 when at 200 mm, even the silent wave motor can't make the lens focus very fast. On a pro body with good autofocus like a D1H D2X or even a D200 you will minimize focus hunting. I am not sure how well it would work on D80 on down to a D40. It has difficult to correct wavy distortion at the wide end, some chromatic aberration that can be corrected in photoshop or a raw converter, and fair to good resistance to flare. Being a slower lens (3.5 is the max aperture at the wide end), you are not going to get the depth of field control you have with a true portrait lens with an opening of 1.4 or 2.0. The bokeh or out of focus areas are fair but somewhat acceptable in most cases. For landscape 18 mm is ok, but wider is usually better.
While its a great all around lens, the prime or pro-level zooms with the wider maximum apertures of 2.8 will be a better bet in most cases for what you want to do. They will also be substantially more expensive.
Some recommendations:
For landscape - Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24, Nikkor 12-24
For portrait/low light - look at this comparison - with an eye on the nikkor 85 1.4
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/d80/index.htm
Gene
http://www.photocritiq.com/set?setid=954 click on the whitewater kayak thumbnail
I also own the 12-24 and really like this lens. Look at the same link and click on the other whitewater image in portrait mode which was made at 12 mm.
However, as mentioned above, for a portrature I would also suggest a prime lens. No question. With film, the 85mm f/1.4 was the standard.
With digital, I would wonder if the 50mm f/1.4 may be a better choice?
Also, is it necessary to spend the extra money fot the f/1.4's instead of the cheaper f/1.8's?
Hope this helps.
The 18-200 is to slow for indoor use where I personally want atleast an f2.8 lense.
In low light, it's going to hunt a lot, and it's not a fast hunter, either. At long distances, you're going to get a bit of vignetting in the corners (fixable in PS of course but that does add more time and effort)
BG
Studio work is challenging with this lens, since the zoom mechanism does not lock. The lens will creep up or down depending on which way its pointed.
It is not a pro lens, so do not expect the build quality (use of metal, fit and finish, dust and weather sealing, weight) of one. It is an excellent "kit" lens, which Nikon is noted for. This one does have a metal lens mount. Their optics are top notch, but the mechanics just won't last.
I used this lens exclusively for several months until I acquired additional glass. It compares to the image quality of my Nikkor 80-200 2.8, as long as I stop it down to F8. Center sharpness is judged to be pro quality, with MTF50 figures in the excellent range (over 1950 at all lens openings below F11 and focal lengths), with good results in the corner and edge regions. Unless you are shooting into the sun (flare) or very highly contrasted scenes (CA), you will not be disappointed with the image quality at all. Candids in good light will be no problem at all.
Portraiture is another story, demanding incredible sharpness and the ability to shoot your subject at a wide lens opening, to provide depth of field-based isolation, and still get razor sharp detail in eyes and/or hair. You want a lens with a 1.4 or 1.8 max aperture, since these are designed to be used at or near their max lens openings with no image degradation. Actually, many of these lenses do not improve by stopping down, and some even lose significant amounts of resolving power as you close down the aperture. Another feature of a portrait lens is the construction of the diaphragm, which will usually be 9 leaves, and as close to a perfect circle as possible. This is to ensure that the out of focus areas (bokeh) are smooth and non-distracting. Bokeh is a weakness of the 18-200, and to a lesser degree, the 80-200 and the 70-200 Nikkors. It is also the strength of the 85 1.4 making it the most desirable lens in the Nikon offering for portrait work.
If you are shooting jpgs you might want to familiarize yourself with raw, which gives you a bit more latitude and greater detail. Depending on the raw converter you are using, you will be able to correct any CA, distortion, color balance and color casts, and a host of other adjustments. Converters such as Raw Shooter and Capture One offer an excellent batch mode that makes short work of adjusting a large number of images.
My guess is that you will probably get an 18-200, which would not be a mistake at all. Eventually you will scour ebay and other sources for used lenses and find a wider lens for landscapes and a true portrait lens.
Kent in SD
It is the lens I have on the camera when travelling, to grab a quick shot of wildlife.
I feel it does a great job for landscapes, and I often use it for my panos. The vignetting is irksome, but easily corrected in PS.
Feel free to email me for more info.
Sandy - MoonshadowRN@yahoo.com
Having said that, it does have its shortcomings for studio portrait work. While my wife frequently uses a 24-120VR in the studio, she found the issues others have cited here to be bothersome with the 18-200. While we still use our 20-35 f/2.8's, 35-70 f/2.8's and 70-200 f/2.8's for shots with critical DOF, any of our several 24-120VR's functions well enough for general use in the studio and better than the 18-200.
I wouldn't part with the 18-200 because I travel and shoot on location lots, but it's not my "go to" lens for critical situations- especially in the studio.