Nikon 28-200 Lens

I've searched (all forums) and seen very few mentions of the Nikon 28-200 zoom.

Why? Is there a problem I should be aware of?
I am about to get an S2 + Nikon 18-35 + Nikon 28-200.

I am aware of the 1.5X factor.
I've seen many of you like the 18-35...
What's the deal with the 28-200?
What am I missing here?

Thanks!
Dr. D.

Dr. D.

I am sure the lens is ok...but I think that is too wide of a focal length to do any pictures realll welllll... You are asking a lens to do too much to cover that wide of a gamut of focal lengths and I think the quality of your pictures will suffer. Some users like to use all prime lenses I personally like to break up my lenses into several smaller zooms. I have a nikor 35-105,macro which is quite nice and a 70-210. These two lenses cover pretty much what your one lens does. I also have a 50mm1.8 nikkor which is a cheap,sharp prime lens for those indoor portrait shots and a 15-30 Sigma to take those wide angle shots of nature. That is just my opinion.

Tony
--
Life is one long surface interval

I was wondering about this lens myself. I was thinking that the lens might work better with the S2 than with a Nikon film body since you have to worry less about corner shapness and light fall off. I know that many people have bought cheaper glass for their digital because the croped section of the lens is pretty sharp no matter what the glass is...

-Scott

Tony Carro said:

Dr. D.
I am sure the lens is ok...but I think that is too wide of a focal
length to do any pictures realll welllll... You are asking a lens
to do too much to cover that wide of a gamut of focal lengths and I
think the quality of your pictures will suffer. Some users like to
use all prime lenses I personally like to break up my lenses into
several smaller zooms. I have a nikor 35-105,macro which is quite
nice and a 70-210. These two lenses cover pretty much what your
one lens does. I also have a 50mm1.8 nikkor which is a cheap,sharp
prime lens for those indoor portrait shots and a 15-30 Sigma to
take those wide angle shots of nature. That is just my opinion.

Tony
--
Life is one long surface interval

Click to expand...

--
-Scott

I find that lenses that worked fine on 35mm film, show their faults with the S2. The reason is the resolution of the CCD seems a bit sharper than 35mm film, so you can NOTICE a lens that isn't REAL sharp pretty easilly, whereas with 35mm film, it just blends into the film grain.

In my opinion.

I have the S2 with a Sigma 28-200 and just purchased a Nikon 28-105 in hopes that I'll be able to obtain a sharper image.

Paul

Scott Martinez said:

-Scott

Tony Carro said:

Dr. D.
I am sure the lens is ok...but I think that is too wide of a focal
length to do any pictures realll welllll... You are asking a lens
to do too much to cover that wide of a gamut of focal lengths and I
think the quality of your pictures will suffer. Some users like to
use all prime lenses I personally like to break up my lenses into
several smaller zooms. I have a nikor 35-105,macro which is quite
nice and a 70-210. These two lenses cover pretty much what your
one lens does. I also have a 50mm1.8 nikkor which is a cheap,sharp
prime lens for those indoor portrait shots and a 15-30 Sigma to
take those wide angle shots of nature. That is just my opinion.

Tony
--
Life is one long surface interval

Click to expand...

--
-Scott

Click to expand...

The reality is that Nikon is coming out with a 70-210 or 70-200, I'm not sure which it will be, and it will have stabilization capabilities. The new lens is claimed to be sharper, have better contrast and have the stabilization feature. Sounds good but it will be more expensive. What else is new! Stuart.

If you read the reviews of 28-200 zooms, you'll find a few things in common and even the Nikon-brand lens can't escape these shortcomings: average to poor performance unless stopped down considerably; small maximum aperture (resulting in darker viewfinders, poorer autofocus); barrel distortion; inability to produce tack-sharp images, etc.

These lenses are okay; they're just not great. They are ideal for when you can't bring along a whole bunch of lenses and need a "one-lens solution." However, I think you can get by with a lens with a much shorter zoom range with a bigger maximum aperture. The 28-105 range is particularly popular, it seems to me. I have also seen Tamron's 24-135 lens mentioned frequently as well.

I suspect that if you end up getting involved in a lot of photography, you ultimately will be unhappy with your 28-200 Nikon lens and then will have to spend more money to get another lens.

Anthony

Dr. D. said:

I've searched (all forums) and seen very few mentions of the Nikon
28-200 zoom.

Why? Is there a problem I should be aware of?
I am about to get an S2 + Nikon 18-35 + Nikon 28-200.

I am aware of the 1.5X factor.
I've seen many of you like the 18-35...
What's the deal with the 28-200?
What am I missing here?

Thanks!
Dr. D.

Click to expand...

I have written about this lens on this forum

I got mine used & find it ideal for taking photos without the fuss of carrying a lot of lenses

its widest aperture is limited & it has a rotating front element when you zoom which makes using a polarizer a bit of a challenge
it has some CA problems at its widest angle, but these are not excessive

the lens is not the sharpest at full zoom, but is really quite good in its middle ranges
here are some examples on the S2







the last picture was taken at 200 mm on the fly & hand held...not sharp but I really like the moment ...I would not have gotten the picture if I didn't have the extra length

I find that I rarely use the lens at full zoom, though I do use it up to about 100 & I like to know that I can get the extra zoom if I need it

oh, the Nikkor 28-200 f 3.5-5.6 is both compact & light...which may be an important consideration for some purposes

for travelling light or when I don't want to carry about a lot of kit, this lens gives me excellent results
--
pbase galleries
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

Anthony,

You explained this right on. What else could be said !

Regards,

David

Anthony said:

These lenses are okay; they're just not great. They are ideal for
when you can't bring along a whole bunch of lenses and need a
"one-lens solution." However, I think you can get by with a lens
with a much shorter zoom range with a bigger maximum aperture. The
28-105 range is particularly popular, it seems to me. I have also
seen Tamron's 24-135 lens mentioned frequently as well.

I suspect that if you end up getting involved in a lot of
photography, you ultimately will be unhappy with your 28-200 Nikon
lens and then will have to spend more money to get another lens.

Anthony

Dr. D. said:

I've searched (all forums) and seen very few mentions of the Nikon
28-200 zoom.

Why? Is there a problem I should be aware of?
I am about to get an S2 + Nikon 18-35 + Nikon 28-200.

I am aware of the 1.5X factor.
I've seen many of you like the 18-35...
What's the deal with the 28-200?
What am I missing here?

Thanks!
Dr. D.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The only wider range zoom that I have seen give good results is the Tamron 24-135 which will give you a 35mm equivalent 35-200 range. I would stay away from the 28-200 or 28-300 zooms. You will be disappointed in the results on your S2. You might also look at the Nikon 28-105 as well. Your choice of the 18-35 is very good. I have that lens and it is reamkably sharp.

Dr. D. said:

I've searched (all forums) and seen very few mentions of the Nikon
28-200 zoom.

Why? Is there a problem I should be aware of?
I am about to get an S2 + Nikon 18-35 + Nikon 28-200.

I am aware of the 1.5X factor.
I've seen many of you like the 18-35...
What's the deal with the 28-200?
What am I missing here?

Thanks!
Dr. D.

Click to expand...

Dr. D. said:

I've searched (all forums) and seen very few mentions of the Nikon
28-200 zoom.

Why? Is there a problem I should be aware of?
I am about to get an S2 + Nikon 18-35 + Nikon 28-200.

I am aware of the 1.5X factor.
I've seen many of you like the 18-35...
What's the deal with the 28-200?
What am I missing here?

Thanks!
Dr. D.

Click to expand...

I had a Nikon 24-120 lens that worked perfectly well when I had a D1, but when I got rid of that and got the S2 I found it to be unacceptably soft, so I got the 28-105 (It's cheaper too). This camera seems to have a knack for showing up the faults in a lens.

Keep shooting,
Paul.