michaeladawson
Forum Pro
Sad. To buy a D4 and then be looking to pair it with consumer grade lenses.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
using 18-200 vr dx on nikon d4?
- Thread starter JCd7000
- Start date
M
mlewan
Guest
Some people might say that you show a complete lack of imagination, but I agree that image quality must be top priority.
A friend of mine recently witnessed a bank robbery. Unfortunately, the only camera he had available was a D3300 with an 18-200mm lens, which his girlfriend had left with him while she was going to the bathroom.
Well aware that the police hardly would be happy with the bokeh of such a miserable lens, he did not bother taking any photo of the robbers, as they ran past him towards an escape car a hundred feet away.
(Made up story, in case anyone wonders.)
To the OP
If you were happy with your 18-200mm on DX then I think you will be happy with a 28-300mm on a D4. I had both 18-200mm on a D7000 and a 28-300mm on D800. The FX combination was better in most mays. My 18-200mm was obviously smaller and lighter, but my copy was also decent at 18mm, a little better than my 28-300mm at 28mm on FX. Overall I think the FX lens is better. Your d4 will not show up the flaws of the 28-300mm as much as a D800. You could by a 28-300mm used as a short term solution and then add more and better lenses later if you feel the need. If you then sell the 28-300mm you will have lost almost nothing.
I had my 28-300mm initially on the D7000 and successfully printed 20x30 inches. Even though a D4 would be using the corners that the D7000 does not, I’m sure it would be fine to print a D4 + 28-300mm image at that size. Quality will be more linked to composition and shot discipline. Doing some printing testing as you suggest is a good idea. Only you can decide where to get off the “diminishing IQ returns for cost” elevator.
You also mention maybe getting a 70-300mm. I have not used one personally, but not read any reviews that convince me it offers much over the 28-300mm. If I were in your position and looking to get coverage first then I would start with the 28-300mm and then add in other lenses that meet your needs.
A lot of people on this forum will tell you that using a consumer lens on a D4 is foolish. While they are correct that you will not be getting the best out of your D4 by doing so, it is up to you to decide what you value most. Using an 18-200mm on DX is equally not getting the best out of a DX camera. That isn’t any less true just because the DX camera is cheaper, but it is reasonable to point out that for the cost of the D4 there may be other ways to spend your money that would be better from an IQ perspective.
The real strengths of the D4 are focus capability and high ISO shots. A 28-300mm is not the best choice for either, but for landscapes I doubt focus will be the main factor. Because the 28-300mm is a slow lens it arguably helps to put it on a body that can handle high ISO well. The holy trinity of f2.8 zooms will give you better IQ, much better focus speed and more speed / light collecting, truly maximising the D4 capability. They will cost you much more, require lens changes, be heavier and miss the 200-300mm focal range. Choose your compromise.
I also see the Ferrari with poor types comparison has been wheeled out again. Sure a D4 is expensive, but it is not a Ferrari. The D4 is a vey flexible tool that is expensive, more like a BMW X5. I see many X5s that rarely use their higher ground clearance and 4WD capabilities, similar to using a D4 with a consumer lens. A Ferrari is a precision performance machine that compromises on many things to give high performance in a narrower envelope, as is really expensive. In camera terms, that would be more like a digital medium format back. The Ferrari on poor types would be more like a Phase One on a poor tripod.
Part of the reason you are getting the responses seen so far is your needs are not clearly articulated. If you need a generalist camera, like landscape sots and have DX lenses that would suggest there are other ways to spend your money than on a D4. If you need 10fps, high ISO and vertical grip, well that is a different use case. That might be where the high school seniors come in, but again other may suggest less FPS, but a better lens or flashes might be more useful. If you do go for the D4 though I’m sure you will really enjoy a fine camera.
If you were happy with your 18-200mm on DX then I think you will be happy with a 28-300mm on a D4. I had both 18-200mm on a D7000 and a 28-300mm on D800. The FX combination was better in most mays. My 18-200mm was obviously smaller and lighter, but my copy was also decent at 18mm, a little better than my 28-300mm at 28mm on FX. Overall I think the FX lens is better. Your d4 will not show up the flaws of the 28-300mm as much as a D800. You could by a 28-300mm used as a short term solution and then add more and better lenses later if you feel the need. If you then sell the 28-300mm you will have lost almost nothing.
I had my 28-300mm initially on the D7000 and successfully printed 20x30 inches. Even though a D4 would be using the corners that the D7000 does not, I’m sure it would be fine to print a D4 + 28-300mm image at that size. Quality will be more linked to composition and shot discipline. Doing some printing testing as you suggest is a good idea. Only you can decide where to get off the “diminishing IQ returns for cost” elevator.
You also mention maybe getting a 70-300mm. I have not used one personally, but not read any reviews that convince me it offers much over the 28-300mm. If I were in your position and looking to get coverage first then I would start with the 28-300mm and then add in other lenses that meet your needs.
A lot of people on this forum will tell you that using a consumer lens on a D4 is foolish. While they are correct that you will not be getting the best out of your D4 by doing so, it is up to you to decide what you value most. Using an 18-200mm on DX is equally not getting the best out of a DX camera. That isn’t any less true just because the DX camera is cheaper, but it is reasonable to point out that for the cost of the D4 there may be other ways to spend your money that would be better from an IQ perspective.
The real strengths of the D4 are focus capability and high ISO shots. A 28-300mm is not the best choice for either, but for landscapes I doubt focus will be the main factor. Because the 28-300mm is a slow lens it arguably helps to put it on a body that can handle high ISO well. The holy trinity of f2.8 zooms will give you better IQ, much better focus speed and more speed / light collecting, truly maximising the D4 capability. They will cost you much more, require lens changes, be heavier and miss the 200-300mm focal range. Choose your compromise.
I also see the Ferrari with poor types comparison has been wheeled out again. Sure a D4 is expensive, but it is not a Ferrari. The D4 is a vey flexible tool that is expensive, more like a BMW X5. I see many X5s that rarely use their higher ground clearance and 4WD capabilities, similar to using a D4 with a consumer lens. A Ferrari is a precision performance machine that compromises on many things to give high performance in a narrower envelope, as is really expensive. In camera terms, that would be more like a digital medium format back. The Ferrari on poor types would be more like a Phase One on a poor tripod.
Part of the reason you are getting the responses seen so far is your needs are not clearly articulated. If you need a generalist camera, like landscape sots and have DX lenses that would suggest there are other ways to spend your money than on a D4. If you need 10fps, high ISO and vertical grip, well that is a different use case. That might be where the high school seniors come in, but again other may suggest less FPS, but a better lens or flashes might be more useful. If you do go for the D4 though I’m sure you will really enjoy a fine camera.
M
mlewan
Guest
Not my experience. The 28-300mm has been one of my biggest lens disappointments. I think the 18-200mm on DX is acceptable for some purposes, but I have not found any situation where the 28-300mm was acceptable for my needs. I just made a comparison at DXOmark , and it funnily enough confirms my concerns. Even mounted on a D4, the 28-300 has troubles in many areas catching up with a humble 18-200mm mounted on a little D7100.
Not knowing the exact needs or the personality of the OP, I prefer to not give any recommendation. But to some of my friends who just look for a superzoom, I would say: stay away from FX cameras. Go for DX and take for example the 18-200mm.
Then there are of course variations, where someone may have one high quality prime, like a Sigma Art or a Zeiss Otus and in addition want the ability to use a superzoom. Then an FX camera can make sense. But preferably not the Nikon 28-300mm - in my experience.
There is no "right" or "wrong" choice. One sacrifices IQ for a flexibility, the other gives up on flexibility for IQ. To each his own.
I know of another story.
A friend of mine recently witnessed a bank robbery. Unfortunately, the only camera he had available was a D750 with a 24-70 mm f2.8 lens. He did not have his girlfriend's D3300 with a 18-200.
Well aware that he was far away and the police hardly would be happy with the resolution of a heavily cropped picture, he reached out for his 70-300 lens. But by the time he's done fumbling changing lens, the robbers had already run away towards an escape car a hundred feet further away.
Same here. One can make up stories that "proves" anything he wants.
Although in practice I can say that I have missed a few shots because I did not have the lens with the right focal range, and there was not enough time to switch. The top IQ lens is not always the right one to have. And I'd rather have a 18-200 image than none at all.
thanks you. your reply was actually helpful unlike many here. my plane is to use my 18-200 and eventually get the fx version.
everyone here almost is quick to diss the 18-200. i know its not a gold ring lens or a top end lens... but its not a low grade kit lens like the 18-55...
its served my purpose for many years on my d40 and d7000...
anyone who claims the d4 paired the the 18-200 is stupid and won't print are very wrong. before i purchased my d4 i spent half a day with in on my 18-200... got a couple nice shots and went to the print shop and printed 20x24 i believe it was. they were flawless.
i am planing on going into fx lenses soon this is just a stepping stone.
everyone here almost is quick to diss the 18-200. i know its not a gold ring lens or a top end lens... but its not a low grade kit lens like the 18-55...
its served my purpose for many years on my d40 and d7000...
anyone who claims the d4 paired the the 18-200 is stupid and won't print are very wrong. before i purchased my d4 i spent half a day with in on my 18-200... got a couple nice shots and went to the print shop and printed 20x24 i believe it was. they were flawless.
i am planing on going into fx lenses soon this is just a stepping stone.
Not the one with aperture. It is the g version made in Thailand. The g version is lighter, smaller and sharper. I bought one when I used my old Fuji S3 then D7000. It performed well but not wide enough. When I bought my D800e, I have used it several times for travel. The system works quite well although some friends often joke me to put such a cheap lens on an expensive gear. If you had it, you may end up something similar.
M
mlewan
Guest
Ehm... The "low grade kit lens" 18-55 actually performs better in that interval than the 18-200mm, as far as I know. The 18-200 is much more expensive, but that is because of the zoom capabilities - not because it would be any sharper or have less distortion in the focal range 18-55mm.
It would be wrong to assume that everything expensive is better for all purposes than everything cheap. The phrase "you get what you pay for" is usually wrong, in my experience.
Some people always go for the cheapest of everything, because they cannot afford anything better. I guess that is an ok strategy.
Some people always go for the most expensive of everything, because they assume that must be the best product. That is irrational.
Some people ignore the prices of everything completely. They check out what is best for their particular needs. Then they check the prices, and remove everything they cannot afford from the shopping list. I guess that is the most efficient strategy.
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
LOL. You're the one that went out and bought a D4. Why? You couldn't use the tools you had on hand?
grazuncle
Veteran Member
Most modern Nikkor lenses are designed to be sharper at wide apertures, now, than in the past. You needed to go to middle apertures to get something decent out of them.. That want the case when the 18-200 came out. I'm amazed at the little 18-55 vr.. it's a gem for IQ..
Not build though.. But then it is not an expensive piece of glass is it.
ImageAmateur
Veteran Member
The main advantage of the 18-200 DX over the 18-55 , or over many lenses in fact, is that it is heavier yet quite compact, so one can throw it further (a bit of weight helps in throwing, cuts through the air better). Never tested on the copy I had, sold it.
;-)
bobn2
Forum Pro
As a workaround, you can fit the DX lens on a 1.4x teleconverter, it will then cover the whole FX frame - of course it will be a 25-280 lens and slow by FX standards, but it will work. It should work for the other DX lenses as well - but really, in the end if you want to use those lenses a D4 is a very bulky and cost inefficient way of doing it.
KSV
Senior Member
Simply shaking head in disbelieve.
Last edited:
KSV
Senior Member
You are right. This is the one. They produce both in black and silver. I got a silver version. Nikon did not produce many of these since they did not have full frame in that time. 28-200 is not wide enough in DX camera. Not many people were interested in that time. However there are some full frame Nikon users use this lens. I have not heard any negative comments so far. I am happy with mine when fast lens is not needed.
thanks, seems like it would be a good walk around lens for my d4 for the time being. i mostly do landscapes but like to use zoom to without switching lenses and or being limited.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum