18-200mm lenses

[safetymom]

You will love that lens. It has been fun going back and taking pictures with that lens all over Disney. I especially loved the VR going on the safari at AK.

 

[Charade]

Which body were you using? Your images look quite nice. We can only see limited resolution here - but the illumination looks uniform and colors snappy - as Nikons are commnly expected to output. I would be interested in seeing what some of these histograms looked like. But to the casual eye these look simply wonderful as is.

I have a D70. I was running a aperture priority mode most of the time and had it set to F5.6 unless I wanted some more DOF.

I think this lens is sharper (and more contrasty) than my 18-70 (which I'm going to sell).

 

[captaincrash]

Nice...

.... one of my oldest best friends (known him for 36 years) just bought a D70s. I've heard he's quite happy with it. I'm waiting for a chance to "borrow it" for a couple days to really evaluate it.

In the mean while - here is a set of MTF performance measurements taken by photozone (I'm sure you've seen this - but others might not have). At 5.6 your lense performs well on the long end - and considering all other parameters in the photozone test it looks quite good considering its' focal range and speed. I would be first in line for a Canon 18-200 IS zoom if it performed well with a not too insulting price... say .... well under $1,000 given my purposes and priorities!

 

[Cashcow]

Charade,

Just curious where you bought the lens and how much you paid (if you don't mind me asking).

I was thinking of getting this lens and it has been very hard to find since its release.

 

[Charade]

Charade,

Just curious where you bought the lens and how much you paid (if you don't mind me asking).

I was thinking of getting this lens and it has been very hard to find since its release.

I bought it from Amazon.com. It was $799. I know that's a little higher than other places like B&H or Adorama but Amazon has a great return policy. Plus they have free shipping which made the price difference less between the other places.

I will probably keep it but I need to sell my Nikon 18-70 and Sigma 70-300.

 

[handicap18]

I've mentioned in other posts, this particular lens is the highest rated SuperZoom lens out there right now. I would love to be able to have this lens. I think that if I knew I were going to do more traveling like I did in my 20's then I would probably find a way to afford it. It is probably THE perfect travel lens (whether to Disney or anywhere else). Or even the perfect lens for entry level amerture level dSLR users who are upgrading from a P&S.

For now, for me, since I've always had 2 lenses, a 28-80 and 70-300 and now an 18-70 and 70-300, I wont miss having just the 1 superzoom. I have it on my lists of wants along with a 50mm 1.8, 28mm 1.8 (or similar), a super wide angle zoom (10-20mm) and even a telephoto zoom that is maybe F4 or faster.

For now I will live vicariously through your zoom. Excellent pics. Give us more! We are picture starved photo-aholics!!

 

[Charade]

I was reading over on dpreview that it's only 200mm when focused to infinity (and beyond!) and when focused close, it can be somewhere around 120-150mm. I also read that it's not unusal for internal focusing zoom lenses to do this. I guess I'm kinda disappointed I didn't know this going in. It might have swayed me to not buy it. I think I'm still within the 30 day Amazon.com return period. What to do... what to do...

 

[Kelly Grannell]

how close is "close"?* It's normal for lower-end lens 100mm and above can only focus things around 6 feet away (minimum). Heck, my 70-200 f/2.8 $1,700 lens can only focus as close as 5 feet away even at 70mm.

*I'm referring to how 'close' do you need it to be.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

If you need something that can focus closer than that, consider getting a macro lens. The caveat of Macro lens is that the auto focus is ALWAYS slower than the non-macro equivalent.

 

[Charade]

According to Nikon, the minimum focusing distance is 1.6 feet. I think that's at 18mm. The butterfly pic in my album was taken at 200mm and focused as close as I could. I think it was about 2-3 feet.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

The spec you mention is normal, really. It's not a bad spec. All non specialty lenses are all like that.

That said, your need is already in the macro territory. You'll need either a special macro lens such as the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro with Nikon Mount (this lens can do focus as close as 3 inches away based on my personal experience), or macro lens adapter or macro extension tube (lens adapter or extension tube usually cost around $150).

You can use Macro lens for regular usage too, but the AF will be slower albeit will be more accurate too.

 

[Charade]

What I'm trying to say is even at 10-20 feet it's not 200mm as advertized. I've never heard of this before now. But apparently it's been that way since the intruduction of internal focusing lenses. Wouldn't you be a little disappointed if you thought you were getting 200mm at 10 or 20 feet only to find out it was more like 150mm?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I'm sorry, I must be really slow today. You're saying that the Nikon 18-200 is actually only 18-150? To my knowledge, 200mm focal length is 200mm focal length regardless of the distance. How can I focal length changes according to distance? It's not making any sense to me. But like I said earlier, maybe I'm being daft this morning.

 

[Geoff_M]

Take what you read on DPReview (if you're talking about the forums) with a BIG grain of salt. As for close focus, Nikon states: "Enables focusing from as close as 50cm (20 in.) from the subject through its entire focal range" See: http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/index.htm

I think that if the lens was as "hobbled" as you think, Thom Hogan would have said something about it: http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm He said summed it up by saying "Superzooms shouldn't be this good!" He addresses the whole 200mm bru-ha-ha by saying this:

Finally, one word about focal length. As with most zooms, focus point shifts the focal length a bit. At infinity, the lens is 18mm at its wide end, and I think a few millimeters short of 200mm at the tele end (I've seen one measurement that says 193.5; all I know is that it's a bit shy of my 70-200mm at infinity). At very close focusing distances, which is where I'm at most of the time, the lens is almost down to 17mm at the wide end, with very little perceptible change at the tele end. Perfect! Just the way I want it to be.

It also common practice for lens makers to round up (tele) or down (wide) lens descriptions when labeling a lens for market. Nikon does it, Canon does it, etc. We're talking a few pixel widths here.

 

[handicap18]

Is it possible that you might be reading to much into it. Are you dissapointed because you read that there could be a problem or are you dissapointed because you are experiencing problems? Have you felt that this lens has let you down at all? I know it is a very expensive lens, however, based on reviews I've read in photo magazines and on line, this is by far the best lens in its category. Nothing else comes close to it. Popular Photography had a great review of it in their April issue. Optically, Subjective quality factor, distortion control, vibration reduction, construction are all highly rated. You have a great lens. No doubt.

 

[fitzperry]

If you're looking to get rid of it, I'll make you a good offer!

 

[JR6ooo4]

I was reading over on dpreview that it's only 200mm when focused to infinity (and beyond!) and when focused close, it can be somewhere around 120-150mm. I also read that it's not unusal for internal focusing zoom lenses to do this. I guess I'm kinda disappointed I didn't know this going in. It might have swayed me to not buy it. I think I'm still within the 30 day Amazon.com return period. What to do... what to do...

that somehow, when focusing, the elements move which changes the zoom length.

Am I correct here:
Full zoom lenght while focused to infinity and the zoom achieves 200mm.
full zoom and focused halfway to infinity and the zoom is only 150mm.

Is this what you meant? And to the math and lens guru's is this correct?

Mikeeee

 

[Anewman]

that somehow, when focusing, the elements move which changes the zoom length.

Am I correct here:
Full zoom lenght while focused to infinity and the zoom achieves 200mm.
full zoom and focused halfway to infinity and the zoom is only 150mm.

Is this what you meant? And to the math and lens guru's is this correct?

Mikeeee

I really doubt that a Good zoom lens would lose 25% of its focal length when focusing at minimum vs infinity. A few mm, yes but not that much.

I would test it by using a small apeture and framing a distant subject, then manually focus(without altering zoom) to both extremes. Losing 50mm should be easily noticed.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

that somehow, when focusing, the elements move which changes the zoom length.

Am I correct here:
Full zoom lenght while focused to infinity and the zoom achieves 200mm.
full zoom and focused halfway to infinity and the zoom is only 150mm.

Is this what you meant? And to the math and lens guru's is this correct?

Mikeeee

That's what I'm confused about. Losing from 200mm to (say) 190mm is still plausible, but losing 50mm in focal length?

I'm glad I'm not the only one confused with this statement.

One thing for sure, I've played with this lens before and although I don't do pixel to pixel comparison, this magnification works about the same as Sigma 18-200, so if it is actually true that this 18-200 mechanically turned into 18-150 at a certain distance, than it should be true with the 18-200 Sigma too.

 

[Charade]

I'll have to test it myself as I also have a hard time believing it would lose 50mm on the long end while close focusing. I do know that I did see a magnification change in the viewfinder when I changed to take a pic of something far a way when the previous picture was take at a much closer distance. I know I had to adjust the zoom level because the framing changed. How much I really don't remember.