Opinions on lenses

[ohheckyeah]

I'm getting ready to buy a zoom lens. The choices are the Nikon 18-200 and the Nikon 55-200.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644744-USA/Nikon_2192_AF_S_DX_NIKKOR_18_200mm.html

Nikon AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED Lens

I'm thinking the 18-200 would be the better choice so that I don't have to change lenses while I'm out. I have an 18-55 and a nifty fifty.

Does anyone have experience with either lens?

[jmowreader]

1. Here's a review of it

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/3

Lots of distortion (which changes from pincushion at one end to barrel at the other), pronounced zoom creep, and it's very soft at 135mm. This is kinda to be expected because you can't make a lens with that much zoom range that's good all the way through its range.

I must ask: Is VR a requirement? If not, the best short-tele zoom Nikon ever made is the 70-210 f/4-5.6 D, which you can pick up used for about a hundred bucks any day of the week. I have the pre-D model (same glass, different electronics) and it's nice and sharp throughout its range. The filter thread is 62mm rather than 72mm (read: less expensive filters!) and it's got an aperture ring the new "G" series lenses don't have.

There's also a 70-300 lens floating around that goes for about $100. It's not quite as sharp as the 70-210 (it's still pretty sharp) and those extra 100mm come in real handy sometimes...especially if you photograph things you can't walk up on, like birds.

[ohheckyeah]

14. Thank you very much

for that information.

[Major Nikon]

2. I own both lenses

Along with the 18-55 and many others. Somewhere I have some flickr pics where I compare those two lenses and a few others which I can dig up if you're interested.

Optically speaking the 18-55 and 55-200 combination is arguably much better than the 18-200 and more versatile. The 18-200 is more convienient if you find yourself changing lenses often or just don't want to carry more than one lens. It's also heavier, has a more solid build, and handles better. You will probably be disappointed if you are expecting to make better quality pictures with the 18-200 vs the two lens combo that covers the same range. The 18-200 is weakest on the long end of the lens between 100-200 which is unfortunately where many people want to use it the most. It does perform quite well on the wide end. I use it mostly on the wide end and only on the long end when I have no other choices. The 55-200 optically is a lot better over the same range compared to the 18-200.

Rather than buying a lens and then trying to figure out a use for it, I recommend people figure out what they want to do and then buy a lens that can meet as many of those goals with the least amount of tradeoffs.

[ohheckyeah]

4. Since sharpness is a main

thing for me, maybe I should go with the 55-200. I want a lens for taking nature photos including landscape photos.

Yes, I'm interested in your photos that compare the lenses.

Thanks!

Maybe a better question is, what is the sharpest zoom lens I can get for $600 or less?

[ManiacJoe]

7. Of the two the 55-200mm is the sharper.

If you are willing to push the $600 limit, check out the Nikon 70-300mm VR.

[ohheckyeah]

10. I can get it

refurbished for $439.

What do you think of buying refurbished and/or used from B&H, which has a 90 day warranty.

[ManiacJoe]

11. For the extra $150 price for new, you get a five year warranty.

That said, I have never needed any warranty repairs on my lenses.

Getting a refurb from a good place like B&H would not bother me, especially with free shipping.

[Major Nikon]

12. The 55-200 is a good value

200mm is really the entry point for taking pictures of small animals at decent working distances, but even at that you need to be pretty close. The closer you are the less cropping you'll need to do and cropping robs you of effective sharpness pretty quickly.

The first thing I need to know is what Nikon body you have. The D3XXX and D5XXX series bodies will not autofocus with many Nikon lenses, particularly the older ones available on the used market. So if autofocus is important to you, look for AFS designated lenses in Nikon with either of those series bodies. 3rd party lens manufacturers have different designators, so you'll need to look for lenses with internal focusing motors.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62788945@N08/sets/72157626572470855/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62788945@N08/sets/72157626765431732/

The purposes of those tests is to show that at normal screen resolutions and no cropping, you're not going to notice much difference in sharpness between cheaper lenses and much more expensive ones. Where you really start to notice the difference is with very large prints or when you start cropping significantly.

[ohheckyeah]

13. Your links don't work.

I can an error message.

The camera is a D3200.

[Major Nikon]

15. You'll have to copy and paste the links

DU evidently doesn't like the @ symbol

Assuming you want new, autofocus, and Nikon, the relatively new Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR is a good bet. It's a solid performer for a consumer grade lens and is within your budget. It will complement your 18-55 very well and although you'll loose everything inside of 55-70, I don't think you'll miss it. What's really nice about this lens is that it performs very well on a APS-C camera (like your D3200) even at the maximum aperture. Many consumer grade lenses really need to be stopped down for good to excellent sharpness, but this lens doesn't suffer much of a penalty at maximum aperture. That's a very good thing. Since it's relatively new, it's going to be harder to find on the used market. Here's a good review for it:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/250-nikkor-af-s-70-300mm-f45-56-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report

One thing you should know about consumer grade long telephoto lenses is they inevitably have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 on the long end and are limited by that aperture typically halfway or less of their extent. Where you will notice this most is with focusing in all but the best lighting conditions. Autofocus will tend to hunt more if it works at all and manual focusing won't be much better. This is the tradeoff for lenses that are lighter and cheaper. Professional grade long lenses tend to have maximum aperture in the f/2.8-4 range. Focusing performance is greatly improved in lower lighting conditions, but for this you pay a premium in price, weight, and size.

[NV Whino]

3. I have the 18-200 and a 60 macro

The 18-200 is my go-to lens. it's on the camera more often than not. It's a little soft, but nothing that has bothered me much. I tend to sharpen a bit in post processing.

I don't think you would be disappointed with it. Depending on where you are buying, ask what their return policy is. If they have a good one, buy it, take it for a test drive, and if you don't like it, return it.

[ohheckyeah]

5. I want as sharp as I can get.

I like the idea of the convenience of the 18-200 but don't like that it isn't sharp at 150 - 200.

[ManiacJoe]

6. This quote from SlrGear.com seems...

...to cover the 55-200 v 18-200 comparison quite well:

Optically, the 55-200mm is a bit more solid; sharper at the same focal lengths and apertures, as well as exhibiting less chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting. That said, it is nowhere as versatile as the 18-200mm, which covers the entire range from wide to telephoto, which accounts for and perhaps excuses some of its optical shortcomings.

I have never been a fan of the superzooms like the 18-200mm for their "optical shortcomings". However, the 18-200mm does do well if you don't push its performance envelope. I don't mind changing lenses (a great feature of SLRs), but lots of folks don't mind trading a little image quality for the convenience of not changing lenses.

If you are looking for sharpness without breaking the bank, take a look at the Nikon 70-200mm f/4. Well, OK, maybe that would crack the bank, but it is half the price of the VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II that I have.

Of the consumer-grade lenses, I am a big fan (and owner) of the 70-300mm VR.

[ohheckyeah]

8. Why do you like the 70-300?

is it sharper than the 55 - 200?

[ManiacJoe]

9. It is a little sharper than the 55-200mm

according to the pixel peepers in the labs. Like most zooms, the sharpness falls off a little at the long end (250-300mm), but it is still really good. The 70-300mm VR is one of Nikon's hidden treasures. It has great image quality for its price point and is much smaller and much lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8 I have when I want a "family vacation" lens instead of a "pro photography" lens.

[ohheckyeah]

16. I decided to go with the 55-200

and save up for the 70-200.

[Major Nikon]

17. The Nikkor 70-200/2.8 is an amazing piece of glass

There are actually 2 different versions of it. I have the older first version. I decided not to upgrade when the 2nd version came out due to tradeoffs in handling issues with the 2nd version and the way I use this lens. Thom Hogan does a good review of the 2nd version, including what the differences are:

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm

One thing you'll want to budget for is a good tripod, especially if you want to use this lens for nature photography. This is a big and heavy piece of glass and while it performs well while handholding or with a monopod, a good tripod is something you're almost certainly going to want. If you want to save some money on the tripod, look at the Bogen/Manfrotto 30XX tripods on the used market. You can find a lot of them on ebay. They are build like a tank and made to last forever. They are a lot heavier than carbon fiber, but you get all the stability at a fraction of the cost of a high end carbon fiber tripod.

http://photo.net/learn/nature/bogtri

Other accessories worth considering is a set of Kenko extension tubes (do NOT go with cheaper tubes with this lens). Extension tubes on a lens like this will allow you to focus much closer and explore the world of small creatures which will greatly increase the utility of this lens for nature photography. 2x teleconverters also work pretty well with this lens. I recommend the Kenko N-AF 2x Teleplus Pro 300. This one actually performs as well as my Nikon 2x teleconverters with this lens at a fraction of the cost. Just for fun I actually stacked stacked the Kenko 2x behind one of my Nikon 2x behind this lens (which I don't recommend for most photography) and took a picture of the moon. The results were surprisingly acceptable although certainly not spectacular.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/103612061#post17

[ohheckyeah]

18. I wrote a reply to you and it

didn't post.

I have a new tripod. It's MeFOTO RoadTrip Travel Tripod and I love it.



I'll look into the extension tubes.

Thanks for all the info.

[Major Nikon]

19. For the extension tubes, go with Kenko and go new, not used

The problem with cheaper extension tubes and to some extent with even better older ones is you start to get bad electrical connections. This is a particular problem with heavier lenses and cameras because there's more flexing going on.

People tend to think of extension tubes as a way to do macro with a normal lens, but extension tubes actually allow any lens to focus closer. So if you have a desire to photograph things like butterflies, dragonflies, and similar sized insects and small birds like hummingbirds where you can get close, this lens with a bit of extension is a great way to do it.

[ohheckyeah]

20. Will do.

My photography spending needs to stop for a bit now. Photography certainly isn't cheap.

[justiceischeap]

21. I know I'm a bit late to the thread

but I just wanted to chime in. I've been shooting the 18-200mm a lot lately and I've found it to be pretty darn sharp. It's sweet spot is at f/7.1. I've been looking through Flickr for shots at 200mm and I've found this one at 150mm



(Large size here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/justice_is_cheap/14141538303/sizes/o/)

And this one is 200mm



(Large size here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/justice_is_cheap/14034859795/sizes/o/)

I don't do a lot of sharpening in post, I apply sharpen for screen normal in Lightroom when I export so I don't know how much sharpening that does--however, if the image isn't sharp to begin with, it doesn't do much good.

If I recall correctly, the first was hand-held and the second was on a tripod.

I've found if you're shooting at f/3.5 or f/5.6 it can be soft but I'm not disappointed at f/7.1.

[ohheckyeah]

22. Thanks for the reply....

both photos look pretty sharp and are very nice.

[justiceischeap]

23. Thanks!

No matter what lens you end up getting, make sure you do some research and find out where its sweet spot is. All lenses have them... so setting your lens on a tripod and shooting through the entire range of f/stops should show you where that particular lens is sharpest. The article below explains the process a bit more.

http://digital-photography-school.com/sweet-spots-why-your-f1-8-isnt-so-great-at-f1-8/

[ohheckyeah]

24. I found that out the hard way with the

nifty fifty. It's sweet spot definitely is not f1/8.

[justiceischeap]

25. Nope, it's probably in the 3.5 range. nt