- Messages
- 999
- Name
- Mick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've had this Nikon 18-200 mk.1 for a number of years, first on my D3100 and now my D7000.
In all honesty, i've rarely used it, but have always been loathed to sell it (just in case).
Over the past two or three years when shooting my kids and on days out i've used my Tamron 17-50 2.8 and also got out the beast (Sigma 70-200 2.8) when required, usually wildlife park trips. Otherwise, the 17-50 is nigh one permanently attached.
My kids have recently started dancing in galas through the summer and at last years events I carried both the 17-50 and 70-200 as I didn't know how far away or how big the performance area would be.
But no matter which I used, I was either tied to the wide angle with the 17-50 or zoomed with the 70-200 and I missed shots. Obviously, image quality was great with both lenses, but I need to instantly go from wide to zoom as they move around so quickly. So this weekend as a test I only took the 18-200.
But firstly rewind to last weekend where I used the 18-200 for the first time in quite a while when shooting the Tour de France here in Sheffield. This was because my 17-50 was being repaired, so I had nothing wide in the bag aside from the 18-200. Frankly, I was disappointed, but on reflection many of the problems were my own doing. Shooting wide open (found to my cost that the lens doesn't appreciate it) and having some self inflicted focus issues. (fast bikes,my fault)
So I spent this week just gone reading how to try and get the best out of the 18-200. The most basic advice was to keep the aperture between f8 and f10. So I set up Sunday at f8, 1/1000 ish shutter speed and auto ISO. It was a bright day as these galas usually are, so ISO was around 600 to 1000, perfectly acceptable for my D7000.
I shot the whole session with those settings (or thereabouts) and instantly noticed an improvement in picture quality versus the Tour de France shots from the weekend before. Some of them, especially towards the centre of the image really impressed me.
But I did notice quite a lot of softness/issues down the side and especially down the left hand edge when between 18mm-50mm.
Is this just a problem with the 18-200 full stop and not my copy? As it does seem better at 200mm down the left hand side as the last image shows.
I've looked back through my lightroom library and noticed that the lens seemed to look better on my old D3100. It didn't seem to show as much softness as I'm getting now on the D7000. Better camera accentuating flaws in the lens perhaps? Or has the lens gone belly up on me?
I feel like I'd like to sell the 18-200 and get something else, something better to cover these galas. On reflection, I don't think I need all the way to 200m and could probably cope with 105/135/140 or something. But I certainly don't feel my Tamron 17-50 is long enough for these events.
Could I cope with a 16-85 and crop? But is that really that much longer than my 17-50?
Are the kit lenses; 18-105, 18-135 and 18-140 any better than the 18-200? Especially at 18mm-50mm?
Would be interested in any views people have.
Also, I won't be offended if you tell me that you think i'm trying to polish a turd and there is no decent "do it all" option.
Some pictures below from Sunday with the Nikon 18-200 on D7000........... thoughts appreciated
Thanks, Mick
Soft on the left side at 50mm (only cropped top and bottom), centre and right sharper
MJW_0577.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Soft on the left side at 18mm, centre and right sharper
MJW_0404.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Another soft left at 18mm, centre and right sharper
MJW_0580.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Impressive centre performance at 42mm? (image only slightly cropped left/right)
MJW_0477.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Not too bad in centre at 18mm? (image only slightly cropped left/right)
MJW_0605.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Not too bad across the picture at 200mm, left looks fine now? (barely cropped)
MJW_0584.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
In all honesty, i've rarely used it, but have always been loathed to sell it (just in case).
Over the past two or three years when shooting my kids and on days out i've used my Tamron 17-50 2.8 and also got out the beast (Sigma 70-200 2.8) when required, usually wildlife park trips. Otherwise, the 17-50 is nigh one permanently attached.
My kids have recently started dancing in galas through the summer and at last years events I carried both the 17-50 and 70-200 as I didn't know how far away or how big the performance area would be.
But no matter which I used, I was either tied to the wide angle with the 17-50 or zoomed with the 70-200 and I missed shots. Obviously, image quality was great with both lenses, but I need to instantly go from wide to zoom as they move around so quickly. So this weekend as a test I only took the 18-200.
But firstly rewind to last weekend where I used the 18-200 for the first time in quite a while when shooting the Tour de France here in Sheffield. This was because my 17-50 was being repaired, so I had nothing wide in the bag aside from the 18-200. Frankly, I was disappointed, but on reflection many of the problems were my own doing. Shooting wide open (found to my cost that the lens doesn't appreciate it) and having some self inflicted focus issues. (fast bikes,my fault)
So I spent this week just gone reading how to try and get the best out of the 18-200. The most basic advice was to keep the aperture between f8 and f10. So I set up Sunday at f8, 1/1000 ish shutter speed and auto ISO. It was a bright day as these galas usually are, so ISO was around 600 to 1000, perfectly acceptable for my D7000.
I shot the whole session with those settings (or thereabouts) and instantly noticed an improvement in picture quality versus the Tour de France shots from the weekend before. Some of them, especially towards the centre of the image really impressed me.
But I did notice quite a lot of softness/issues down the side and especially down the left hand edge when between 18mm-50mm.
Is this just a problem with the 18-200 full stop and not my copy? As it does seem better at 200mm down the left hand side as the last image shows.
I've looked back through my lightroom library and noticed that the lens seemed to look better on my old D3100. It didn't seem to show as much softness as I'm getting now on the D7000. Better camera accentuating flaws in the lens perhaps? Or has the lens gone belly up on me?
I feel like I'd like to sell the 18-200 and get something else, something better to cover these galas. On reflection, I don't think I need all the way to 200m and could probably cope with 105/135/140 or something. But I certainly don't feel my Tamron 17-50 is long enough for these events.
Could I cope with a 16-85 and crop? But is that really that much longer than my 17-50?
Are the kit lenses; 18-105, 18-135 and 18-140 any better than the 18-200? Especially at 18mm-50mm?
Would be interested in any views people have.
Also, I won't be offended if you tell me that you think i'm trying to polish a turd and there is no decent "do it all" option.
Some pictures below from Sunday with the Nikon 18-200 on D7000........... thoughts appreciated
Thanks, Mick
Soft on the left side at 50mm (only cropped top and bottom), centre and right sharper
MJW_0577.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Soft on the left side at 18mm, centre and right sharper
MJW_0404.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Another soft left at 18mm, centre and right sharper
MJW_0580.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Impressive centre performance at 42mm? (image only slightly cropped left/right)
MJW_0477.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Not too bad in centre at 18mm? (image only slightly cropped left/right)
MJW_0605.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Not too bad across the picture at 200mm, left looks fine now? (barely cropped)
MJW_0584.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
Last edited: