Reading mode: Light Dark

Who says the 18.200mm is too soft?

Go to last post
its a nice picture ,but not particulaly sharp .
it does not prove nor disprove any 18-200 sharpness or softness claims.

the 18-200 is a bit of a lucky dip lens , I had one that was rubbish , Fletch has a cracker , I bought a 17-55 that is bang on razor sharp , but others have had one and could not get a decent image .

there are a couple of Zooms produced by nikon that seem to vary from one to another .it maybe inconsistant quality control .maybe design faults .
But I have a bit of advice to buyers ,try before you buy .
 
TITCHY wrote:
its a nice picture ,but not particulaly sharp .
it does not prove nor disprove any 18-200 sharpness or softness claims.

the 18-200 is a bit of a lucky dip lens , I had one that was rubbish , Fletch has a cracker , I bought a 17-55 that is bang on razor sharp , but others have had one and could not get a decent image .

But I have a bit of advice to buyers ,try before you buy .

I agree with TITCHY. My 18-200 was a shocker, too soft at all focal lengths and apertures and also suffered the dreaded lens creep; very annoying and disappointing.
--
Cheers,
Jack
 
Mine is about average. Not that sharp but i never thought a lens with that kind of range and that kind of price would be very sharp. It has a little lens creep between the mid range if I'm holding it lens down vertically...but I rarely carry it this way and if I am then it's between shots so I don't care.

I bought the lens as a walk around, general purpose lens for my D200 and for that it's excellent. If I need a very sharp image for a specific shot then I get the D700 out with better glass.
 
--
'Let my heart be broken by the things that break the heart of God.'
===============
Nikon D300 - MB-D10 - SB800 - TC-14EII TC-17EII TC-20EII
Nikon 24-70(2.8), 105VR(2.8), 70-200 VR(2.8), 300VR(2.8)
http://wretchedradio.com
 
Well, downsized about 5x it looks sharp. I'm not saying the 18-200 DX VR is sharp, or not sharp, or anything, but that picture shows exactly nothing. A lens will need to have a serious optical problem for it to be visible at this size.
 
I agree with the above comments. The sharpness of some lenses has to be seen to be believed. Everyone thinks their sharpest lens is as sharp as it gets. Until they see something sharper.

It's a convenient lens, but frankly I'd rather use a pinhole camera.

--
My photos:
http://nickburton.smugmug.com/
 
With a good 18-200, you make it much sharper!

I was not very happy with my 18-200 and sent it once to Nikon to see what they can do!
Now, I think it is quite OK!
here are some samples:









--
Louis
 
While my 18-200 was being repaired for 3 weeks, I had been using Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 when my 18-200 came back and I put it on, I noticed just how much softer it was in comparison with the Sigma which is razor sharp.
--
Nikon D300- Nikon D40X- Panny TZ5- Sanyo E2
Previously owned DSLRS: Canon 40D, Nikon D40

 
Pic about nothing.
What does it mean: no sharpening applied? No in-body, or no in PP or?
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries

D300::D50::ZEISS25/2.8::N24-70::N18-200VR::N35/1.8::S10-20::S150Macro::N50/1.8::SB600::sb400
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top