|
18-200mm
f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR DX Zoom Nikkor
Lens Review
by Victor F. Newman
tell
a friend about this Nikkor 18-200mm lens Review
|
The
Lens in Use
The
operation of the focus and zoom rings is smooth, with no sloppiness.
The zoom is well-damped, bordering on tight, with no tendency
to “creep” when the lens is pointed downward. The zoom ring
turns through approximately 90 degrees in traversing the full
zoom range. As viewed from the photographer’s perspective behind
the camera, the ring turns counter-clockwise in zooming from
18 to 200mm.
- -
|
The
18-200mm Grand-Am Daytona test |
The
focus ring is typical of AF-S lenses, with a fairly loose feel
and virtually no damping. The focus ring is much narrower than
the zoom ring and is situated between the zoom ring and the
camera body. The minimum marked focusing distances are 1.5 feet
and .44 meters. The lens focuses quickly with no hunting on
a D2X under all but the worst conditions. I was able to use
it to track fast-moving Grand-Am Daytona Prototypes testing
at Virginia International Raceway and keep focus locked on them
at all times. This lens is limited only by the AF ability of
the body it’s attached to when it comes to keeping up with a
moving subject. I’m sure on any body it would have no trouble
keeping up with athletes on foot (soccer parents take note).
Being
an internal-focus (IF) lens, the lens does not change length
during focus. The front element does not rotate during focusing
or zooming (a big plus to anyone using a polarizing filter or
a modular filter holder). The 72mm filter thread matches that
of many other Nikkors.
Distortion
is definitely present in this lens—no surprise for a zoom lens
of an 11:1 ratio. The type of distortion varies with focal length,
and can be fairly complex in some variations, with barrel combined
with pincushion making for “wave” distortion. This lens would
not be a good choice for exacting architectural shots. However,
given that this lens is intended only for digital SLRs, and
that there are quite a few very good ways to correct distortion
with software, even this drawback can be largely corrected when
necessary.
Background
rendering is smooth. The lens uses rounded aperture blades,
giving out-of-focus highlights a nicely-circular shape. Some
photographers are fanatic about the specific nature of the out-of-focus
highlights, or “boke” (referred to by most of us in the USA
as “bokeh”), while others could not care less. Personally, this
is something I find moderately important in a lens.
Common
tactics in modern lens design tend to trade some of the “good
bokeh” characteristics in exchange for improved sharpness, and
that’s exactly the case with this lens. Highlights are “nicer”
at wide focal lengths, with the “bad bokeh” characteristic of
a bright edge appearing at longer focal lengths. I'm willing
to accept this in this lens. It is by no means a sign of poor
lens design. Designing an 11:1 zoom lens is a huge exercise
in compromise. If I want a photo with the most pleasing bokeh
I can achieve, I would use other lenses, like a 105mm f/2.5
or 85mm f/1.4.
-
|
Note
in this frame at right, the outer edge of the highlights
is noticeably brighter than the inner part. This is a
likely consequence of overcorrection of spherical aberration
in the design of the lens. By doing this, sharpness is
improved, but at the expense of this side effect. Whether
or not this is objectionable is a highly individual preference.
In
use, the lens yields very nice results. Sharpness is good
at all apertures, and improves by stopping down a couple
stops at any focal length.
This
will make an excellent general-purpose lens for many photographers.
It could very well satisfy all one’s needs for an entire
vacation in one lightweight and highly-compact package.
For those who carry a camera constantly, waiting for any
shot opportunity that might present itself, this would
make an excellent choice. The
picture quality still amazes me.
|
|
- |
|
