18-105 vs. 18-200 vs. 18-55...

Hi all!

I was comparing my pics the other day and was disappointed to see that the ones made with new 18-200 mm VR II are much less sharp than the ones I'd made with my cheapie kit lens 18-55 mm VR!!! (I have D5000)

Plus, there was a terrible barrel distortion when I took shots at 18 mm of Manhattan skyline with 18-200.

I splurged on 18-200 mm because I'had missed so many photo ops while fumbling with switching lenses. It had great reviews everywhere! However, it makes me cringe when I see the distinct difference in quality between $100 lens and an $800 one. My friend who is using 18-105 mm (with D70s) lens has a lot clearer pictures than mine done with 18-200. She is not using tripod if that matters.
I found good reviews on a couple of sites about 18-105 mm.

I love my trusty 18-55 but I need more zoom without compromising quality and I'd rather not switch lenses when facing a potentially great shot.

It is too late to return 18-200.... I can try to sell it on my own if it comes to that...

Any opnion on whether I should explore 18-105 option will be much appreciated!

I looked into 16-85 mm but it has less zoom and is a lot more expensive than 18-105 mm.....

Thanks so much!

Mine 18-200 has served me well until Sigma 18-250 comes along.

Sample shots:

Nikon 18-200: http://mbr8879576.zenfolio.com/p706947736

Nikon 18-200: http://mbr8879576.zenfolio.com/p201675238

Sigma 18-250: http://mbr8879576.zenfolio.com/p757053293

Sigma 18-250: http://mbr8879576.zenfolio.com/p810029800

Story: http://blog.udn.com/mbr8879576/2490552

By the way, the barrel and pin cushion can easily corrected with $29-39 software like Corel Paint Pro X2.

It is better to have captured the shot than missing the shots due to switching lens ?

"Smart lady can NOT cook a meal without rice"

18-105vr is great lens. I have it. I did not compare it myself with other zooms though.

According to reviews it is optically better than 18-200 and than 16-85 (slightly). Try lens comparison sites like: http://slrgear.com http://photozone.de or http://optyczne.pl (in Polish, Google translate works for it).

Have you checked the 18-200 for focus alignment? If not, do that first, before declaring it defective. Most of the lenses sold today are not aligned perfectly with the camera body they are attached to. This is why micro-focus adjustments exist on the D300/s and the Dx series of bodies. Some lenses are close enough that you will not notice any sloppiness in AF, some are not. The optics are typically aligned as they should be.

Since you have a new lens, contact Nikon's Melville service center and describe the problem. They may have you send it in for adjustment on their dime.

As to barrel distortion, yes, that is something the 18-200 and other lenses with that wide FL have. It can be corrected in post processing - especially easy with NX2. There are a number of applications that will handle the task. What you don't want to try and fix and complex distortion (wavy or moustache) as it is a real anathema for architectural work. BTW, how did you shoot you shoot your buildings? Wide and UWide FL have a big influence on the final rendering if they are used off-axis - then it 's the photographer's fault if he wanted straight lines.

pnkmthy said:

Hi all!

I was comparing my pics the other day and was disappointed to see that the ones made with new 18-200 mm VR II are much less sharp than the ones I'd made with my cheapie kit lens 18-55 mm VR!!! (I have D5000)

Plus, there was a terrible barrel distortion when I took shots at 18 mm of Manhattan skyline with 18-200.

I splurged on 18-200 mm because I'had missed so many photo ops while fumbling with switching lenses. It had great reviews everywhere! However, it makes me cringe when I see the distinct difference in quality between $100 lens and an $800 one. My friend who is using 18-105 mm (with D70s) lens has a lot clearer pictures than mine done with 18-200. She is not using tripod if that matters.
I found good reviews on a couple of sites about 18-105 mm.

I love my trusty 18-55 but I need more zoom without compromising quality and I'd rather not switch lenses when facing a potentially great shot.

It is too late to return 18-200.... I can try to sell it on my own if it comes to that...

Any opnion on whether I should explore 18-105 option will be much appreciated!

I looked into 16-85 mm but it has less zoom and is a lot more expensive than 18-105 mm.....

Thanks so much!

Click to expand...

I have the 18-105VR and it is not optically better than 16-85VR. The problem with the 18-105VR is distortion and it is almost as bad as the 18-200VR. Distortion can be corrected with PT lens but if you shoot people then the correction will distort the people's faces even more. Correction is done by stretching the picture thus altering the faces even though your beach horizon will look beautiful.

The 18-105VR is sharp but there is a reason why the 16-85VR is so overprice. It has less CA and Distortion than the 18-105VR and goes to 24mm (16mm DX). The problem with 18-105VR is that distortion is not just at 18mm. It has noticeable pincushion at 35mm and 50mm portrait range. Big problem! Otherwise beautiful lens and very sharp.

pnkmthy said:

Hi all!

I was comparing my pics the other day and was disappointed to see that the ones made with new 18-200 mm VR II are much less sharp than the ones I'd made with my cheapie kit lens 18-55 mm VR!!! (I have D5000)

Click to expand...

The 18-200 is a compromise lens which has the issues you describe. It's a "jack of all trades, master of none" kind of lens which is OK at everything but not necessarily good at anything. The 18-105VR is also a bit of a compromise and a kit lens as well. While very superior optically, it is constructed in a less sturdy manner. It's made to be a cheap lens. Having said that, if you take a little care, it's fine. I love mine and haven't been able to find a lens to replace it with that's worth 2X (or more) the money.

pnkmthy said:

Plus, there was a terrible barrel distortion when I took shots at 18 mm of Manhattan skyline with 18-200.

Click to expand...

The 18-105VR also has some distortion, which is easily removed with NX2. It is also possible that you are not used to the distortion introduced by very wide angle lenses. You must insure that your lens is square to the ground and not tilted in any way, or you'll really see the difference. I'd try some practice shots, if I were you, prior to ditching the 18-200. I'd also be sure I shot the 18-200 stopped down to f/8 or f/11 to sharpen it up. You'll likely see it get a lot better if you do.

Albertcpa said:

I have the 18-105VR and it is not optically better than 16-85VR. The problem with the 18-105VR is distortion and it is almost as bad as the 18-200VR. Distortion can be corrected with PT lens but if you shoot people then the correction will distort the people's faces even more. Correction is done by stretching the picture thus altering the faces even though your beach horizon will look beautiful.

Click to expand...

It is slightly sharper, though. I don't understand why you'd be shooting people at 18mm or bothering to correct distortion unless buildings were involved. Looking at photozone tells me that the difference isn't that big. The 16-85 does have pincushion as well. The camera will handle the CA for jpegs and NX2 will handle both the CA and distortion if you want it to.

Albertcpa said:

The 18-105VR is sharp but there is a reason why the 16-85VR is so overprice. It has less CA and Distortion than the 18-105VR and goes to 24mm (16mm DX). The problem with 18-105VR is that distortion is not just at 18mm. It has noticeable pincushion at 35mm and 50mm portrait range. Big problem! Otherwise beautiful lens and very sharp.

Click to expand...

Not that big a problem (and one the 16-85 shares) and not intended to be a portrait lens anyway. The 16-85 does real poorly from 86 to 105 as well.

Are you comparing shots between the 18-50 and 18-200 in the same lighting conditions and focal length? My 18-200 is plenty sharp for printing nice and big. It helps to stop down a bit and keep a bit back from the maximum extension. The 18-50 is a great lens if you want to pixel peep, but for practical use, the 18-200 should be plenty sharp enough.

Were you addressing the OP or me? My comment centered on checking the AF alignment with his camera/lens before deciding the lens was no good.

As to wide/ultra-wide, barrel distortion is a feature of those FL's as the field of view is so wide the angle of incidence is quite severe, so correcting for the bending is always going to be required - especially if the lens is not rectilinear by design - to which none of the zooms are. That's one of the compromises to keep the costs down. I just plan on seeing some amount of barrel distortion in the image, even if I am shooting with a 14-24 and fix it accordingly.

Albertcpa said:

I have the 18-105VR and it is not optically better than 16-85VR. The problem with the 18-105VR is distortion and it is almost as bad as the 18-200VR. Distortion can be corrected with PT lens but if you shoot people then the correction will distort the people's faces even more. Correction is done by stretching the picture thus altering the faces even though your beach horizon will look beautiful.

The 18-105VR is sharp but there is a reason why the 16-85VR is so overprice. It has less CA and Distortion than the 18-105VR and goes to 24mm (16mm DX). The problem with 18-105VR is that distortion is not just at 18mm. It has noticeable pincushion at 35mm and 50mm portrait range. Big problem! Otherwise beautiful lens and very sharp.

Click to expand...

Thank you, guys, for advise!~

This site is great!!!

It sounds I have to accept certain limitations of 18-200, deal with them, and weigh pros and cons of convenience of owning it. I can change distortion issues with NX2 and stop down the lense to f8 or f11 (sweet spot?).

You are right, no more pixel peeping! Is it a rookie's disease? After all , some of the greatest photographers had a lot more inferior equipment that we have today and still turned out masterpieces? Plus, I am not planning to sell my pics anytime soon. LOL!

Sharpness isn't everything! It is probably more important for macro shots. But then, 18-55 would do a good job for now (as it did in the past).

Sinecerely,

me

I take pictures at work events such as birthdays, retirements, etc. With the 18-105VR, you have to shoot group pictures are 21mm to avoid barrel distortion found at 18mm. What bothered me is that at 35mm and 50mm, it had a lot of pincusion so anyone sitting in a table or anything with straight lines would show such object bended inward. It is a shame since they should have controlled the pincusion in that range and just leave the distortion for the very wide. Otherwise the lens is very sharp and the VR works well. Fixing distortion with people in the picture is not easy and you need photoshop free transform to touch things up. As far as CA, it is not that easy either even with D90 since some CA has double colors and when you fix the red fringe then a blue or yellow shows up. CA is a tricky business and not that straight forward fixable with software. Best is not to have not of this stuff to begin with. The 18-55VR puts all these lenses to shame optically but it lacks some contrast. It has much less distortion and CA than the others.

Dslr's advantage is being able to use different lenses.

I had the same worries about lens changing, but I resigned myself to the fact that good lenses will not have a huge focal range, especially fast lenses.

I made myself practice lens changes until I can do it very quickly and safely. A large part of being able to switch them fast is the bag that you use. I am not promoting any particular type of bag, but this video demonstrates how important the bag is when doing changes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbVguOK6Q5E
You don't have to be as fast as that guy, but getting faster builds confidence.
I have arrived at about 5 zoom lenses which cover all of what I do.

There's three for outdoor landscape stuff, and two for portrait people stuff. When I go out to shoot a project, I take only the pertinent lenses for that job.

You really need to become a lens changer to reap the benefits of the dslr, otherwise you could probably do fine with one of the bridge cameras with a fixed lens that is wide to long telephoto and pretty fast to boot.
--
Tom Ki
Old too early.....Smart too late.

I've notice quite a few of the longer UWA to Tele zooms suffer from that problem. NX2 does a really good job of fixing distortion. PTLens, IMO, handles complex better. For CA, Nikon has built in compensation for its lenses and the CA I get with the 18-200 in Photoshop goes away for the most part in NX2. It's not perfect, but then I have notice that many more lenses (especially extra long zooms) are showing up with bad CA of one type or another. Compromises to make MSRP affordable (sort of).

From my film days, the zooms have not changed all that much in terms of personality. The zooms longer than 3x in range (very few of them back then) always suffered from bad CA, barrel and pincushion distortion, depending on the FL you were working with. With film there was no fixing it - you tried to hide it as best you could in the darkroom.

When I shoot events for clients I try to keep from using anything longer than 3x spread in FL. I'll shoot with a Tokina 12-24 and keep the FL off 12mm. 24mm is dead flat - and that's perfect for DX format. for telephoto work, a 70-200 works nice and the 18-200 is ok in a pinch - I just have to PP a bit more to make up for a few things.

I like the 18-55, and I like the 17-50 Tokina even better as it has less issue with optical "features".

Albertcpa said:

I take pictures at work events such as birthdays, retirements, etc. With the 18-105VR, you have to shoot group pictures are 21mm to avoid barrel distortion found at 18mm. What bothered me is that at 35mm and 50mm, it had a lot of pincusion so anyone sitting in a table or anything with straight lines would show such object bended inward. It is a shame since they should have controlled the pincusion in that range and just leave the distortion for the very wide. Otherwise the lens is very sharp and the VR works well. Fixing distortion with people in the picture is not easy and you need photoshop free transform to touch things up. As far as CA, it is not that easy either even with D90 since some CA has double colors and when you fix the red fringe then a blue or yellow shows up. CA is a tricky business and not that straight forward fixable with software. Best is not to have not of this stuff to begin with. The 18-55VR puts all these lenses to shame optically but it lacks some contrast. It has much less distortion and CA than the others.

Click to expand...

Not sold by the video.

The guy obviously trying hard to sell his lens bag. So, it is an ad. An ad ? possibly rigged by pasting two piece of footage ? The piece of changing lens may be speedup 20 time ?

I wonder how many lenses accidentally dropped and ruined while shooting these footage ? I notice that his telephoto lens does not have a protective filter lens on.

Travel with a large number of lenses is prone with damage and theft.

I do change lens, if there is time, and the air is clean, free from dust and other weather elements.

Often, the scene / subject will NOT wait for me to change the lens.

I do not make a living by taking photos. I can live with imperfect shots.

The D5K, as CNX2 has it.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emmkayfive/

pnkmthy said:

I love my trusty 18-55 but I need more zoom without compromising quality and I'd rather not switch lenses when facing a potentially great shot.

Click to expand...

You can't have all of this. Either you have quality (and you switch lenses), or you have range (and don't need to switch).

pnkmthy said:

It is too late to return 18-200.... I can try to sell it on my own if it comes to that...

Click to expand...

Keep it and be happy. Make sure your focus is right. Use reasonable shutter speeds. Stop it down a bit. And be happy.

pnkmthy said:

Any opnion on whether I should explore 18-105 option will be much appreciated!

Click to expand...

May be a little sharper, but it also has a lot of barrel distortion at 18 mm.

pnkmthy said:

I looked into 16-85 mm but it has less zoom and is a lot more expensive than 18-105 mm.....

Click to expand...

Remember the thing I said about quality...

Albertcpa said:

As far as CA, it is not that easy either even with D90 since some CA has double colors and when you fix the red fringe then a blue or yellow shows up. CA is a tricky business and not that straight forward fixable with software.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen CA since I got my D300 (when shooting JPEG - same applies for processing RAWs in NX). CA is, of all optical defects, the most easily fixed in software, I'd say.

Albertcpa said:

Best is not to have not of this stuff to begin with. The 18-55VR puts all these lenses to shame optically but it lacks some contrast.

Click to expand...

That's a contradiction in itself. Contrast is part of the optical quality, and a rather important one, too.

You are right. The D90 has some very good algorithms that remove CA. I have not been too successful with software in completly removing CA. When I remove the red then a blue shows and sometimes a yellow. Very frustrating. Anyway, the 18-105VR has a lot of pincusion at 35mm and 50mm even if you forgive the strong barrel at 18mm. Once again, it is a shame because the lens is very sharp and the VR works very well.