How good is 18-200mm lens on a D7000



  • proudgeekproudgeek Posts: 1,422Member
    I'll steer clear of the technical aspects of this discussion. But I will say this: I shot an 18-200 on a D90 for two years. Loved the images and the convenience. Then I rented and eventually purchased a 70-200 and then a 17-35. Needless to say I haven't used the 18-200 since. I guess it's all relative.
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    edited January 2013

    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?


    Brain hurts!...too much nonsense....ahhhhggghhhh!!!.....
    Post edited by SquamishPhoto on
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Sorry Roger, but you are lumping in separate very categories that put together we would call it Image Quality and in the second part of your response lumping what technically should be 2 separate resolution tests, Lens and Sensor. When you are talking about all of the limiting factors, that would be multiple tests rolled up. Or what I think you are moving towards, is seeing a resolution drop, and then testing to see where the limits of diffraction are, at what point CAs cause deterioration, etc.

    The "Common" people currently is every major publication house that posts reviews. When every major reliable test house conducts their tests for resolution they are testing how many lines a lens and sensor produces at specific lens settings. That is the test of the sensor but they portray it as a lens test. If it was a true Lens resolution test, it would not change from body to body, it would always be the same. The only people who test and post the real resolution test results is Zeiss, but they are far and few in between. Consider that the D800 is somewhere around 80-110 l/mm (from what I read) but lenses have tested over 400 l/mm on the highest resolution film stock.

    MTF charts are a good way to see what the resolution is, but for the vast majority of camera purchasers, they do not have enough information or choose not to learn it, to be able to readily compare one lens to another based on them. I understand MTF charts but I still have not seen a single write up that could even come close to explaining to a new or casual photographer what the hell they mean and how to read them AND how to use them to compare two, three, four (or more) different lenses easily. Just another one of those, created by engineers and useless to everyone else type of graphs.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • SauronSauron Posts: 13Member

    Brain hurts!...too much nonsense....ahhhhggghhhh!!!.....
    Well just because YOU don't understand doesn't mean that it is nonsense.

    Thats it!

    Proud owner of a D80!
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,185Member

    Brain hurts!...too much nonsense....ahhhhggghhhh!!!.....
    Well just because YOU don't understand doesn't mean that it is nonsense.

    Thats it!

    one of my mentors use to say "I always take it that if my readers do not understand what I say then its my problem not theirs."

    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    Blimey - the real Sauron was a lot harder to get rid of than that one was - must be a fake.... ;))
    Always learning.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    Lots of difficulties with the semantics. I hope all will try to discuss the issues with open minds. Many folks simply take their equipment out and shoot nice photos. And for some of us the technical issues are often too much to bear.
    Msmoto, mod
  • adamzadamz Posts: 842Moderator
    well said msmoto. I'll add 2 cents to this discussion as well, if 18-200 is limiting Your camera - doesn't matter what camera it is - than it is YOU who needs improvements not the lens. sure it's not as sharp as prime lens but who can YOU compare a zoom to prime??? can You shoot 200mm on a 35mm prime and seconds later shoot 18mm? no, simple as that. sure 18-200 is slower than primes, but we are talking about zoom lens here.
    as for image sharpness... well, I will say You need good lens to get sharp photo, but if YOU lack technique than even the best lens on the market will not be good enough.
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 1,090Member
    Yes my son, and grandson constantly snag my D7000 and 18-200VR and the 12-24DX lens. other than that they are using video cameras like Go Pro and Sony. All give results that when blended and edited have very nice rich and accurate colors and are sharp according to HDTV. A number of their images are on advertisement runs from various sites. I guess the seas are somewhat rough now in the British Virgin Islands and every trip or photo op, even to a familiar location seems to be different always. they usually rent a sailboat and if you have a captains license you can head of to quite an adventure. My current adventure seems to run more to looking for upcoming camera deals and shoveling lots of very heavy wet snow off roofs.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    Here is one of the first pictures I took with my D5000 and 18-200...f5.6 at 170 mm with on body flash. I would say it is sharp enough...and if not then get primes, but as mentioned a few posts back it will take a lot of running to get the same range as the 18-200 will give you.
    samples 016

    Full size here
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    Some additional shots for good measure...notice the difference in focal lengths. Pretty versatile lens.





    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • obajobaobajoba Posts: 206Member
    Hmmmm... interesting thread to read through. I've got a buddy with an 18-200 and a D90, he swears by that setup. I found having an 18-105 and the 55-200 with the D7000 to be more beneficial than the 18-200 and the D7000. In my comparison shots, the 18-105 was definitely sharper, all-around, across the entire zoom range - but one would have to be willing to change lenses to achieve the comparable 18-200 range.

    I'll be curious to see how you like it after a few months' use.
    D4 | 70-200 2.8 VR | 24-70 2.8 | TC-17e II
  • GlueFactoryBJJGlueFactoryBJJ Posts: 6Member
    edited January 2013
    I have to agree with @TaoTeJared about resolution. It is solely a factor of the camera's sensor. However, "resolving ability" (a component of image quality) is what you get when you combine the camera system (lens and body) and its ability to make out points of different sizes.

    The long and short of it is that, with mass produced lenses, a FX camera system is lens limited at about 15-16MP (using a "normal case" lens that is defraction limited at about f/11). An APS-C is lens limited to about 7MP. Four thirds at about 4MP, and digital cameras/smartphones, UGH!

    (See the discussion below Table 3 in the link below.)

    Does that mean there is no point in higher resolution? Not at all. It makes for a great opportunity to be able to crop and not lose detail due to digital zooming. Also, that extra resolution is very helpful in increasing the apparent sharpness of well done reduced size images.

    However, as noted in the link above, this never ending resolution one-upmanship DOES have a negative consequence with regard to image quality. For a given sensor size/format, higher resolution means "... huge files..." and less light per pixel, which means, "... comparatively low signal to noise ratios (which translates to noise, narrower dynamic range, poorer tonal variability... )."

    For me, I want the "digital zoom" inherent in high MP sensors. However, I question whether there is much benefit going beyond, say, the D800's 36MP in FX, or the 24MP in the current generation of APS-C (DX) sensors. From this point on, I would MUCH RATHER take higher ISO, reduced noise and better color fidelity and range (Adobe RGB anyone?) over increased MP or even somewhat decreased MP!

    Anyway, my $.02 and probably worth 1/10 of what you're paying for it... :-B ;) :P

    Post edited by GlueFactoryBJJ on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    edited January 2013
    " I question whether there is much benefit going beyond, say, the D800's 36MP in FX, or the 24MP in the current generation of APS-C (DX) sensors. "

    Last time I read something like that the author was saying the same about 4 or 5 Mp - now look where we are! :-))
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • singlecoilpickupsinglecoilpickup Posts: 10Member
    I used the D7000 / 18-200 VRII combo quite a bit. However, I wouldn't use it for any serious or paid work.

    It is an excellent combo for walking around with, vacation photos, etc. Just don't expect to make 20x30" prints or shoot a wedding with it. Otherwise, it does a good job as a lightweight and versatile lens/camera combo.
  • GlueFactoryBJJGlueFactoryBJJ Posts: 6Member
    edited January 2013
    " I question whether there is much benefit going beyond, say, the D800's 36MP in FX, or the 24MP in the current generation of APS-C (DX) sensors. "

    Last time I read something like that the author was saying the same about 4 or 5 Mp - now look where we are! :-))
    Lol! Yeah, I hear that. For that matter, I was wondering what I'd do with the 6MP I had with my D70 about 10 years ago. And I'm sure that most had very logical sounding reasons too. :p

    For me, the Luminous-Landscape article put hard numbers and a seemingly sound set of reasons behind something I was beginning to feel intuitively. Also, I have been getting increasingly concerned about noise and dynamic range as these sensors increased in MP.

    Of course, time will tell. Then again, if I were a pro and had a sufficient budget for top of the line glass, I might feel differently about the subject.

    Now, where did I put that Powerball ticket?

    Post edited by GlueFactoryBJJ on
  • gauravdgauravd Posts: 16Member
    Well I bought the lens , and have shot some. I am happy with the results and the freedom available by using this lens. I am not a professional. Just a guy who likes to shoot.
    My first DSLR was a D3000 , which I did not like and traded it in and bought D7000. So I wont know for better or worse, but I find D7000 and 18 -200 gives good pics. Having said this , 18-200 cannot compete with the primes in low light.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    The 18-200 VR is a great lens for traveling light, or when you don't know what to expect. I have used mine with satisfaction on vacations. Of course an 11-1 zoom built to a price will have it's limitations, but so does all of our equipment choices.

    When used well, and with knowledge of those limitations, including stopping down appropriately for various focal lengths, very good results can be had.

    Is it better than cropping a 50mm, to a 200mm angle of view, of course it is, and by a very wide margin. The difference in 'sharpness' between any decent lenses is easily swamped by any error in technique.

    The biggest single issue I have with mine is complex distortion at the wide angles that is (was) hard to correct in PP since it is not simple barrel or pincushion but cat be 'wavy' at the edges.

    This was only noticeable in city or architectural work where a straight line at the top or side was common.

    Nikon Capture NX2 has 'maps' of Nikon lens distortions and does a good job of correcting this. That is one reason I use it even though CS-5 / 6 is a much more capable general purpose editor.

    I now shoot exclusively FX, ( my 'tourist' kit is now 24-120 f4 and 70-300 VR , which are much better but still have limitations to be worked around) but my wife has expropriated the 18-200 and uses it as her everyday glass.

    My most common regret on a photo shoot is not imperfection, but missing the shot while waiting for perfection.

    Regards .. H

    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

Sign In or Register to comment.