| | I've been using a Nikon 18-70mm lens on my D80, and except for close-focus pictues the results are good enough for stock use. I'm very tempted to upgrade to the Nikon AF-S DX VR 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 G IF-ED but I can't find a really critical review.
I'm aware that there's a lot of barrel distortion at the short end, but the reviews I've read are strangely reticent about performance at the long end, usually saying something along the lines of 'like all superzooms, performance is less good at the long end'.
What I want to know is: will the Nikon 18-200 VR be good enough at all focal lengths to produce acceptable submissions to Crestock? Will the images be as good as those I'm getting with the 18-70mm?
Ideally I'd like to hear from someone who's using this lens and getting pictures taken with it accepted at Crestock or other top stock libraries. Alternatively, the URL of an in-depth review with sample pictures would be very useful.
TIA
FriendlyDragon |
| | Friendlydragon,
Unfortunately, nobody gets there pictures accepted at Crestock with any Nikon camera or lens. We only accept Canon here ;) |
| | Actually, Elenathewise kind of answers your question in the Prime lenses prices and info thread in this forum: I have bought the 18-200 VR which turned out quite frankly a piece of crap because it is simply not sharp! My cheapest 50 mm lens gives much better sharpness. So ok, maybe it wasn't right to expect sharpness from such a zoom.
Personally, I would avoid anything that's got 18-200mm or 18-300mm written on it, unless you really, really need this range in a single lense. - Maybe you're planning a solo trek to the North Pole for example.
I haven't used any of these lenses, so this is just my general view, but chances are that your rejection rates would go up, and that most of your images end up being less sharp than those taken with the 18-70mm. |
| | I found this lens listed among the reviews on Photozone.de; I generally trust their opinions and tests, you can compare the results to their tests of other lenses and they usually include some very useful real-life sample images that you can download and study. |
| | Here's another review from this most trustworthy source:http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm Also, Bjørn Rørslett gives it a 4/5 rating on his site: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html I don't own the 18-200 myself but I would also be wary of it for stock purposes (though I think it's a little unfair to compare it with anything as razorsharp as a 50 mm). It's not really inexpensive either - unless you need the long reach, I would try to find a used 17-55. |
| | Okay, I'm getting the picture here. I was seduced by the name Nikon on the barrel, and the way the lens was so sought-after when it first appeared and was in such short supply.
Thanks, everyone, for your help and advice.
FriendlyDraqon
PS: Nikon and other manufacturers must hate forums like this! |
| | Oop's you must not have noticed I shoot Nikon! LOL To the OP, forget the 18-200mm, by the 70-200MM VR f 2.8 and the 17-55mm f2,8, the rest do not compare! Friendlydragon,
Unfortunately, nobody gets there pictures accepted at Crestock with any Nikon camera or lens. We only accept Canon here ;) |
| | I am curious as to how can you tell if the submitter have used Canon or NIkon with the images they submit to you? Maybe there was a member that have submitted using a NIkon and you didnt see the difference? Just curious.. unless there was a sort of survey when submitting pictures for submission. 
Friendlydragon,
Unfortunately, nobody gets there pictures accepted at Crestock with any Nikon camera or lens. We only accept Canon here ;) |
| | 18-200 is not a good step.Quality of picture and Budget are at the first place, and also purpose of lens.First advice is to buy AF Nikkor 50/1,8 and macro 100 from Nikon,Sigma,...they are all very good.If You need telephoto, 70-200VR is the best but expensive.Similar even better results You will have wit older 80-200/2,8 and good tripod.I am using the oldest AF Nikkor 70-210/4, it is very rare,inexpensive, but opticaly great equal to 80-200/2,8.For wide angle the best is Nikkor 14-24, but...price.For tight budget the best is Tokina 12-24.Consider buying used equipment.It is much cheaper.
[Last Modified:
5/12/2009 4:21:26 PM]
|
| | Regarding the 18-200 VR Lenses, the sharpness depends how you use it. I can get very crisp images with that lens but also quite unsharp if not used properly. The VR algorithm takes some time till the image is really ready to be taken. A common error is to keep the VR mode on while working on tripod, this is contraproductive and lead to unsharp images. For sure there are better lenses, but as bread-and-butter lens is not bad. Alex |
| | 18-200 is not a good step.Quality of picture and Budget are at the first place, and also purpose of lens.First advice is to buy AF Nikkor 50/1,8 and macro 100 from Nikon,Sigma,...they are all very good.If You need telephoto, 70-200VR is the best but expensive.Similar even better results You will have wit older 80-200/2,8 and good tripod.I am using the oldest AF Nikkor 70-210/4, it is very rare,inexpensive, but opticaly great equal to 80-200/2,8.For wide angle the best is Nikkor 14-24, but...price.For tight budget the best is Tokina 12-24.Consider buying used equipment.It is much cheaper. i strongly agree with you sima. |
