JUst bought the Hummer of cameras and Mcgiver of Lenses

[MarcusM]

JUst bought the Hummer of cameras and Mcgiver of Lenses

Hummers are pointless.

Besides, by this analogy, wouldn't the "Hummer" be the D3?

 

[Rhubarb]

The D3.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Hummers are pointless.

Besides, by this analogy, wouldn't the "Hummer" be the D3?

geesh..... give the op a break already...

 

[JIP]

Sorry man, but the fact that you don't own this lens or use it makes it hard for you to give an objective opinion.

I have read plenty of good reviews on this lens

I DO own this lens, as well as the Nikon 24-70 & 70-200. No this lens is not as sharp, but for the price I have no problem with it. I usually have it on one of my bodies at all time.

If you want a good zoom range and a mid performance lens, it is great. Yes you could get some primes for the same price, but if this if for your own personal use you will like it.

Just go out and shoot and enjoy it!!

I have read plenty of reviews of this lens and every one says the same thing "very versatile not very sharp" I just can't see Spending $600 on a lens that is not sharp as I have said a million times it is a gimmick to put a cheap piece of glass into peoples hands for a big price. I see it as my mission to try and dissuade people who don't know any better from wasting their money on it. As a matter of fact my much maligned stance about this lens should be considered a public service to the poor schlubs that are suckered onto buying it my posts may give them a chance to return it before it is too late. And by the way I do not have to waste my money on a lens to know about it i have been a professional photographer for 10+years and have also worked for Ritz for even longer than that (not that that is anything to brag about) my opinion is not formed from guesswork it is based on knowledge and experience with many different cameras and camera systems over that time. Again peole can do what they want but I just feel it is necesarry to put in my 2 cents especially about this lens. And by the way, to the OP you made an excellent choice with the camera body I just don't like the lens you picked.

 

[dEARlEADER]

I have read plenty of reviews of this lens and every one says the same thing "very versatile not very sharp" I just can't see Spending $600 on a lens that is not sharp as I have said a million times it is a gimmick to put a cheap piece of glass into peoples hands for a big price. I see it as my mission to try and dissuade people who don't know any better from wasting their money on it. As a matter of fact my much maligned stance about this lens should be considered a public service to the poor schlubs that are suckered onto buying it my posts may give them a chance to return it before it is too late. And by the way I do not have to waste my money on a lens to know about it i have been a professional photographer for 10+years and have also worked for Ritz for even longer than that (not that that is anything to brag about) my opinion is not formed from guesswork it is based on knowledge and experience with many different cameras and camera systems over that time. Again peole can do what they want but I just feel it is necesarry to put in my 2 cents especially about this lens. And by the way, to the OP you made an excellent choice with the camera body I just don't like the lens you picked.

:chatty:

you are missing the point of the 18-200....

 

[Mav]

I am not talking about personal opinion. I am taling about FACT the 18-200 from every review I have read AND just knowing the technical limitations of this kind of focal range the fact is this lens is not sharp.

That's pure opinionated nonsense and you don't even own the thing! :lmao:

Here's some reviews for you.

Ken says it's sharp.

My 18 - 200 is as sharp on my picky D200 as my more expensive and exotic lenses. It looks great. It doesn't go soft at either end of the zoom range or wide open. As I always caution, zoom lenses will vary from one another with production variations, and even vary shot-to-shot and region-to-region due to natural mechanical play. I've also used four other samples. One was a little less sharp wide open. Otherwise they were all great.

Thom says it's sharp.

Sharpness is excellent throughout most of the range, with f/11 being the point of maximum sharpness on my sample once you get to 100mm. At the wide angle end, though, there's actually little to distinguish the central area in one aperture from another--go ahead and use maximum aperture if you'd like. At all apertures at 200mm you'll see a bit of softness, with the best apertures being f/11 through f/16. (I should note that I've seen tests from others that say the opposite--that their sample was a tiny bit soft, especially in the corners at 18mm but pretty darned sharp across the board at 200mm. Sample variations do abound at the lower price points. But the conclusions are usually the same: this is a sharp lens across virtually all of its range.)

Bjorn says it's sharp. He seemed to be a bit pickier, but still said it's sharp!

Around 18-24 mm, you get high image sharpness already at f/4-f/5.6, whilst the long end may need stopping down to f/11 to deliver really sharp images.

Photozone says it's sharp. Center sharpness is "Excellent" and just about any focal length and aperture. And the borders remain sharp so long as you're stopped down to about f/8, as you'd be doing anyways if you're shooting a landscape type photo.

It is also a fact that you can get 2 primes (a 50mm 1.8 and an 85 1.8) for the same or less than the price of this lens.

It's also a fact that that arrangement simply won't work for a lot of people, and it's a fact that you're completely missing the point of the 18-200 lens. Yes, that's a fact, not an opinion. Not ALL photography is about critical sharpness at maximum aperture.

I have read plenty of reviews of this lens and every one says the same thing "very versatile not very sharp"

Apparently you missed a few!

I just can't see Spending $600 on a lens that is not sharp

You've NEVER USED IT! How do you KNOW? You DON'T.

as I have said a million times it is a gimmick to put a cheap piece of glass into peoples hands for a big price. I see it as my mission to try and dissuade people who don't know any better from wasting their money on it.

Once again that's your OPINION. And it's ridiculous to be going on tirades against a lens which you have never used, and for which you have obviously been cherry picking negative reviews (which I've never seen or read myself) which reinforce your pre-determined beliefs without having ever shot with the thing while ignoring all others that say it's sharp!

As a matter of fact my much maligned stance about this lens should be considered a public service to the poor schlubs that are suckered onto buying it my posts may give them a chance to return it before it is too late.

Your stance maligns itself.

And by the way I do not have to waste my money on a lens to know about it

:lmao: Obviously there's a limit to that, and you're taking it to the extreme.

i have been a professional photographer for 10+years and have also worked for Ritz for even longer than that (not that that is anything to brag about)

Big whoop. So what? All that shows is that you might know a thing or two about photography, but it doesn't mean you know anything about the 18-200VR. Credible reviewers and opiners all have one thing in common. They've actually USED the products they opine about whereas you don't think it's necessary. Why should I listen to you? I know other people who have very strong opinions about things they know absolutely nothing about, and I ignore and laugh at them too.

my opinion is not formed from guesswork

It IS based on guesswork if you've never used the lens!!

it is based on knowledge and experience with many different cameras and camera systems over that time.

Ah, so it's already been ingrained in your head that superzooms have poor image quality. This is your pre-determined conclusion. So if decades later after this opinion was formed Nikon designed a computer optimized superzoom lens with all of the latest and greatest technologies which is actually sharp throughout most of its range, you'll keep on spewing the same old nonsense. Got it.

It's the 21st century, by the way since you're obviously still living in the last one. Computers are used for everything, and there are modelling and simulation programs for just about everything that have been verified ages ago, and design software that lets you optimize something for production before you've even made the first prototype. It allows much more advanced designs, which are smaller, cheaper, and just plain work better. They don't design lenses on paper anymore.

Again peole can do what they want but I just feel it is necesarry to put in my 2 cents especially about this lens. And by the way, to the OP you made an excellent choice with the camera body [size=+3]I[/size] just don't like the lens you picked.

WTH does it matter if YOU don't like the lens that HE bought? Are you him? Are you paying for his gear? Is he going to shoot JUST like you do? Probably not! Anyways, you know what they say about opinions.

I think a general disclaimer that superzooms in general won't have the image quality or "pop" of ones with lesser ranges or professional zooms or primes is good to throw out there, but your tirades blow that completely out of proportion. I think you offer generally good advice elsewhere, but this is just plain nuts.


:chatty: :chatty: :chatty:

 

[scyzoryk_o4]

Haha ya i think this has gone a bit too far... Anyways i love the lens regardless and will keep it.

Ps Wow thanks Mav, I see you've really got into this lol... good stuff

 

[MarcusM]

geesh..... give the op a break already...

ahhhh....ok....yea, because I was just so rough on him, right....

 

[JIP]

That's pure opinionated nonsense and you don't even own the thing! :lmao:

Here's some reviews for you.

Ken says it's sharp.



Thom says it's sharp.



Bjorn says it's sharp. He seemed to be a bit pickier, but still said it's sharp!



Photozone says it's sharp. Center sharpness is "Excellent" and just about any focal length and aperture. And the borders remain sharp so long as you're stopped down to about f/8, as you'd be doing anyways if you're shooting a landscape type photo.


It's also a fact that that arrangement simply won't work for a lot of people, and it's a fact that you're completely missing the point of the 18-200 lens. Yes, that's a fact, not an opinion. Not ALL photography is about critical sharpness at maximum aperture.

Apparently you missed a few!

You've NEVER USED IT! How do you KNOW? You DON'T.


Once again that's your OPINION. And it's ridiculous to be going on tirades against a lens which you have never used, and for which you have obviously been cherry picking negative reviews (which I've never seen or read myself) which reinforce your pre-determined beliefs without having ever shot with the thing while ignoring all others that say it's sharp!


Your stance maligns itself.


:lmao: Obviously there's a limit to that, and you're taking it to the extreme.

Big whoop. So what? All that shows is that you might know a thing or two about photography, but it doesn't mean you know anything about the 18-200VR. Credible reviewers and opiners all have one thing in common. They've actually USED the products they opine about whereas you don't think it's necessary. Why should I listen to you? I know other people who have very strong opinions about things they know absolutely nothing about, and I ignore and laugh at them too.

It IS based on guesswork if you've never used the lens!!


Ah, so it's already been ingrained in your head that superzooms have poor image quality. This is your pre-determined conclusion. So if decades later after this opinion was formed Nikon designed a computer optimized superzoom lens with all of the latest and greatest technologies which is actually sharp throughout most of its range, you'll keep on spewing the same old nonsense. Got it.

It's the 21st century, by the way since you're obviously still living in the last one. Computers are used for everything, and there are modelling and simulation programs for just about everything that have been verified ages ago, and design software that lets you optimize something for production before you've even made the first prototype. It allows much more advanced designs, which are smaller, cheaper, and just plain work better. They don't design lenses on paper anymore.

WTH does it matter if YOU don't like the lens that HE bought? Are you him? Are you paying for his gear? Is he going to shoot JUST like you do? Probably not! Anyways, you know what they say about opinions.

I think a general disclaimer that superzooms in general won't have the image quality or "pop" of ones with lesser ranges or professional zooms or primes is good to throw out there, but your tirades blow that completely out of proportion. I think you offer generally good advice elsewhere, but this is just plain nuts.


:chatty: :chatty: :chatty:

First of all Ken rockwell is an idiot who is not qulified to review dog turds on the street let alone photography gear. Second all of your ***RAVE*** or seemingly so reviews you posted al seem to say the lens has sharpness issues and you accused me of cherry picking the least you could have done was cherrypick rave reviews or at least ones that would make me want to go out and buy this lens. And by the way just because you use a computer to design crap it doesnt make it gold.

 

[JerryPH]

I hate to tell you this but you did not get a "decent" lens. You got an overpriced marginally sharp lens that is priced for the "all in one" feature rather than image quality.

Don't believe a WORD of this. I have this lens and if you want to see how "terrible" it is, look here. Every picture taken with a D200 and the 18-200 VR lens by ME, so I can vouch for every photo in that set.

JIP is a great guy, but his hate for this lens is legendary (though he defends the 18-70 kit lens as if it was anything but what it was... a cheap kit lens... lol).

Now, as to how bad that lens really is... it is the equal of my $1600 Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 lens in the 50-150 range and at F-stops between F/5-11 (and I am not the only one who says this!!), though it does lose sharpness at either extremes and does vignette (both ridiculously easy to address in post production).

Enjoy your 18-200, becuase I sure am. I know what this lens is... the ultimate walk-around general purpose lens that gives excellent results for what it is. And I say this, despite what ONE SOLE PERSON on this board thinks about it... because I can at least speak from personal experience with this lens, and not hear-say.

 

[JIP]

I have never "defended" the 18-70 kit lens that I have. In fact I regret making the decision to buy it when I bought my gear even though it came with my camera.

 

[Mav]

First of all Ken rockwell is an idiot who is not qulified to review dog turds on the street let alone photography gear.

:chatty: blah blah blah blah... And YOU ARE? All the Ken haters on these forums need to get over themselves and/or seek psychological counseling. It's really not healthy.

Second all of your ***RAVE*** or seemingly so reviews you posted al seem to say the lens has sharpness issues and you accused me of cherry picking the least you could have done was cherrypick rave reviews or at least ones that would make me want to go out and buy this lens.

I knew the first thing you would do when I posted Ken's snippet is launch yet another character assassination on him because people on forums are so ridiculously predictable and monotonous on this. That's why I included multiple reviews.

In case you missed it.

[size=+3]Sample variations do abound at the lower price points. But the conclusions [from other reviewers] are usually the same: this is a sharp lens across virtually all of its range.)[/size]

So what "sharpness issues" would you be speaking of?? Oh wait, you've NEVER USED ONE so you wouldn't know and wouldn't be able to post any examples of what you're talking about either. :roll:

There are some other "IQ" issues with this lens which concern ME specifically which is why I never bought one that have NOTHING to do with sharpness. The sharpness of the lens is great. Had you actually bothered to take a serious look at the lens and do a lot of research on it (and possibly read Ken's own review!) maybe you might have half a clue as to what those issues are, but you don't! Most are addressable in post like Jerry mentioned, but one KEY one for me is not. But then again the lens was never really intended to do well what I wanted to do with it anyways, so no big deal. I got something else.

And by the way just because you use a computer to design crap it doesnt make it gold.

Nobody is saying it's gold (except for maybe Ken) and clearly it won't work for all people. But that doesn't make it a pile of dog turd either, which coincidentally is about what I think of your opinion on this matter.

 

[ukreal1]

I happen to like and get great shots with my 18-70 kits. Reason I am reading is I can't decide whether to order the d300 body only or with the 'kit 18-200'. I already have the 18-70, 55-200VR and 50mm 1.8. Unfortunately I can't afford $1,000's of dollars in glass!

 

[MelodySoul]

I'm jealous! I'm likely going to get the D200 as well but it's on for $1300 at Henry's now. Maybe I'll wait for another sale.

 

[Alpha]

I must say, an objective review of this lens would be one based on optics and construction alone, not personal opinion. Based on its 182mm focal length range and 16 elements in 12 groups, I don't believe anyone could reasonably conclude that it's sharp.

Personal preference is another thing altogether. But let's not pretend that believing it's sharp obviates clearly defined technical details that indicate otherwise.