18-200 test

Garbz · Jan 17, 2008

Val said:
Sorry, i dont shoot graphs, i shoot pictures.

Yep nothing wrong with that. I don't think I've ever photographed a graph myself. I was just offering an example as to why both lenses look the same.

a) they are both rather average by the standards of many of the members here (i hate to say this but the 50mm quality people rave about applies much more to the canon 50mm f/1.8 than the Nikon),
b) nearly all lenses would look nearly identical when shot at their absolute best. The better lenses are simply able to cope with working at their extremes for example (i know the lens is twice the price but the example still holds) The 80-200 f/2.8 is amazingly sharp at 200mm f/2.8. Probably just as sharp as the 18-200mm at 80mm f/8 though. The difference is aside from the obvious that the superzoom doesn't do f/2.8 at 200mm it is also quite crap at f/5.6 at 200.

Val · Jan 17, 2008

Agreed, you do have to stop it down a little (but that applies almost to all lenses, i havent tried 80-200 but corners are sharp at 200/2.8?).

My point about 18-200 is that its a great lens not because of quality, but because of excellent versatility with acceptable drawbacks.

If i go on a trip somewhere i will bring 18-200 simply because i will miss half interesting shots otherwise. Surely 80-200 is significantly better, but what if something happens near you? By the time you change lenses (not to mention you have to carry a bag with you) the moment is already gone. Happens a lot to me

JIP · Jan 17, 2008

Val said:
Agreed, you do have to stop it down a little (but that applies almost to all lenses, i havent tried 80-200 but corners are sharp at 200/2.8?).

My point about 18-200 is that its a great lens not because of quality, but because of excellent versatility with acceptable drawbacks.

If i go on a trip somewhere i will bring 18-200 simply because i will miss half interesting shots otherwise. Surely 80-200 is significantly better, but what if something happens near you? By the time you change lenses (not to mention you have to carry a bag with you) the moment is already gone. Happens a lot to me

Personally I can never see a situation where convenience wold be more important than image quality.

sabbath999 · Jan 17, 2008

JIP said:
Personally I can never see a situation where convenience wold be more important than image quality.

Do you do daylong hikes through rugged terrain? Are you a cyclist who takes his camera with him on 100+ mile per day rides? Are you a cross country mountain biker? Do you climb?

There are LOTS of situations where having convenience is MUCH more important than absolute image quality if that image quality means you have to lug around 5 pounds worth of lenses, plus all the stuff necessary to protect them in case of rain, crashes, falls, high water crossings, or even to go on 15 or 20 mile hikes through the mountains.

I recently spent 9 days climbing all over Kilauea, Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea, Hualalai and Kohala on the big island.

Try hiking along the Hamakua Coast down into the Waipi`o Valley, up the other side and over into the uninhabited and extremely rugged and absolutely stunning Waimanu Valley dragging around 10 pounds of lenses that are only slightly better in many respects than one or two light an inexpensive ones... carrying them through streams, banging against sheer cliff walls that climb hundreds of feet in every direction... and tell me that little bit of image quality is worth it.

Frankly, you could tell me, but I wouldn't believe it for a second. I may be a cynic, but I also know what it feels like to carry a ton of expensive heavy equipment over rugged terrain day after day... no way I am doing that so that I could "perhaps" take a slightly better picture...

The_Traveler · Jan 17, 2008

JIP said:
Personally I can never see a situation where convenience wold be more important than image quality.

Perhaps you ought to travel more.

Antithesis · Jan 17, 2008

I would like to see a comparison at 18mm or 200mm. At 50mm or around there, you will be at the sweet spot of the lens. Most people won't criticize the middle focal lengths of that lens, they criticize the extremes. I think at 18mm, particularly wide open, the results will be laughable. I'll keep my $100 f1.8 ty.

I'm going to have to agree with buying the 18-55 and 55-200 for half the price and spending the other money on more than a gimick.

Val · Jan 17, 2008

Distortion at 18 is very similar to 17-55, so i guess kit-lenses are the way to go and all other expensive **** sucks.

johnmh · Jan 17, 2008

Val said:
My point about 18-200 is that its a great lens not because of quality, but because of excellent versatility with acceptable drawbacks.

Ditto. My wife carries that mounted on a D40 - it's versatile and gives her a wide range. Beats carrying a load of lenses and changing them. The D40 is pretty 'limiting' too - but it's nice and light and small. Makes for a 'perfect' carryaround package.

A couple decades ago (even one decade ago) if anyone said that you could get 18mm to 200mm in a small package WITH a mechanism to eliminate vibrations and let you hand-hold all the time if you wanted - for under $1000 - people would have laughed at you.

I think people are getting a bit spoiled given the amount of progress made in the last 50 years. My father's CONTAX and full lens set cost more than what most people would have paid for a CAR in 1953. I have an astounding collection of camera bodies and lenses for - inflation adjusted - far LESS than what he spent. And the lenses I have can do things he never would have dreamed of. And did you ever use a rangefinder? It took far more effort to use that camera than anything I have now.

Nevermind the cameras themselves..... Digital?!?! OMG. I can shoot ten, twenty times more now than I'd EVER dream of shooting on film. I have the luxury of taking shots that may or may not work - with a variety of settings - at minimal cost (the wear and tear on my camera - the cost of a shutter click). If they don't work I can delete.

And THAT sums it all up for me. A shot taken - however imperfect or 'limited' by the equipment used - trumps no shot at all.

Just remember - we have the LUXURY of being a bit snobbish about things - BECAUSE there's so much available. And - for 99% of the world - 'good enough' IS good enough. And 'good enough' now is FAR beyond what was 'outstanding' earlier in my lifetime.

Antithesis · Jan 17, 2008

Val said:
Distortion at 18 is very similar to 17-55, so i guess kit-lenses are the way to go and all other expensive **** sucks.

Distortion is not that big a deal, the image quality at 18 is probably garbage, especially wide open. If someone wants to pay an extra $300-400 (over the 18-55 + 55-200) so they don't have to change their lens, then more power to them. Personally, I bought an SLR so I can have collect some nicer glass and have the ability to change out lenses depending on the occasion. The only good use I can see for this lens is as a traveler where you wouldn't want a bag-full of lenses on your hip.

On my last trip I took the two cheaper lenses and was fine. All it takes is a little forethought as to what you might be shooting and you'll rarely miss something you wanted to shoot.

sabbath999 · Jan 18, 2008

Antithesis said:
Distortion is not that big a deal, the image quality at 18 is probably garbage, especially wide open.

Probably? Does this mean you actually have shot both of them and compared, or are just guessing?

Garbz · Jan 18, 2008

Val said:
My point about 18-200 is that its a great lens not because of quality, but because of excellent versatility with acceptable drawbacks.

No arguement here. The 18-200 can't be beat for versatility. In my eyes though I wouldn't need a image test to tell me this

Helen B · Jan 18, 2008

Val has posted some 50 vs 18-200 comparisons of a different nature over in this thread. They appear to show quite a large difference in the amount of flare (which affects contrast) and ghosting.

Best,
Helen

JIP · Jan 18, 2008

sabbath999 said:
Do you do daylong hikes through rugged terrain? Are you a cyclist who takes his camera with him on 100+ mile per day rides? Are you a cross country mountain biker? Do you climb?

There are LOTS of situations where having convenience is MUCH more important than absolute image quality if that image quality means you have to lug around 5 pounds worth of lenses, plus all the stuff necessary to protect them in case of rain, crashes, falls, high water crossings, or even to go on 15 or 20 mile hikes through the mountains.

I recently spent 9 days climbing all over Kilauea, Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea, Hualalai and Kohala on the big island.

Try hiking along the Hamakua Coast down into the Waipi`o Valley, up the other side and over into the uninhabited and extremely rugged and absolutely stunning Waimanu Valley dragging around 10 pounds of lenses that are only slightly better in many respects than one or two light an inexpensive ones... carrying them through streams, banging against sheer cliff walls that climb hundreds of feet in every direction... and tell me that little bit of image quality is worth it.

Frankly, you could tell me, but I wouldn't believe it for a second. I may be a cynic, but I also know what it feels like to carry a ton of expensive heavy equipment over rugged terrain day after day... no way I am doing that so that I could "perhaps" take a slightly better picture...

Before I shattered my leg in about 6 pieces 2 years ago (an issue I am still dealing with) I did hike qnd backpack quite exyensively. I would go on multi night trips albeit not as exotic as the one you named and every one of them I carried my Nikon N70 with whatever lens I had and I also would carry my Bronica ETRsi with a tripod to carry it and never suffered for it good images were just important to me and I did not care about the extra weight.