nikon lens 18-200

[Lon Sharp]

I am planning the purchase of the Nikon D-200 in the next few months and am trying to decide which hardware and software will be the best match.

Do any of you have experience with the much-hailed 18-200 Nikon digital lens?  It seems almost too good to be true that one lens would do "almost" everything.  

Also I have read a bit about the Nikon Capture NK software and am wondering whether it can replace Adobe photoshop for managing the raw files.

Thanks in advance for your insights.

[Phil Magistro]

I don't have personal experience with the 18-200 but I have a few friends that do use that lens a lot.  It's a great walkaround lens because of the vibration reduction.  Plus I've seen many images in our monthly competitions from that lens and it's very good.

It all depends on what you want the lens for.  And here are some things to consider.  The lens is f3.5 at 18mm and f5.6 at 200.  Typically lenses operate best about 1 1/2 - 2 stops down from maximum aperture.  That means that the best quality image will be around f5.6 - 8 at 18mm and around f11 at 200mm (of course that's not a hard, fast rule).  Even at f5.6 the lens is marginal for wildlife in the morning and evening.  At f11 it will be practically useless anytime other than mid-day which isn't the best time for good photos.  Plus at f11 you have a lot of depth of field which keeps you from isolating your subject.  So if your goal is to shoot wildlife this lens may not be the best choice.

The vibration reduction is a big help.  Many folks can shoot hand-held at 1/15 at 200mm with this lens.  But VR doesn't do anything to help stop subject motion.  So a deer moving will blur from the slow shutter speed.

As I said, it all depends on what you want the lens for.  If you understand the limitations and they fit within your needs, this lens will give you excellent images on a D200.

[Phil Magistro]

I forgot about Capture NX.  IT handles raw files great, especially batch processing.  And it has some useful features for processing images like control points.  But it won't do all that Photoshop will do.

I hate to sound like a broken record but it all depends on what your needs are.  There's more information on Capture NX here -

 http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID36&conf=DCConfID9

[JBiorn]

Try XnView. It is a free download from download.com. I use it, and just love the results I get. It is pretty powerful and easy to use.


 Jeff

[Tim Schoenborn]

Simple answers here Lon

The lens you speak of is slow and has a non pro build. You get what you pay for. Just an average lens at best with a wide range zoom. And you are correct in thinking there is no do it all lens in that category of range at the price that lens sells for. As far as any positive comments being spoke of in regards to that lens it is coming from Non Pro's. You won't find a working Pro with that lens in his bag trust me. You get what you pay for. Point being, it is a average build non pro lens. You have to ask yourself what your objectives in the images are.

Also as much as the world would like to challenge Adobe, Photoshop has no peers. Nothing even comes close. Combine Photoshop with Bridge and ACR and you have the software that 99% of all working paid Professionals use daily. I am one of them and it is the absolute best photo management, editing software in the world.

Good luck

Tim ;-)

 www.timschoenborn.com

[Phil Magistro]

I know a couple of working pros that do own the 18-200 but, as Tim says, it's not used much in their day-to-day work.  It is a slow lens and if you look in the bag of anyone that makes serious money with their camera you'll a lot of 2.8 or faster lenses. But many times we tend to overlook that not everyone is a pro and not everyone has the need or deep pockets for pro-build lenses.  If you have the need, desire, and money save yourself some time and spring for the pro-build, fast glass.  But for the millions of folks out there who aren't working pros and can't spend over $3000 for the two lenses to replace it (17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8)the 18-200 fills a need.

Here's are two reviews - one by by Thom Hogan who is a very well known Nikon expert.  The other is by Victor Newman, a pro sports photographer.


 http://bythom.com/18200lens.htm

 http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-18-200/index.html

[Tim Schoenborn]

Bottomline is the only reason to own this lens is because it is what you can afford. Period.

If you can afford more then don't buy it. If you can't, than do the best you can with it. Like I said I know of no one in regards to a working pro that would allow this lens to take up space in his bag.

I should clarify that my definition of Working Pro is someone who makes an income above 6 figures with a camera.

I am booked over 245 days this year and this lens would be nothing more than something to throw at a horse to get his attention and ears up.

Making money with a camera has nothing to do with what you want to spend on equipment or what your budget is. I know lots of guys with $7000 hanging around their neck and can't do a darn thing with it.

Buy the best possible equipment your budget allows and then learn how to use it. This is especially true with glass. As I sit here in my office today I have over a $100,000.00 worth of photo equipment stacked up in Pelican cases and bags and on the floor, out in the trailer etc.............

One common factor is I have lenses that are over 15 years old. I don't have one body that is over a year and a half old. Glass rarely changes and bodies do. Point I am making is that the very lenses that are sitting here will still be here when the current bodies I am shooting are long gone. Investments in good glass will last a lifetime.

Bottomline Lon is I don't want to come off as a know it all, rather just want to tell you the truth. Don't believe everything you read on the net about cameras from anyone of the sites that do reviews and what not. Real world experience is all that counts. Hogan has valid points in his reviews of equipment yet he is not a high paid working Pro.

Here is a true Nikon expert if you want to see what one looks like

 http://www.daveblackphotography.com/about.htm

Dave has forgot more about Nikon and image taking in general than Thom Hogan will ever know............


Sorry to be so long winded I just felt the need to clarify my original post in regards to my answers.

[Steve Kendrot]

Lon,

To summarize, you'd be better off saving for several years, and postponing the development of your photographic skills, so you can buy the best lens. Apparently it is the arrow...

[Jay Campbell, JD]

I have all of the nikkor f2.8 lenses with silent wave from 17 through 300 (and the 400, and 600).  It's a lot of lenses.  I carry the 18-200 and a 300 f2.8 with dedicated doubler MOST of the time because space is a premium for a bowhunting writer/photographer.

Of course it has limits, but it fills a niche and a need.  I'd buy it first if I couldn't afford the others.  And I can afford the others and I do own them. - Jay Campbell, JD

[Dave N./TX]

I have the Nikkor 50mm 1.8, the 70-210mm, the 28-70mm and the 18-200mm VR. Which lens do I leave on my Nikon D70 most of the time? The 18-200 VR, if i need something for low light I use the 50mm. I love the range for framing and the VR helps with the longer focal lenghts. I am by no means a professional or even a very talented amateur but it works for me.

Dave N.TX

[808nate]

both that lens and that body are superb, howevr I still think adobe PS is the best for RAW, I'm primarily a Canon shooter but my dad shoots with a nikon and has that lens. Personally I Like my canon 18-135 IS (image stabilized) lens.

[Lon Sharp]

Thanks guys.  I really, really appreciate the candid points of view, even when then don't fully agree with one another.  It is going to make my final decision more difficult, and possibly more costly!  

I carry a nikon 8800 for a hunting pack camera, and love its capabilities of making a good image, yet am sometimes frustrated by its lack of SLR versatility.

Do I have unlimited funds for gear?  No, but I intend to buy the best I can and I am willing to postpone the purchase a bit to meet a quality standard.  

Do I intend on becoming a working pro?  By no means!  In fact, even if I put up the cash for a higher end Nikon set-up, I don't really care if I ever sell a photo!  It is not my goal. But, I do sell an article now and again and know quality photos can make a huge difference in getting an essay or story published, and it is nice to see photo and writing together!    Further, I am nearing a transition point in my life... Sixteen months from now will mark 30 years working for USPS and I plan to be ready to retire to my passions of bowhunting, writing, photography, and any other activity I can think of that will keep me walking around "out there" appreciating and logging the complexities of the natural world.  I want to be able to come up with top shelf quality photos because I like them, not necessarily to sell them.  

Regarding the software questions:  I have been resisting the complexities of Adobe, thinking I enjoy photos more than computer tinkering and was hoping Capture NX would fill the needs of basic tweak and working with RAW, but you guys are making me realize I will probably need to learn Adobe.  

I am already guessing my Tiltall tripod will not be enough if I move to the bigger and better set-up.  Yikes.  More $$.  

Additional insights welcome!  Thanks again.

Lon

[JL]

I recently bought a D70 and it came with a Nikon 28-105MM macro lens. It take pretty good pics. I came across a deal on a Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX series lens and the difference is real apparent. The sharpness and color reproduction of the 2.8 lens really stands out. I too have limited funds (head of household with wife and 4 kids to support come first) but really glad I bought the Sigma. A 18-200mm lens sounds like a great all purpose lens.

JL

[Iron/Mtn]

Well I finally did it, traded in my old work horse D100 for the D200,ubelievable. Almost went with the D-80 but in the end spent the extra money and it was worth it. Did get the 1-200 VR and so far I like what I see. As was previuosly mentioned its a good all purpose lens but for wildlife and such you need the big glass.

Phil how you been. take care will come back with some tests results. Strickly amature    but I do love it.

[Phil Magistro]

Hello John.  I've been well.  Hope you are also. Congratulations on the camera.  It's a great one.

Looking forward to some great photos!

Phil

[Iron/Mtn]

Phil,wanted to upgrade the body for next years trip to africa. last time I took about 3500 pictures and of those 1700 were keepers (for Me) thats what I love about the digital. You know your getting older when you start thinking about shooting a picture instead of getting the bow ready. Thats what I enjoyed the most about over there, no matter what there  always  seemed to be another chance around the corner. As always gfood info. thanks

[Elk Chaser]

Congratulations
I have a D200 and I am using the 24 - 120 VR Its been working great but as stated before I wish it was a 1.4 or 2.8 lens
Bill

[Iron/Mtn]

Right now I have the manual in one hand and one of the latern series books in the other........just little bit of a learning curve from the 100