# A bit disappointed with the Nikkor 18-200 VR



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

There have been plenty of reviews on the Nikkor 18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6. I will not go over that. Suffice it to say that I agree it's the perfect travel lens.
I was particularly impressed by the VR feature, reported here.
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2472984&postcount=102

But I have to say, as I use the lens more, I'm finding out design compromises and other flaws that I'm not happy with, given the price I paid.
My 80-200mm cost less than this 18-200mm. 
First is the zoom creep, reported here.
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2514526&postcount=104

Now, I found that in very bright, outdoor applications (where VR is mostly out of the equation) the quality of the pictures are somewhat lacking.
I happened to have the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 with me, so I took identical test shots with both lenses. 
When displayed at my laptop's resolution of 1400x1050 both pictures are very close. Still, I'm able to see a slight edge for the 80-200mm.
However, when zoomed all the way in (at 400% magnification) things turn south and the difference shows up, unequivocally. Take a look below.

1) Nikkor 18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6.
135mm, f/5.6, 1/1600 sec 









2) Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8.
135mm, f/5.6, 1/2000 sec


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

is this the 80-200 VR or the ED lens you are comparing it to?


----------



## timville (Aug 2, 2007)

You're really comparing apples (prosumer lenses) to oranges (professional lenses) here. Just look at the price point. When the Nikkor 18-200 came out, it was priced at 749... I think the 80-200 f/2.8 is about 1300 when new, down to 800-900 dollarsnow ... close price points, but significantly better glass imo.

I've had two... and sold them both times... once on a D200 and once with my current D80... There's just so much better glass out there. Look at some of the telephoto primes... they'll give you the sharpest image hands down.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Test_Engineer said:


> is this the 80-200 VR or the ED lens you are comparing it to?


The 80-200mm has no VR.
The newer 70-200mm has VR.
I have the former.


----------



## FenPhen (Jan 13, 2004)

I'm no expert, but might it also have to do with the limits of the lenses? You're comparing the 18-200 at its maximum aperture of f/5.6, whereas the the 80-200 is at f/5.6 instead of f/2.8. :dunno:


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Boile said:


> The 80-200mm has no VR.
> The newer 70-200mm has VR.
> I have the former.


My bad... I read it a bit fast and had a bit of a brain fart. 

Anyway:

Not really a fair comparison when you compare a constant f voom to a consumer super zoom. The lens arrangement is much different between a 18-200 and an 80-200. The lens with the less range will almost always be better, just like a 200mm prime lens will be even better than that 80-200mm. Another reason is what FenPhen mentioned, being that the 80-200 is stopped down whereas the 18-200 is "wide open". Most lenses sharpness increases as you stop them down a bit. The 80-200 also had a 25% longer exposure. Theese are all pretty normal compromises in PQ when comparing 2 lenses like this.

The 18-200 VR is a relatively compact "do all" walk around lens, and when such a lens is made there are compromises that are made to get it to the best price point and form factor. The 80-200 is not really compromised as much being that it is much larger and a constant f/2.8, and th erange is much smaller in comparison.

For what the 18-200VR lens CAN do, it is a pretty good purchase. It does the same thing as the 18-70mm kit lens and adds an addition 70-200mm of range, all while keeping a relatively small form factor and it adds VR.

Maybe you are expecting too much from such a lens. :dunno:


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Maybe I was expecting too much. :bawling:
I have had the 80-200mm for over a year before this 18-200mm. So my expectation was set way high.

I've come to accept the fact that I will put up with the weight and use the 80-200 whenever I can, and only use the 18-200mm on travels or indoor where the VR shines.


----------



## RDobie (May 26, 2007)

I agree it is an apples to oranges comparison. But the Nikkor 18 - 200VR is the only lens I carry when I go on vacation. I remember reading somewhere that this lens was expected to cover 90% of the amateur photographer's photo situations.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

RDobie said:


> I agree it is an apples to oranges comparison. But the Nikkor 18 ***8211; 200VR is the only lens I carry when I go on vacation. I remember reading somewhere that *this lens was expected to cover 90% of the amateur photographer***8217;s indoor photo situations.*


Fixed it for ya. :angel:

I didn't intend this to be viewed as a (fruit) comparison.
All I said is that I could see a slight loss in quality/sharpness in the pictures taken with this lens when taken at very bright outdoor situations.
The natural question would be... loss in relation to what?
Well, I'm used to my 80-200. My baseline is naturally that lens.
And I posted concrete evidence to prove what I had subjectively felt. That is all. :dunno:


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Boile said:


> Fixed it for ya. :angel:
> 
> I didn't intend this to be viewed as a (fruit) comparison.
> All I said is that I could see a slight loss in quality/sharpness in the pictures taken with this lens when taken at very bright outdoor situations.
> ...


The "loss" would be from a similar lens, such as the 18-70mm kit lens from the D70s, because of extended range...blah blah blah.

Try stopping down that 18-200 when outside and see if it makes a difference. You don't want to run a consumer lens wide open all the time. Most of the time I am outdoors with that lens I am up closer to f/10. :dunno: The reason it helps is because the aperature is less open and less stray light can enter, and you get slightly longer exposures that will help out. Obviously this is where you can see the compromises made by such a lens. That 80-200 will do a much better job controlling the light. And as always, use the hood, and circ-pol filters when outside.

This lens is also a good reason to brush up on your post processing sharpening techniques.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Test_Engineer said:


> This lens is also a good reason to brush up on your post processing sharpening techniques.


No kidding. 
I had to start using the sharpen function in Picassa with just about every pic. Something I have never needed to do before.
Unfortunately, if you look closed in my first sample, there's a color bleed issue. No amount of sharpening will cure that. :bawling:


----------



## RDobie (May 26, 2007)

My suggestion would be to go to Nikonians and upload both photographs. Let they professionals explain the difference. I would put the question in the Nikkor lens forum.

www.nikonians.org


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Here is instrumented studio test results of my two lenses.
DPreview didn't test the 80-200mm f/2.8, but they tested the newer version 70-200 f/2.8, which performs similarly.
The difference is very significant and confirms what I observed in post #1.
It turns out that the settings I used (135mm f/5.6) is the worst possible setting on the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6. It only gets better from there. :rofl:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

I'll give you a couple humdred bucks for it.


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

Boile said:


> Here is instrumented studio test results of my two lenses.
> DPreview didn't test the 80-200mm f/2.8, but they tested the newer version 70-200 f/2.8, which performs similarly.
> The difference is very significant and confirms what I observed in post #1.
> It turns out that the settings I used (135mm f/5.6) is the worst possible setting on the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6. It only gets better from there. :rofl:





FenPhen said:


> I'm no expert, but might it also have to do with the limits of the lenses? You're comparing the 18-200 at its maximum aperture of f/5.6, whereas the the 80-200 is at f/5.6 instead of f/2.8. :dunno:


FenPhen nailed it. That's the case for pretty much most lenses... for Canon 50mm f/1.4 I usually go 1.8 and avoid 1.4 as much as possible.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Griffoun said:


> FenPhen nailed it. That's the case for pretty much most lenses... for Canon 50mm f/1.4 I usually go 1.8 and avoid 1.4 as much as possible.


That's the case for every lens. I know that.
What I pointed out above is a design quirck with this particular lens.
For example, 200mm f/5.6 (which is also wide open) looks better than 135mm f/5.6. And 
If I had picked 80mm f/5.3 (also wide open), the results would not have been so dramatic. 
I just happened to chose 135 for my test (without knowing the above quirk). :tsk:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Nikon Telephoto Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D AF-S VR ED-IF


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile, this is what I mean by being in the play.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> Boile, this is what I mean by being in the play.


I know what you mean.
Here's one taken with that 80-200mm f/2.8 and I was on ground level, probably on my knees.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> I know what you mean.
> Here's one taken with that 80-200mm f/2.8 and I was on ground level, probably on my knees.


The nice thing about taking a pic from the stand is you don't see the crud in the background. One of the moms took this with a Nikon D80, speed priority using a 300mm lens. I told her it was an excellent shot summerizing the situation. Check the exif.

BTW, #7 is an exchange student from Germany, not mine, but a good kid playing JV.










Basic
Date Modified 2009-01-17 14:45:35 
Date Taken 2009-01-17 14:45:35 
Camera NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D80 
Exposure Time 0.0025s (1/400) 
Aperture f/5.3 
ISO 100 
Photo Dimensions 2663 x 2559 
File Name DSC_7668.JPG 
File Size 4.23 MB

Detailed
Flash flash did not fire 
Exposure Bias 0 EV 
Exposure Mode manual 
White Balance auto 
Digital Zoom Ratio 1/1 
Color Space sRGB


----------



## Neon01 (Nov 30, 2005)

I was pretty close to going with the 18-200, but settled on the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 coupled with the Nikkor 70-300 VR. Add in a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and you've got a hell of a range covered. If you have to have VR for a walkaround, you could substitute the Nikkor 16-85 VR for the Tamron. I did initially, but I found the faster Tamron to be much more useful and didn't miss the extra range of the 16-85. 

Just my 2c. One-size-fits-all lenses are compromising by nature I suppose.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Neon01 said:


> I was pretty close to going with the 18-200, but settled on the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 coupled with the Nikkor 70-300 VR. Add in a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and you've got a hell of a range covered. If you have to have VR for a walkaround, you could substitute the Nikkor 16-85 VR for the Tamron. I did initially, but I found the faster Tamron to be much more useful and didn't miss the extra range of the 16-85.
> 
> Just my 2c. One-size-fits-all lenses are compromising by nature I suppose.


True.
But sometimes you have to compromise.
For traveling, there's nothing like the portability and flexibility of the 18-200mm. One lens does almost all. But you pay (slightly) in quality.
So, instead of having 3 lenses to cover a range, I chose to have 2 lenses to cover 2 groups of situations: 80-200 f/2.8 for sports/action (maybe some portrait as well) and 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 for everything else.


----------



## dadtorbn (Oct 3, 2003)

Dave 330i said:


> Boile, this is what I mean by being in the play.


Nice pics!

I have Canon's version and love it! I've also been able to get decent, albeit slow, pics with a 1.4x teleconvertor!


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Boile said:


> That's the case for every lens. I know that.
> What I pointed out above is a design quirck with this particular lens.
> I just happened to chose 135 for my test (without knowing the above quirk). :tsk:


Isn't 135mm the point where the extention rate of the lens while zooming changes? I can't remember witch way it is, but there is a range where the lens extends slowly, and a range where the lens extends rather quickly. I'm guessing 135mm is THAT point where that change happens from slow to fast. I would assume it has a lot to do with the focal points used in the lens and how they cross at varying focal distances. :dunno:


----------



## ANILE8 (May 17, 2008)

I think you were maybe expecting too much from the VR 18-200mm.

When I first started, I had the old push-pull Nikon AF-D 80-200mm/F2.8 version and it was a great lens.

Just because something is newer; it is not always automatically better!


----------

