How good is 18-200mm lens on a D7000

gauravd

I presently use a 35mm1.8 and a 50mm 1.8 on my D7000. And I crop photos , for which I need closeups.

But still ,sometimes I miss the zoom.

How does the Nikon 18-200 perform on a D7000

sevencrossing

I used one on my D90  and was pretty happy with it

but when I had a D90 I was shooting in bright  daylight at f8  

 it will not be as sharp as your 1.8s

 what do mean by close ups ?

If you intent to keep the 1.8s

I would also consider the 70 -300

or the 85 mm micro

 

 

manuela

Photozone says:
"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."
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/633-nikkor182003556vrii?start=2

hth

KnockKnock

From what I've read, the 18-200 doesn't fully resolve to the D7000's abilities, so it will be your limiter.  You just have to ask yourself if you need 16mp resolution or fully sharp corners (most people don't).  In fact I'd bet that 95% of non-professional photography never gets printed and lives on monitors smaller than 30" at resolutions smaller than 6MP. Current HDTV's max out at just over 2MP.  The move to 4K TVs would push 8MP.  (pixel peeping doesn't count!)   The Nikon 18-200 would be fine for these purposes.

Your prime lenses mostly out-resolve the D7000, so currently you're getting everything out of the sensor that you can and that gives you some breathing room to crop.  Similar crops using the zoom at 35-50mm might be okay, but you might find them to be lacking a little bit/sharpness.  But Zoom in to 200mm and you'll certainly have more reach and a tighter crop to work with. So those are the limitations.

TaoTeJared

The 18-200 as a general walk-around lens is a great lens and one of the better DX vari-zooms available.  

From what I've read, the 18-200 doesn't fully resolve to the D7000's abilities, so it will be your limiter.  

--

Your prime lenses mostly out-resolve the D7000, so currently 

Sorry but that is complete absolute BS - wherever you are reading that is the most poorly informed photographer that has no clue what they are talking about.  I'm not sure who is spreading that garbage but I keep hearing more and more of it every day and it is utter nonsense.   

KnockKnock

Wow - jumped on.  Sorry, I didn't mean to bull poop.  My generalization wasn't fully written-out perhaps - I thought it was common-enough to be accepted fact: lens weaknesses appear most in the corners.  Primes suffer it to a lesser degree.  Big zooms suffer it to a greater degree: a blurriness that sacrifices detail.  Shoot the 18-200 wide open at the same 35-50mm and we'd expect to leave behind a few MP of detail in more of the frame moving from the outside in, than shooting the primes and inspecting those same corners at the same aperture, no?

I guess I'll turn it around and ask, does the 18-200 show more flaws in the D7000's resolving abilities, or does the D7000 show more flaws in the 18-200's resolving abilities?  Do reviewers use the 18-200 to show the 24MP D3200's flaws?

I read photozone, slrgear, dpreview, bythom - are there better?  I've lurked here until they revamped the forums and thought it was a knowledgeable collection of photographers and surprisingly civil....

---

I guess you were jumping on the possibility I was reading and respouting words from idiots, and that's always possible.  I shouldn't take it personally.

Msmoto

If one places a lens on an optical bench we can see a lot of variabilities. Most work a lot better stopped down a bit,  Most are sharper in the center, Most have some distortion.  

The limiting factor in the vast majority of photos is in the user's technique.  I have pretty much as good as it gets, and I can produce e some real junk.  Both technically and and esthetically.  But, I try to listen and learn.  I have tried to blame some of my lenses for the result, but the fact is I have no "bad" lenses.

Once we just do the very best we can, trying to produce reasonable photos, we can sometimes let go of the pixel peeping tendencies.

While a discussion of lenses is interesting, each lens is IMO different from the next.  My job is to do the best I can with what I have and learn on each shot.

gauravd

At certain occasions , I need a zoom, those times I feel handicapped. Also I am not too much inclined to change the lens (at least not in outdoor conditions). So have been wondering if a 18 -200 would be a good idea or not, especially on D7000. Or should I just continue using my primes and later on work on croping the picture.

Msmoto

If one can buy a used 18-200, testing it before purchase...and get it for less than $400, might be good.  One really has to test the lens and see if it works for what one desires, then answer the question.

If money is a limiting factor fine.  If not...get a pro lens.

spraynpray

I don't know enough about optics to have an opinion about knock-knock's post, but I am sure I read that the D800 doesn't even reach the limits of the resolution of glass so it does seem counter-intuitive that the D7000 would.

I also find it hard without the knowledge to know better whether the websites mentioned above are truly accurate or just interested in making money off the internet.

I am in agreement with Msmotos point about the weakest link usually being the operator for sure.

bob_buttons

I had a 35/50 1.8 and 18-200 on my D90. Even though you can get some good shots with it, I found that I had more fun and prefered thes images from my primes. Couldnt really use the 18-200 in low light either.

In the end, I sold it and just stick to primes/faster lenses.
You should consider getting a 85 1.8 instead if you want more close ups.

rschnaible

I have the D7000 and the Nikkor 18-200mm lens you inquire about. It is a great combo and well worth your consideration. I do find a bit of softness in the images when you are shooting at the upper end of the zoom, but the images are very acceptable.

I enjoy this lens a great deal and would recommend it..... Enjoy

kyoshinikon

Really good in my opinion. Could possibly resolve a bit better but the AF is great, It balances well, and it is still optically nice...

heartyfisher

I have the D7000 and the 18-200 nikkor.

Have had the nikkor a few years now.. in the beginning I was a bit frustrated with it due to its limitations..(on a 6MP camera ! (  )  but all lenses are compromises as are cameras..I have gotten to know the lens well and know what it cant do and what it can do for the images i like to take.. So when i got my D7000 I was just looking at the images and getting frustrated with the D7000's limitations instead of noticing anything about the lens.

I guess my point is that the combo is great together ! but understand that its a combination of intersecting compromises and capabilities. If you work within the capabilities set the combination is awesome.

Just like you would never try to take a photo of an eagle in flight with a 35 mm lens you get to know what photos you will need to pass on with the 18-200 D7000 combo.  as with every other combination of lense and camera.

PS: oh yes the 18-200 can be really sharp at times.. :-) )

TaoTeJared

 My generalization wasn't fully written-out perhaps - I thought it was common-enough to be accepted fact: lens weaknesses appear most in the corners.  Primes suffer it to a lesser degree.  Big zooms suffer it to a greater degree: a blurriness that sacrifices detail.  Shoot the 18-200 wide open at the same 35-50mm and we'd expect to leave behind a few MP of detail in more of the frame moving from the outside in, than shooting the primes and inspecting those same corners at the same aperture, no?

I guess I'll turn it around and ask, does the 18-200 show more flaws in the D7000's resolving abilities, or does the D7000 show more flaws in the 18-200's resolving abilities?  Do reviewers use the 18-200 to show the 24MP D3200's flaws?

I read photozone, slrgear, dpreview, bythom - are there better?  I've lurked here until they revamped the forums and thought it was a knowledgeable collection of photographers and surprisingly civil....

I do not mean to insult you at all, and please don't take any of the above or below as an attack on you at all.

Reviewers who speak to resolution as if it is a measurement of a lens I find usually know better, but for some reason they use "resolution" as a catch-all term for quality, clarity and other descriptors.  Resolution is only a sensor measurement.  And example; My most garbage lens (40 yr old Kron with adapter) on my D800 out resolves my 60mm macro on my D300.  Now does that mean the POS lens is better than my 60? - No.  Did somehow my 60mm become less sharp on my D300 - No.  If a measurement of a static object should only change when it is, not when the device that measure it does.  Now there is a slight change in resolving lines between lenses but when printed, you are talking about an area that indiscernible to the eye, and is usually lost anyway when printed due to the interpolation of the printer software.  To me, that means it is a pixel peeper's success at a fools errand.  If a photographer is looking at spending $1,500+ on a single lens, than looking at the small amounts of resolution could make a slight difference, but not for lens purchases under a grand or for all-in-ones.  

There was a review in Popular Photography in either the December or January issue on the Sigma DP2 Merrill that pointed to the "resolution" or rather the limits in the so-called measurements.  Because of the sensor, they stated that they can not measure the actual "resolution" with any accuracy due to the sensor design not being a bayer design, and not having an anti aliasing filter.  It shows in pure form, all the talk about resolution is about the technology and design of a sensor and very little with lens design.  

Now what you said above 

"a blurriness that sacrifices detail.  Shoot the 18-200 wide open at the same 35-50mm and we'd expect to leave behind a few MP of detail in more of the frame moving from the outside in, than shooting the primes and inspecting those same corners at the same aperture, no?"

speaks to focus, and clarity of the lens, in various areas and not resolution.  That deals with lens design, aspherical elements and various other design considerations, and has nothing to do with resolution.  That is a very valid discussion.  

Now for the desire:

At certain occasions , I need a zoom, those times I feel handicapped. Also I am not too much inclined to change the lens (at least not in outdoor conditions). So have been wondering if a 18 -200 would be a good idea or not, especially on D7000. Or should I just continue using my primes and later on work on croping the picture.

It has nothing to do with resolution.  

@gauravd - I think the 18-200 or even the newer 18-300 may fit the bill well for you.  Another option could be getting a 18-105vr and a 70-300.  The price combined would probably be less, and if you know you will always be at a large distance for the day, you can put the 70-300 on, and if it is close distances, the 18-105vr would work.

gauravd

thanks for all the inputs.

Msmoto

I think what has been said, is the explanation for why I get good results on an 80-400mm f.4.5-5.6 when most say it has problems.  About the only problem is that one needs to stop down while the 400mm f2.8 can be used wide open and produce results.  

All the Nikon lenses I have do an excellent job.  The limiting factor is in my use of them.

KnockKnock

That's one of the ironies with digital photography. So many of the advanced features people pay more for are things that a skilled photographer can get by without by understanding and controlling circumstances.  The better the photographer, the less high-end equipment they 'need' to create a great shot.  And the tech allows sloppy photographers to make acceptable shots.

High ISO capability - Fast lenses - VR - Auto focus, 3D tracking etc. - Bracketing (?) - ADR - Distortion Control - Flare resistant elements.

I guess it goes the other way too - pro's probably work in many more uncontrolled environments too, so the ability to whip it out and grab the shot w/o time to setup and analyze everything has its value.

spraynpray

KnockKnock said:  

"And the tech allows sloppy photographers to make acceptable shots."

Not so sure about that.  TECHNICALLY acceptable, but that's all.

Steven_B

Of course it's only natural to ask others for their opinions but still, the best thing to do is to go to a camera shop and try the product yourself. 

After all, people will say all kind of things and the bottom line is one man's garbage is another man's treasure. 

spraynpray

It does seem to take a great deal of knowledge to judge the quality of a lens based on a few snaps taken in the poor light of a shop.  I once refused a 35mm f1.8 because it had too much CA.  It was pure luck that I shot the right thing to see it clearly.  The next example still had some, but it was less.  Normally I stop at seeing the box has not been opened before and is not damaged then I take it home.

DaveyJ

The D7000 with the 18-200VR is a great lens. Why? It covers a lot of bases and sometimes changing lenses in the field is invitation to problems. I would personally rate the D7000 and the 18-200VR it is out right now from my shop, many miles away as the primary shooting lens with the 12-24 Nikkor as the wider choice. If I had gone on this wonderful photo shoot I would have wanted the 70-300VR along as well. But with all sorts of underwater video gear, etc. my son had to make some choices. I used to study MTF curves and the finest and most expensive lens, and in retrospect I would say it is more important to be at the right time, in the right place with good enough gear. this study of lens capabilities and all that does seem to get carried away.

The single most proof of all that to me is that seeing work from pros and serious amateurs at the same photo op and seeing the best shots of many from the event. If you think lens bench tests will automatically result in the best images, guess again. I think this digital age and our options are wonderful. I also would point out you can be in places and situations that your wonderful prime lens was a very poor choice when a great subject presents itself and you have the wrong focal length. What you might gravitate to in a lens may leave quite a few buyers cold. Obviously Nikon looks at the volume sold and net yield from a particular lens. Do not think a 18-105VR Nikkor is going really cheap these days. A friend has finally given up on her 18-55VR and having used my 18-105VR now knows that is the best combo for her with her 70-300VR. That combo is in my experience quite wonderful on D7000. But it is usually the D7000 with the 18-200VR that gets the use.

spraynpray

"I would personally rate the D7000 and the 18-200VR it is out right now from my shop, many miles away as the primary shooting lens with the 12-24 Nikkor as the wider choice."

Eh Davey, wassat?

gauravd

So guys thanks to your suggestions and advise , I bought the 18-200 lens. It just arrived today.

heartyfisher

"I would personally rate the D7000 and the 18-200VR it is out right now from my shop, many miles away as the primary shooting lens with the 12-24 Nikkor as the wider choice."

Eh Davey, wassat?

I think he means that his son has it :-)

Sauron

"Reviewers who speak to resolution as if it is a measurement of a lens I find usually know better, but for some reason they use "resolution" as a catch-all term for quality, clarity and other descriptors.  Resolution is only a sensor measurement."

Hi TaoTeJared - as I read what I just quoted, I must say that it is completely wrong. Can you please explain what you mean in more detail and perhaps also refer to a technical explanation?

If you ask me, the acquired resolution in a picture is a result of all limiting factors in the imaging process: Light, motion, lens objective (optical path), filters and imager (sensor). Even the post processing can be included. How can you state that it is only a sensor measurement? E.g., CA and diffraction must be included in the "resolution" aspect.

I have understood that "common" people use the resolution concepts as the number of pixels in a sensor, but that is a simplification beyond the level of this forum (I hope).

Resolution is the ability to clearly determine two separate points, or objects, as singular, distinguished entities.

One way of quantify resolution is to measure the Modulation Transfer Function - and that is highly correlated to the optical "quality" of the lens. Of course, with a very low pixel density, the sensor limitation is dominating, but here we are talking about the D7000, right?

Regards,
/Roger