Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nikon 18-200  
User currently offlineevall95 From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 306 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4097 times:

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

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJForbes From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 27 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4050 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.


User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4014 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.


Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
User currently offlinesunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 782 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months ago) and read 3946 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


User currently offlineviv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3890 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.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12568 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3860 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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).



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinesunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 782 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3818 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


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The New Nikon 70-200 Vr II posted Fri Jan 22 2010 05:01:15 by Damien846
Nikon 80-200 F2.8 Or Sigma 50-500 posted Sat Dec 5 2009 07:58:35 by 744flyer
Distortion In The Nikon 18-105mm VR Lens posted Mon Nov 30 2009 11:42:45 by Alasdair1982
Nikon 18-105mm VR posted Thu Mar 26 2009 14:30:34 by Alasdair1982
Canon EF-S 18-200 For Aviation Photography posted Tue Oct 14 2008 21:13:57 by Paparadzi
Sigma 18-200. Opinions? posted Wed May 9 2007 15:23:55 by LIPH
Sigma 18-200 Problem At 200mm? posted Fri Jan 12 2007 23:00:12 by BuyantUkhaa
Sigma 18-200 F3.5-F6.3 DC Any Good? posted Sat Jul 22 2006 13:05:09 by Andz
Any First Experiences With Nikon 18-200mm VR? posted Sat Jan 14 2006 17:26:32 by Oldeuropean
Nikon 80-200 F2.8D Focus Problem posted Sat Oct 8 2005 20:46:48 by Psyops