Help with Nikon 18-200mm VR (red logo) and bad photos/experience

Dumpickles · May 29, 2015

Hello, I'm new to the forums.

I need help and/or clarification on some things.

Short history. Last year I bought my first DSLR, Nikon D3200, using the kit 18-55mm lens, bought a 35mm/F1.8 and the 70-300mm. For the last year, lots of learning, pictures looked pretty good (great in many cases).

So I just bought a second hand Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR (red logo before the lock button) lens. And here is my problem.

A - No pictures seem to come out as crisp as when I use the kit lens (18-55) or the zoom (70-300).

B - The more zoomed the shot, the more blanched/hazy it seems. I’ve read so much good about this lens, literally everywhere, and so now maybe it’s a bad lens (hence the deal I got second hand).

C – I can’t seem to get good “stop action” shots at any speed (1/1000 to 1/4000) that are as crisp as my 70-300mm ever was.

What’s potentially wrong? Any help and discussion would be very much appreciated as right now I feel like I wasted my money on what everyone reviews as a great all in one travel lens (and I don’t want to take it with me to Hawaii if it’s not going to look as good).

I have some examples of different shots.

Examples for A - Two close up (18mm) BBQ shots. The Beer Can Chicken one is with the 18-55mm. See how crisp it is? The plain chicken BBQ is with the 18-200mm. This one just is “soft”.

Examples for B and C – Picture 1 used 70-300mm @220mm, crisp and clear, Picture 2 using 18-200mm @200mm, hazy/blanched/fuzzy

John Deerfield · May 29, 2015

First, there is no doubt that the 18-55 and the 70-300 (and the 70-300 VR is a very good lens, for a slow lens!) are "better" lenses than the 18-200. The advantage to the 18-200 is that you don't have to swap lenses. Everything in photography is a compromise. Period.

As to the examples... they aren't any help. In the shot you like better, you have a definitive subject (far different framing), taken at a much lower ISO (very different light). You can NOT underestimate the light in an image. For an extreme example, what happens if you take a picture of a stop sign at noon? How about at night? How about in the morning? How about in a foggy morning? What is changing? The light.

This leads to the 2nd set: the light is very different. In one case, the light is falling on the subject's back (the one you like better). And in the other, it is a completely different direction of light with the light falling on the front of the subject. In one shot, the light is "away" from the camera lens. In the other, light is hitting the camera lens. Do this, put your lens on the table. Stand in front of the lens with a small flash light and shine the light on the surface of the lens. Now, slowly move the light in a constant radius, to the left or right until the "color" of the surface of the lens changes. When light directly strikes the surface of the lens, bad things are going to happen. The better the lens, the more controlled these bad things might be, but at some point (flashlight straight on!), it isn't going to matter. It also illustrates the importance of a lens hood. Now one of the bad things that happen: flare. Flare robs you of contrast. And guess what, the 2nd image has less contrast.

That isn't to say that the lens is good or bad copy of the lens. But there certainly isn't anything in the images posted that can't be explained.

Mystery member · May 29, 2015

Dumpickles said:
I need help and/or clarification on some things.

Short history. Last year I bought my first DSLR, Nikon D3200, using the kit 18-55mm lens, bought a 35mm/F1.8 and the 70-300mm. For the last year, lots of learning, pictures looked pretty good (great in many cases).

So I just bought a second hand Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR.

Your test images aren't the best for evaluating the lens:

BBQ shot is with the lens wide open, and the exposure has been biased by the large black BBQ, making the items on the BBQ over-exposed. Apart from that, the rest of the image looks in reasonable focus except where you are running out of depth of field due to the wide aperture.

Soccer shot is at ISO 6400 which makes it very hard to see if the focus is bad. Flare due to direction of sun; does the lens have a poor-quality filter on the front? Note that you are using 1/4000s, but from the pose of the players, they don't seem to be moving very fast; slower SS would have been better.

I'd suggest that you try shooting some resolution charts to eliminate extraneous effects. You have at least one very good lens (35mm f/1.8) and that could act as a benchmark.

Here's the chart that I use; the chart area is about 135x90 cm, and the crop is the sort of resolution that you can expect from the 35mm f/1.8.

Low resolution image for posting.

Full resolution crop. Result of 10+ units is equivalent to 3300 LPPH, which is good.

Bjorn_L · May 29, 2015

Dumpickles said:

Your settings are so wonky it is impossible to tell what is going on.

First photo (with sun at your back)

1/1250

f/5.3

ISO 320

vs second photo (shooting in to the light)

1/4000

f/8

ISO 6400

Why in the world would you shoot at 1/4000 and ISO 6400???

Try:

1/500

f/6.3

ISO 500

for the same exposure, or better still drop the ISO to 400 as it also seems a bit over exposed.

Finally, walk to the other side of the field.

Tips:

Keep the sun on your back (off either shoulder)

Don't use a higher ISO than you need.

So in order to keep the ISO reasonable you're going to have to know what shutter speeds to use. For girls soccer, 1/500 to 1/800 will be plenty.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

chuxter · May 29, 2015

Dumpickles said:
Hello, I'm new to the forums.

I need help and/or clarification on some things.

Yes, you do.

First, you have no clue how to compare lenses [as Bjorn noted].

Second, the 18-200 lens is well known for being a moderately poor lens, especially at the extreme FLs. SO, when you use it at 18mm, that is one of it's BAD FLs. It's even worse at 200mm.

The issue is that nobody can make an 11X zoom lens that covers a large sensor w/o it being huge and very expensive. The 18-55 lens is a 3X zoom lens and it's much easier to have it produce OK images. Everybody know this. ;-)

Sell the 18-200. Vow to not be snookered into buying an extreme zoom lens again [if you are able to see the defects, as you appear to]. Read lens test reports before buying again.

RRowlett · May 30, 2015

Your results have little or nothing to do with the image quality of the lens. What you are seeing is the effects of how you are employing autofocus and the effects of depth of field. At long focal lengths, depth of field will be limited and only objects at the same distance as the focus point will be in sharp focus. This effect will be more pronounced when you use wide apertures. You will profit from studying some beginner digital photography books to learn how choices of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and autofocus modes affect images. The 18-200 is a very capable lens but has its limitations.

Those who are telling you your equipment is junk are oversimplifying at best and misinformed at worst.

Cheers.

Dumpickles · May 31, 2015

Thank you all for your comments. I'm a little surprised to hear one if you say the lens is a poor lens because I've never read one bad thing about it anywhere.
I realized once I posted the pictures that my ISO reading were all over the place. Even though I control the ISO manually I'm guessing my auto ISO control is on and taking over because I have never shot at 6400 on purpose. I'll chalk that up to being another newbie experience in my 1 year learning so far. So I have much more to learn.
Had I not posted these pictures I would not have already learned some of my mistakes.
From my own personal experience, I have hundreds of amazing pictures from my daughters soccer games all outdoors last year by just using my 70-300 at 1/4000. And I have many great portrait shots. So this new lens threw me for a loop when none of the pictures were even in the same caliber. Not even close.
So the learning continues.
I'm going to keep trying to play with this lens and see what happens. I just really liked the idea of a vacation with only one all in one lens rather than carry my bag with me. But I won't at the sacrifice of not as good photos.

Again thanks to all who are helping me. I do appreciate it.
I finally decided to join this forum after a year if simply reading it so that I can post my own specific questions and examples so that I can learn. That's what this beginners forum is for after all right?

chuxter · May 31, 2015

RRowlett said:
The 18-200 is a very capable lens but has its limitations.

That was my message.

RRowlett said:
Those who are telling you your equipment is junk are oversimplifying at best and misinformed at worst.

I'm not misinformed, so I must be simplifying it? Anybody who says an 18-200 lens has good IQ at 18mm or 200mm is either blind or non-discerning. Read the test reports!

RRowlett said:
Cheers.

Guidenet · May 31, 2015

I pretty much agree with Charlie, chuxter, on this. I would never purchase a 10x or higher ratio zoom lens and expect good image quality. Moreover, I've not seen many reviews which claim otherwise. Most I've read say there are heavy compromises which can and do affect image quality.

Your posted photos do not really do this lens justice, but it's still not my choice. I find many of the images from these type lenses to be lower contrast and often somewhat muddy in comparison to better glass.

Below are some snips of review conclusions on this lens. They also said some decent things, but in no way would I consider the reviews very good. Also understand, this particular Nikon lens might be one of the best of this kind of lens. That's why I avoid them all. Personally, when traveling, I want better, not worse.

Example from Photozone:

"In summary the Nikkor is a very capable super zoom lens, however one should be aware of its flaws and limitations in the field. They are the price to pay for the convenience of carrying just a single lens."

Example from SLR Gear:

"An old expression says that there's never a free lunch, and this is especially true with lenses. In the case of the Nikon 18-200, the tradeoffs are somewhat soft corners at maximum aperture and medium focal lengths and somewhat high geometric distortion across a range of focal lengths."

Example from DPReview:

"Just occasionally, the old cliches are still the best, and with the 18-200mm VR the phrase 'jack of all trades, master of none' springs immediately to mind. It's a lens which delivers somewhat flawed results over its entire zoom range; where it's sharp, it has heavy distortion, and when that distortion comes under control at the long end, it loses sharpness. Its close-up performance is reasonable, but not spectacular, and overall it will likely be outperformed optically by a cheaper combination of standard and telephoto zooms. So for a certain type of photographer interested mainly in absolute image quality, this may well cause it to be regarded as nothing more than an expensive snapshot lens."

mgd43 · May 31, 2015

In absolute terms a superzoom like an 18-200 or 18-300 will not be as good optically as using two or three lower ratio zooms. However there is a big difference between "not as good" and "junk". While sharpness and distortion can be measured objectively, what is good, acceptable, or junk is subjective. Many fine photographer find their superzooms to have perfectly acceptable image quality. This is especially true of the newer ones.

A lot also depends on how you view your images. Many superzooms can make very good to excellent 8x10 prints. If one is going to make 20x30 prints, a superzoom may not be good enough. If one is a pixel peeper, a superzoom won't be good enough. But if one only views one's photos on a iPad or computer, or if they don't make prints much larger than 11x14, they may very well be happy with their superzoom.

Image quality is important, but it is only one factor in the usefulness of a lens. I do a lot of shooting on the street and in the parks of NYC. I find that my superzooms (I now use a Sigma 18-300) have saved me from missing a lot of shots that I used to miss when I used primes and lower ratio zooms.

RRowlett · May 31, 2015

chuxter said:
RRowlett said:

The 18-200 is a very capable lens but has its limitations.

Click to expand...

That was my message.

chuxter said:

Those who are telling you your equipment is junk are oversimplifying at best and misinformed at worst.

Click to expand...

I'm not misinformed, so I must be simplifying it? Anybody who says an 18-200 lens has good IQ at 18mm or 200mm is either blind or non-discerning. Read the test reports!

chuxter said:

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Image quality is subjective and context-dependent. Suggesting that the OP is getting "bad" images because he has a superzoom lens is unhelpful. Reading test reports and buying pro-wuality lenses won't make you a better photographer. The 18-200 will be able to make excellent images in the hands of even of an amateur if used well. Including 18 or 200 mm. I've made art-quality images with a 6 Mpixel D100 and far "worse" lenses. The OP issues are related to operator inexperience, not equipment.

RRowlett · May 31, 2015

One way to get more out of your lenses (18-200 and 70-300) is to learn how to shoot in A mode. Choose an aperture to give you the desired DOF and then check the shutter speed to verify it is appropriate for the focal length. A shutter speed of 1/2f is enough to combat camera shake, where f is the focal length. With VR you can cheat a couple stops slower. For action, 1/500 is probably fast enough to stop motion blur. 1/4000 is overkill. Auto-iso is OK but set an upper limit. On a D7100 iso 3200 is still pretty good. If you want a good starting point to experiment, set f/8 and auto-iso, or set P mode and note how your cameras adjusts settings.

For more DOF, set smaller apertures, f/8 or even f/11. For sports, wide open mostly. For still subjects, use AF-S single point mode. For sports, consider AF-C and maybe 9-point or 3D focus modes. Experiment! You can self evaluate your results. Get a book to learn more. Don't worry about your equipment. Enjoy!

BTW, I carry an "amateur" 18-140 DX lens most of the time on my D7100. Its plenty sharp to make large prints. I don't worry about it. The focal length range allows me to be ready for all sorts of image opportunities.

JamesGaston · May 31, 2015

The Nikon 18-200vr is a fine lens for what it is. I bought one when I was shooting DX with the intention of using it for hiking and it served me very well. It's not a low-light lens, though VR helps. My main complaint was serious lens creep. If you shoot DX and only want to take one lens and you shoot during daylight it is a fine lens.

chuxter · May 31, 2015

RRowlett said:
chuxter said:

RRowlett said:

The 18-200 is a very capable lens but has its limitations.

Click to expand...

That was my message.

RRowlett said:

Those who are telling you your equipment is junk are oversimplifying at best and misinformed at worst.

Click to expand...

I'm not misinformed, so I must be simplifying it? Anybody who says an 18-200 lens has good IQ at 18mm or 200mm is either blind or non-discerning. Read the test reports!

RRowlett said:

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Image quality is subjective and context-dependent. Suggesting that the OP is getting "bad" images because he has a superzoom lens is unhelpful. Reading test reports and buying pro-wuality lenses won't make you a better photographer. The 18-200 will be able to make excellent images in the hands of even of an amateur if used well. Including 18 or 200 mm. I've made art-quality images with a 6 Mpixel D100 and far "worse" lenses. The OP issues are related to operator inexperience, not equipment.

I agree, of course. Part of the "problem" that the OP has w/ the 18-200 lens is, as you say, inexperience. For example, his first image:

Loading…

3.static.img-dpreview.com

Was taken at 18mm and wide open. Those are NOT settings that will give sharp results across the frame.

The other image was partly back-lit and thus had low contrast. Again, inexperience.

Dumpickles · Jun 1, 2015

RRowlett said:
The OP issues are related to operator inexperience, not equipment.

I think that this is probably the issue (but I was still concerned about buying a lens second hand from kijiji rather than a store). And, being an operator inexperience issue, that is why I have posted here...for help. Thank you RRowlett.

I don't need to have a bunch of mediocre reviews posted to prove a point, because I can just go and get the amazing reviews and post back. It's not ping pong ball here. I'm simply asking for help, and so far, I've had a massive learning curve on ISO, digital noise, and sharpness all this past weekend. I set up my camera on a tripod and took shots at varying specs, and would do the same with other lenses, and compare them all...

Thank you again.

Guidenet · Jun 1, 2015

Dumpickles said:
RRowlett said:

The OP issues are related to operator inexperience, not equipment.

Click to expand...

I think that this is probably the issue (but I was still concerned about buying a lens second hand from kijiji rather than a store). And, being an operator inexperience issue, that is why I have posted here...for help. Thank you RRowlett.

I don't need to have a bunch of mediocre reviews posted to prove a point, because I can just go and get the amazing reviews and post back. It's not ping pong ball here. I'm simply asking for help, and so far, I've had a massive learning curve on ISO, digital noise, and sharpness all this past weekend. I set up my camera on a tripod and took shots at varying specs, and would do the same with other lenses, and compare them all...

Thank you again.

You know, you're getting very defensive and missing the reason some of us responded the way we did. I carefully researched and posted links to those reviews from three of the most reputable sites who actually use a laboratory as part of their testing. I crafted it this way so you could take the link and read the good and the bad. This way you could make a decision whether or not you wished to keep the lens and learn how to use the strong points. I thought you wanted to decide whether or not you'd take this lens or two better models on your holiday.

I don't do ping pong arguments, don't care about proving a point or really could now care less what you choose to take on vacation. You want help, but don't seem concerned about learning both the strong and weak points of your lens. So be it. Providing help is not a game. Had I wanted to prove some point or just denigrate your choice, I'd have not included those links or suggested you read the good and the bad.

There are obvious learning issues both with respect to you and your use of that kind of glass. Unlike some of us, there are others who actually like super ratio zooms. Those people read reputable review sites to gather information as well as to ask others in order to form strategies they might use to work around the underlying weakness of the design.

It seems to me your choice would be to sell the lens or learn to work around those weaknesses, accepting those issues which can't be resolved.

Take care.

Dumpickles · Jun 1, 2015

Guidenet said:
Dumpickles said:

RRowlett said:

The OP issues are related to operator inexperience, not equipment.

Click to expand...

I think that this is probably the issue (but I was still concerned about buying a lens second hand from kijiji rather than a store). And, being an operator inexperience issue, that is why I have posted here...for help. Thank you RRowlett.

I don't need to have a bunch of mediocre reviews posted to prove a point, because I can just go and get the amazing reviews and post back. It's not ping pong ball here. I'm simply asking for help, and so far, I've had a massive learning curve on ISO, digital noise, and sharpness all this past weekend. I set up my camera on a tripod and took shots at varying specs, and would do the same with other lenses, and compare them all...

Thank you again.

Click to expand...

You know, you're getting very defensive and missing the reason some of us responded the way we did. I carefully researched and posted links to those reviews from three of the most reputable sites who actually use a laboratory as part of their testing. I crafted it this way so you could take the link and read the good and the bad. This way you could make a decision whether or not you wished to keep the lens and learn how to use the strong points. I thought you wanted to decide whether or not you'd take this lens or two better models on your holiday.

I don't do ping pong arguments, don't care about proving a point or really could now care less what you choose to take on vacation. You want help, but don't seem concerned about learning both the strong and weak points of your lens. So be it. Providing help is not a game. Had I wanted to prove some point or just denigrate your choice, I'd have not included those links or suggested you read the good and the bad.

There are obvious learning issues both with respect to you and your use of that kind of glass. Unlike some of us, there are others who actually like super ratio zooms. Those people read reputable review sites to gather information as well as to ask others in order to form strategies they might use to work around the underlying weakness of the design.

It seems to me your choice would be to sell the lens or learn to work around those weaknesses, accepting those issues which can't be resolved.

Take care.

Dumpickles · Jun 1, 2015

RRowlett said:
One way to get more out of your lenses (18-200 and 70-300) is to learn how to shoot in A mode. Choose an aperture to give you the desired DOF and then check the shutter speed to verify it is appropriate for the focal length. A shutter speed of 1/2f is enough to combat camera shake, where f is the focal length. With VR you can cheat a couple stops slower. For action, 1/500 is probably fast enough to stop motion blur. 1/4000 is overkill. Auto-iso is OK but set an upper limit. On a D7100 iso 3200 is still pretty good. If you want a good starting point to experiment, set f/8 and auto-iso, or set P mode and note how your cameras adjusts settings.

For more DOF, set smaller apertures, f/8 or even f/11. For sports, wide open mostly. For still subjects, use AF-S single point mode. For sports, consider AF-C and maybe 9-point or 3D focus modes. Experiment! You can self evaluate your results. Get a book to learn more. Don't worry about your equipment. Enjoy!

BTW, I carry an "amateur" 18-140 DX lens most of the time on my D7100. Its plenty sharp to make large prints. I don't worry about it. The focal length range allows me to be ready for all sorts of image opportunities.

I will try sometime this week. Thanks.

Bjorn_L · Jun 1, 2015

Dumpickles said:
Guidenet said:

Dumpickles said:

RRowlett said:

The OP issues are related to operator inexperience, not equipment.

Click to expand...

I think that this is probably the issue (but I was still concerned about buying a lens second hand from kijiji rather than a store). And, being an operator inexperience issue, that is why I have posted here...for help. Thank you RRowlett.

I don't need to have a bunch of mediocre reviews posted to prove a point, because I can just go and get the amazing reviews and post back. It's not ping pong ball here. I'm simply asking for help, and so far, I've had a massive learning curve on ISO, digital noise, and sharpness all this past weekend. I set up my camera on a tripod and took shots at varying specs, and would do the same with other lenses, and compare them all...

Thank you again.

Click to expand...

You know, you're getting very defensive and missing the reason some of us responded the way we did. I carefully researched and posted links to those reviews from three of the most reputable sites who actually use a laboratory as part of their testing. I crafted it this way so you could take the link and read the good and the bad. This way you could make a decision whether or not you wished to keep the lens and learn how to use the strong points. I thought you wanted to decide whether or not you'd take this lens or two better models on your holiday.

I don't do ping pong arguments, don't care about proving a point or really could now care less what you choose to take on vacation. You want help, but don't seem concerned about learning both the strong and weak points of your lens. So be it. Providing help is not a game. Had I wanted to prove some point or just denigrate your choice, I'd have not included those links or suggested you read the good and the bad.

There are obvious learning issues both with respect to you and your use of that kind of glass. Unlike some of us, there are others who actually like super ratio zooms. Those people read reputable review sites to gather information as well as to ask others in order to form strategies they might use to work around the underlying weakness of the design.

It seems to me your choice would be to sell the lens or learn to work around those weaknesses, accepting those issues which can't be resolved.

Take care.

Click to expand...

PHXAZCRAIG · Jun 1, 2015

I've had a lot of experience with the 18-200 lens - 3 different copies. I had one on a D200 and used it for about 2 years, quite a lot. It was damaged and replaced with a new one. My wife also has one on her D80.

All three were new when acquired, and all three are the same as near as I can tell. All were the original version, which is the same optically as the later version.

I think you *might* just be seeing the limitations of the lens. It was, back in 2007 when I got it, the least-sharp current lens Nikon made to my knowledge. Perhaps the 18-300 is less sharp, but I don't know.

I certainly think that the 18-200 is not as sharp as the 18-55/55-200 combo, and I'm not alone there. You pay for the convenience of the focal range.

It has it's strong points and weak points. For strengths, it's of course convenient, it has good VR, it has excellent flare control, and it is sharper on the wide end for closer subjects. CA control is good.

The weaknesses are softer performance on the longer end and for more distant subjects.

I became gradually aware of and disillusioned by the sharpness of the lens, particularly when I tried to print landscapes 'big' (13x19 inch). This image was the one that started that process:

F8, 44mm, D200 with 18-200vr on tripod

That may be sharp enough for a lot of people, but I was wanting more. And that was on a 10mp camera.

All lenses are compromises being various features, IQ and price. All lenses have IQ compromises made in the design, some for price, some for weight, some for bokeh, some for flare control, etc, etc. It is always worth knowing the limitations of your lenses, and the strengths, so you can work around issues.

Assuming you don't simply have 'a bad copy', you may be able to live with the lens by shooting it differently. Or simply choosing another lens for certain subjects.

I pulled a bunch of old vacation shots taken with the 18-200 over a couple of years on D80, D200 and D300 and put them up on a web page here: http://www.cjcphoto.net/lenstests/18-200/index.html

Those shots seemed representative of the better and average results I (and my wife) got from the lens. I really like some of those shots, even now when I have much better lenses on cameras with a lot more pixels. But few of them are as sharp as I'd have liked.

--
Craig
www.cjcphoto.net

Help with Nikon 18-200mm VR (red logo) and bad photos/experience

New member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

New member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Pro

New member

Forum Pro

New member

New member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts