Early pictures with new Nikon 18-200 VR lens

[priller]

Got this in the day before I left for my daughter's High School graduation. Had it on order for 6 weeks, but finally found in on Ebay for about $30 more than the order price, so I grabbed it.

So far, I can say it's a very good lens, especially for such a wide zoom range. It's sharp and very contrasty (if that's a word). But I'm not blown away by it. It doesn't seem to have that "something special" that my trusty 50mm lens has, that "pop" or whatever it is. But then again, I've barely used it, so I'm sure I just need to get more familiar with it.

I was surprised to discover that 200mm is not really that much of a telephoto. I was hoping it would reach out a bit farther.

Funny note: I was explaining to Cindy what the "VR" means, that it's for "Vibration reduction", to help negate shakiness. She looked at me funny and said, "That's not a very good name. Most of time vibration is a *good* thing!"


Here are a few at the long end of the zoom range:

My daughter at her graduation party:


Some of her friends:


At the pond:



Pictures at the wide end

Dinner:


Graduation arena (1/10th sec, hand held. Thanks VR!):



Mid-range portrait

Cindy looks good, as always, but the bokeh is pretty bad, especially in the full-size picture:



Pseudo-macro -- This lens can focus surprisingly close, so you can do some pretty decent macro shots with it.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Very nice...

I like that VR thing, too, although on mine it's called IS - image stabilization (that's Canon-speak). I've been able to get some very nice handheld shots with my 70-300, although at the long end I prefer a tripod because it tends to get a little soft even with the IS on. I'm studying up on depth of field and whatnot - that must be the trick to getting that "pop" you're talking about.

[DS1]

2. I think you're not supposed to use IS with a tripod

[Blue_In_AK]

3. Right, I know that.

I was talking about using IS at 300 mm withOUT a tripod seems to be kind of soft. When I use the tripod I turn the IS off. I guess the way I worded that sentence was a little unclear.

[Fovea]

4. The bokeh looks better i n the macro shots

not as edgy.

[priller]

5. They don't have the points of light

to turn into hard little rings.

[Fovea]

10. all true

but the edges in the zone of uncertainty seem less hard to me than in the 'non macro' shots.

[F.Gordon]

6. I learned something about lenses recently that I did not know

Apparently there is an industry tolerance of 5% on focal length accuracy. Now I suspect that Nikon and Canon (and ??) are true (as testing usually confirms) to the advertised focal length. It's the secondary market brands that seem to drift off a bit. Some going beyond the 5% allowed. Just a FYI for those considering buying lenses.

priller.... love these photos. IMHO if you ever want to make some coin doing this photoemgraphicalistic stuff you should look into doin' people/events. If not, at the very least you're going to have an amazing family scrapbook.

bokeh smokeh. The photograph of lovely Cindy is still very nice and the faux macros are wonderful.

[priller]

8. Thanks.

Yeah, I know, I obsess way too much over things.

[bvar22]

7. Good review.

I agree with your impressions of this lens.


It is an incredibly versatile lens, 18mm-200mm, but gives up a little something in the compromise.
It is very slow compared to the primes, especially at 200mm, difficult at twilight, indoors, in deep shadow, or even dark cloudy days.
This is especially noticeable when switching from the Primes.

Still, this is the lens that spends the most time on my camera (daytime) when walking around or driving in the car.
It is light, compact, and inexpensive (relatively). The 70-200mm F2.8 is 2 POUNDS heavier (3.2 lbs)

It takes GOOD pictures, and with the 18-200mm range, it is ready for most quick shots of the unexpected. It also offers a WIDE range for exploring creative framing without much effort.
I was also pleasantly surprised with the MACRO ability in good light.

I've found the VR helpful, but only when I remember to turn it on. While helpful, it is no substitute for a tripod.
I do think the VR is oversold as "Lets you shoot 3 stops slower!!!!!".....well.....yeah, but only if the wind isn't blowing, or your subject isn't moving, or the water isn't flowing, or the duck isn't swimming......

I also expected more from the 200mm. I moved up from an Olympus 750 with a 10X optical zoom, and the two are almost identical in their telephoto capabilities. I haven't done the math, but if the comparison is valid, 200mm (with the 1.5 factor) is going to be about 10X magnification).

All in All, I'm very happy with the lens. It is a GREAT learning, and a workhorse lens for me. It forces me to pay attention to technique, but at the same time gives me effortless access to the entire 18mm-200mm World without the hassle of switching lenses. (How many other lenses offer that range?)
At twilight, or indoors, I switch to a prime.


I love fantasizing about the 70-200 F2.8 VR, but I don't feel a lot of pressure to buy one immediately. Maybe sometime in the future my skills will improve to a point where "double the price and 3X the weight" will make that much difference, but for the near future, I still have plenty of learning room on the 18-200 to keep me busy.

:hi:






Handheld @ 200mm

[priller]

9. That's kind of what I'm thinking, too

Maybe I should just calm down and focus on *taking good pictures* an not worry so much about bokeh and ultimate sharpness and such. And possibly invest in a few more primes instead, which I really like.

[bvar22]

11. Check out the 30mm F1.4 Sigma.

You might like that lens.
It is fairly affordable, and lets you work a little closer especially indoors.

I'm shopping for a prime Macro somewhere in the 100mm range.

[priller]

12. I've read some on that

The main problem, from what I gather, is that there seems to be some QC issues, with some really good copies but some not-so-good (noticeably blurry at the edges). But it is very tempting, especially when you consider the Nikon 28mm 1.4 costs somewhere around $2K. It certainly sounds like a great idea for a lens. That would be one I would buy at the store, just to be safe. On the other hand, so many people swear by the Nikon 35 f/2...

I'm also wondering about my Sigma 10-20, it seems to vignette really badly in one corner, but that's only been in a few shots. I'm going to take a lot of pictures with it this weekend (going to a ranch out near Enchanted Rock in TX). It'll be my first real workout with it. We'll see how it does.

I love my old 105mm Ai-S Micro-Nikkor. I should say, I love the pictures it takes. The manual focus and exposure-by-histogram is work, but the images are just wonderful. It's worth the effort. Nikon just came out with a new 105mm macro, with VR. I can definitely how that would help, since I do a lot of small-aperture shots with a macro lens.