18-200 test

[Val]

Alright so people hate 18-200 on this forum Here are two images: one is taken with 18-200, other with 50 1.8. How can you determine which one is made with with 18-200? I cant see any difference.

 

[The_Traveler]

My guess would be that #2 is the 50 just based on the crispness and contrast but it surely is close.

 

[JIP]

Left is the 50....

 

[sabbath999]

It might be harder to tell which was which if you named them something other than 50.jpg and 18200.jpg. Unless, of course, you did what I would do and switch the names to fool folks

 

[sabbath999]

Another consideration is this (I am not an 18-200 basher, I own one)...

The 50 costs $120 bucks, and the 18-200 costs $700.

If you can't tell a big difference in IQ in favor or the 18-200 since it costs a TON more money, then it isn't much of a selling point for the lens to say "hey, this looks just as good as a $120 len!".

 

[Mike_E]

I'm guessing that the top one is the 50mm.

If someone just really doesn't like their 18-200mm, you can give it to me and I promise to give it a good home and all the fries it can eat!

 

[Val]

Another consideration is this (I am not an 18-200 basher, I own one)...

The 50 costs $120 bucks, and the 18-200 costs $700.

If you can't tell a big difference in IQ in favor or the 18-200 since it costs a TON more money, then it isn't much of a selling point for the lens to say "hey, this looks just as good as a $120 len!".

:mrgreen: yeah.... BUT it can also go from 18 to 200 and shoot at almost same speed

 

[Val]

It might be harder to tell which was which if you named them something other than 50.jpg and 18200.jpg. Unless, of course, you did what I would do and switch the names to fool folks

Ofc i misnamed them :mrgreen:

First/left one is 18-200, second/right is 50.

So i think we agree that they are pretty damn close. Give 18-200 some slack

 

[JIP]

The 50 costs $120 bucks, and the 18-200 costs $700.

If you can't tell a big difference in IQ in favor or the 18-200 since it costs a TON more money, then it isn't much of a selling point for the lens to say "hey, this looks just as good as a $120 len!".

I have to agree here saying a $700 lens is just as shrp as a sub $200 lens is not a big selling point for the $700 lens. And yes I am an 18-200 basher (and I don't and never will own one). And no I will not leave it alone I have made it my duty to try and dissuade anyone from buying this abomination of a waste of money. By the way don't take this too personal you did not make this lens.

 

[jstuedle]

Most have a problem with the 18-200 at it's extremes. A sample I used had very pronounced barrel distortion at 18 and vignetting at 200. (this was an early sample)

 

[Garbz]

So i think we agree that they are pretty damn close. Give 18-200 some slack

Post your apertures! When you're comparing the lenses you're making a comparison of chalk to chalk not chalk to cheese. The 50mm f/1.8 in many cases is the worst prime lens Nikon has on the market currently. At f/8 it's fantastic. But then so is the 18-200. But that's just it. Sharpness is not everything.

The build quality sucks, the lens creeps (I have now seen it not just heard of it), and it's sharpness goes down the hole beyond 100mm. The barrel distortion is severe (but then what super zoom isn't), CA is bad (but then what super zoom isn't).

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nik...-g-if-ed-vr-ii-dx-review--test-report?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nik...kor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report?start=1

Check out the graphs, to get an idea of how very similar or how very different each lens can be, and how rather poor they are compared to some of the other lenses out there.

 

[Val]

Sorry, i dont shoot graphs, i shoot pictures.

Ill make a more comprehensive test and post it up :thumbup:

 

[Iron Flatline]

This thread belongs in the Equipment forum, not here.


I wish all the members understood that there's more to photography than just equipment, maybe then this forum could get more appropriate threads in it.

 

[shivaswrath]

Most have a problem with the 18-200 at it's extremes. A sample I used had very pronounced barrel distortion at 18 and vignetting at 200. (this was an early sample)

I suggest my combo listed below,
18-55 VR = $199
55-200 VR = $214

A hair over $400 for some light fun lenses! With the difference, I plan on getting a nice flash (SB-400) and a tripod.

I tried the 18-200 VR, thought it was cumbersome, heavy, and not as sharp. . .but that's just me trying it out in a camera shop in low light situations!

I agree with others though, comparing a $699 lenses to a $100 lenses only furthers the cause of buying the cheaper lens. . .lol!

 

[Val]

that $100 lens is one of the sharpest avalible at any price. . .lol!