Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/aviation_photography/read.main/371084/

Topic: Nikon 18-200
Username: evall95
Posted 2011-11-25 00:38:41 and read 4213 times.

I just wanted to know what you guys think about the Nikon 18-200 AF-S VR 2?

Topic: RE: Nikon 18-200
Username: JForbes
Posted 2011-11-25 13:05:34 and read 4166 times.

It's a fine general purpose lens that makes significant quality sacrifices to achieve a wide range. It has significant distortion on the wide end, and isn't super sharp on the telephoto end - you will want to shoot it around f/8 to f/11 on the telephoto end to get the most out of it.

If you just want to stick one lens on your camera, it is a fine choice as long as you are willing to make the range/quality/size compromise found here.

If you're looking to use it for spotting, it will be adequate if you're reasonably close to the aircraft. You should have no trouble getting images in to the database if that's what you're after.

It's probably the best of the 18-200 type lenses, for what it's worth.

Topic: RE: Nikon 18-200
Username: darreno1
Posted 2011-11-26 05:39:06 and read 4130 times.

I had this lens on my d40 and d3100 for a short while and I agree with JForbes. It was a great and convenient 'walk around' lens but the crispness I was looking for was just not there, especially on the long end. I also had issues with uniform sharpness. For example, a side shot of a jet will usually be crisp on one end and a little blurred on the other. I thought maybe it was my settings or a bad copy of the lens, however once I switched to the Tamron 70-300mm I had no such issues with the same settings. Who knows, it might have been my copy but I'm not a big fan of wide-range zoom lenses regardless. They do give up quality for convenience.

Topic: RE: Nikon 18-200
Username: sunilgupta
Posted 2011-11-27 07:02:13 and read 4062 times.

I agree with all of the above.

The best results for aviation photography with this lens are had using "A" Aperture Priority and f11. Obviously, this requires bright light. Results are sharp edge to edge (or at least tail to nose).

If you are shooting on the wide angle side of the lens, then Lightroom or Photoshop have profiles for this lens that can be used to correct the minor distortion. Chromatic aberration is also minor and can be fixed with the Nikon raw software (and maybe LR or PS but I have never tried).

This lens and the Nikon 80-400 are my travel lenses... period  

Sunil

Topic: RE: Nikon 18-200
Username: viv
Posted 2011-11-28 05:01:01 and read 4006 times.

It's a fine walk-around lens, but a little soft, especially at 200 mm. And, of course, it is only Dx.

Few zoom lenses are as good as prime lenses.

Topic: RE: Nikon 18-200
Username: scbriml
Posted 2011-11-28 12:27:39 and read 3976 times.

Quoting viv (Reply 4):
Few zoom lenses are as good as prime lenses.

Of course. All zoom lenses have to make compromises which means they'll never match a highly optimised prime. That's not to say there aren't very good zooms out there (I have, IMHO, Nikon's finest offerings in that respect), but you cannot expect a zoom with over 10x focal range to be very good across much of that range.

A long time ago, when I was first starting out in photography, an old pro advised me to never go for a zoom lens that had a range in excess of 3 to 4 times the shortest focal length. Mine all still follow that 'rule' (14-28, 28-70, 70-200 & 200-400).

Topic: RE: Nikon 18-200
Username: sunilgupta
Posted 2011-11-29 09:32:54 and read 3934 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 5):
200-400

You must be a body builder with fat pockets  

I'd love to get that one too, but I just can't see lugging it around on my travels.

Sunil


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/