Thom Hogan's D200 and 18-200 reviews

[gooseberry]

http://bythom.com/d200review.htm

http://bythom.com/18200lens.htm

He seems to quite like his 18-200. I like mine too.

[gstark]

Thanx for posting this.

Interesting that Thom says that this lens is replacing his kit and his 24-120 as his walkaround lens.

[Geoff]

Thanks goosebery - an interesting read indeed.

[moggy]

Thanks for the link gooseberry, interesting that both Thom and Bjorn give it a reasonable review. Might be worth a look.

Bob.

.

[Zeeke]

Hello D200

Tim

[Greg B]

And there was the 18-200 review by Ken Rockwell linked in another thread

[Mal]

So does anyone here have this lens? And if not how long before we will see one here?

[Greg B]

Gooseberry has one. Birdy tested one but was very unimpressed. See this thread talking about problems on some camera models, and describing it as "this new lemon"

I would also be interested to hear from any members who have one of these lenses - I have been keen on getting one as a travel lens, but Birdy's reports are concerning, while other reports are more positive, and I don't know what the hell to think!

[Aussie Dave]

First, there are the folk that tend to use DSLRs in all-automatic modes and rarely print above 8x10". These people are better served by a D50 or D70s. You may want a better, more elaborate camera, but you don't need it. Indeed, the menu system and extensive feature set of the D200 is going to overwhelm most of those people. For what? Some more resolution? That's not necessary if they're not printing large on a regular basis. If you shoot all-automatic and only JPEG, I'd intensify my statement: buy a D50 instead. The D50 is the closest thing to a DSLR you can set on all-automatic (including Auto ISO) and get decent pictures most of the time, at least in JPEG settings.

Second, we have the D2x wannabees: serious shooters who really want a D2x but either can't afford one or don't want to pay so much extra for what appears to be a few added features. Don't delude yourself into thinking that the D200 is the equivalent to a D2x. It isn't. It may come close in many ways, but if you were to ask me which I prefer to shoot with from an image quality standpoint, my unqualified answer would be the D2x at ISO values up to 400.

I thought this was one of the most interesting parts of the entire review...

[Glen]

Thom seems to like this lens, I may end up eating my words over this "superzoom" .



Then again I may not, I still have the email from Thom where he argues that 30cmm isn't necessarily closer to 12inches than 10 and that a foot isn't always 12 inches

[padey]

First, there are the folk that tend to use DSLRs in all-automatic modes and rarely print above 8x10". These people are better served by a D50 or D70s. You may want a better, more elaborate camera, but you don't need it. Indeed, the menu system and extensive feature set of the D200 is going to overwhelm most of those people. For what? Some more resolution? That's not necessary if they're not printing large on a regular basis. If you shoot all-automatic and only JPEG, I'd intensify my statement: buy a D50 instead. The D50 is the closest thing to a DSLR you can set on all-automatic (including Auto ISO) and get decent pictures most of the time, at least in JPEG settings.

Second, we have the D2x wannabees: serious shooters who really want a D2x but either can't afford one or don't want to pay so much extra for what appears to be a few added features. Don't delude yourself into thinking that the D200 is the equivalent to a D2x. It isn't. It may come close in many ways, but if you were to ask me which I prefer to shoot with from an image quality standpoint, my unqualified answer would be the D2x at ISO values up to 400.

I thought this was one of the most interesting parts of the entire review...

Thom makes it too easy to agree with him. Having owned a D70, D2x and D200 i have to agree with him.

Although I find my battery lasting a lot longer then his. But i only shoot RAW, not +jpg and I don't have any VR glass. I also don't do much chimping.

[birddog114]

Gooseberry has one. Birdy tested one but was very unimpressed. See this thread talking about problems on some camera models, and describing it as "this new lemon"

I would also be interested to hear from any members who have one of these lenses - I have been keen on getting one as a travel lens, but Birdy's reports are concerning, while other reports are more positive, and I don't know what the hell to think!

I think tasadam has one, but not for sure.

Yes, to be honest, there're mixed reports around the globe with many difference and variation of samples.

I don't know and understand why Nikon has such bad & good mixed reports in one product, perhaps their QC are not top notch as before or maybe this new lens (18-200) is one of the rebadged product from other brand and lacking of QC.

Years ago, my initial sample of the 24-120VR was bad, had to return it twice till I got one decent which I'm happy with.

My thoughts is: Nikon may have to recheck or work harder on this new lens and it may getting more improvements of its quality for the next batches or after.

It also indicated the lens (18-200VRII) is in shortage or no stock at all around the world due to the problems which they received the feed backs/ reports same as the D200 but they do not want to admit it.

Time will tell once the stock of this lens returns to the market as normal.

I'm hesitate to order it in, due to problems that I've seen and don't want to overload my works + the expenses with questions and returning for replacement.

[Greg B]

All excellent points Birdy.

I am in the very happy position of not being in any hurry whatsoever, we are planning a trip early next year, so I have plenty of time. And I plan to use it!

Maybe, as you have suggested, there may be QC issues. You would really hope not with a company like Nikon, but they have several unfortunate examples - D70 BGLOD, D200 banding, 24-120VR.

Maybe, in a few months, we will see more consistent reports on the 18-200.

I hope so. The focal range + VR really makes it - on paper - perfect for what I want.

[terminator]

Have owned this lens for 3 months now.
Top class versatile optic.
Just BUY it. (Stock permitting!!!!)

[Geoff]

Have owned this lens for 3 months now.
Top class versatile optic.
Just BUY it. (Stock permitting!!!!)

Hi Terminator - got any photos from this lens? Would love to see some if possible?!?

[Heath Bennett]

Interesting indeed. Good if you can't take the weight for decent glass.

But then again - photography is about the moment. This lens could be on instead of a 17-35mm and a 200mm shot could be taken of JLo slapping some poor bloke, and the moment would have been lost otherwise!

[dooda]

I posted a link somewhere on this forum to a large resolution file of a portrait. The sharpness and detail was impressive. I'm not sure where it is now, but I could go back and try and find it on flickr...

[dooda]

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id ... et-1770417

Here it is. Enjoy. It's original size though so it may be tough on a dial-up.

ISO 100
200mm
F 5.6
1/60 shutter

[kipper]

Medium Size here, if you want to chose the large or original just click at the top:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=87032538&size=m&context=set-1770417

[kipper]

Shrug wish my originals looked that sharp. All my images seem to be fairly soft at 100% crops.

Edit:

Although this is 2086x1522? Was this taken with a D200 aswell?

[dooda]

Kipper,

Yes, this guy has a D200. I'm not sure that's a 100% crop. The telling detail to me is that it was shot at F5.6 at 200mm. Not ideal for any zoom, but this one seems to have handled it quite well.

[firsty]

Although this is 2086x1522? Was this taken with a D200 aswell?

thats what is says in the Exif => D200

[johnd]

I think tasadam has one, but not for sure.

Yes, tasadam does have one. I talked to him about his findings before I ordered my 80-400 from Birddog. I haven't got the pm from him any more but from memory I think he was saying it was a pretty good lens except if had a fair bit of colour fringing when taking high contrast shots like trees against sky. He was pretty impressed with it as a light single walk around lens which suited his bushwalking needs.

Cheers
John

[kipper]

I'm gathering it's probably not much of a crop but resampled down as it looks way to sharp to be a 100% crop. I wish 100% crops looked like that

[gooseberry]

With regards to the 18-200, just some of my amateur comments on the one I have. I'm not a tester so these are just some of my personal comments after reviewing some general photos I have taken.

Got mine in mid-Jan and took it with me on a work trip to Tokyo and Shanghai. Being a work trip, I didn't want to carry too much gear since I'd have limited time shooting anyway.

This is the first time I've had a "superzoom", and I must say it is very convenient. Build is decent, and smaller than what I expected considering the range. Comparing to the 18-70, it feels a little more solid because of the extra weight.

Very convenient (pretty much had one lens to cover most situations, great for travel or as a walkabout lens)
Sharp (my shots seemed pretty sharp throughout the entire zoom range)
Colour and contrast is pretty good
VR is handy - in general I would say VR is a crutch, but I did find the VR quite useful in certain situations for static objects where I can shoot at 1/20s and ISO 400 and get very sharp images and not need to go to ISO 1600 to up the shutter speed.
There is noticeable distortion near the edges of the frame at certain focal lengths
There is some CA towards the outer edges of the frame around high contrast edges (but if you shoot RAW, Nikon Capture's Colour Abberation Control feature gets rid of this easily - just one click)
My one has slight zoom creep if you hold the lens pointing up or down and the focal length is between 70 and 135 - for all other focal lengths (18-70, 135-200) there is is no creep.

Overall, I am quite impressed with the lens. Obviously it can't really compare with a 17-35 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but those lenses are for different purposes. I bought the 18-200 as a good, light, travel and walkabout lens, and for that purpose, I think it is great lens.

Interesting to note that this lens is selling like hotcakes - all new stock that arrives in the stores here in Singapore are usually sold within hours and there is a long waiting list. There was also a lack of stock for a number of weeks now.

Another interesting tidbit is that a new batch of 18-200 has just arrived, and these lenses now have "Made in Thailand", whereas the previous batches say "Made in Japan". Looks like Nikon needed to get another factory to make them to try and meet the unexpected demand for this lens.

Was talking to a Nikon Singapore guy and he was saying they never expected the lens to sell so well.

I'll post some sample images I have taken with this lens later when I get a chance.

[kipper]

Holy shit, just looked at some of Phil Askeys photos using d200 at 100%. Pretty sharp, actually some of his D70 100%s are pretty sharp. Hmmm.
Wonder if I have back focus issues.

[DaveB]

Remember that Phil rarely shoots in RAW. You need to compare the JPEG output with what you get from RAW after your capture sharpening.

I'm pretty sure that "Original" size image on Flickr has had some sharpening applied. Not only can I see the edge enhancement in a couple of places, that background looks like the typical results of "sharpening" noise.

[birddog114]

gooseberry,
Thanks for your brief review.
Few things:
Creeping is not expected in any of fresh new lens in any range of zoom,and it'll become worst after with the useage and more problems in the future. See what will happen after 12 months in heavy use.

e.g: the Nikkor 80-200 push & pull, once it was new or in its good condition, it never had any creeping in any range, I told members to test this lens by pointing the front glass down to the ground and holding the lens mount, if it's creepping then the lens was used extensively and not well maintained.

The sample which I had and tested was worst, when fully zoom out (135-200), the internal barrell moving with noticeable degree and it also a bad sign in the future when the lens in use after few years.

VR was noisy as a crankcase, when VR was engaged.

Distortion & CA are other issues, which I don't want to see them embed into any lens.

The lens is not selling as hot cake, coz Nikon didn't have any new stock since they switch their plant to Thailand after the first batch (I mentioned it on this board before) + they are waiting new VRII parts coming from another outsourced factory or contractor, and of course they listened to most users and finding the way how to improve their new product.

The first batch wasn't produced many in their production line (Nikon Japan plant).

Once their plant in Thailand is in fullsteam, then the shortage of this lens will be gone but with new improvement product than the first batch or shipment.

This happened with all new released products.

Even with the 17-55Dx as an example: some of the 17-55Dx won't focus or doing good with the D2 series, required calibration of both body and the 17-55Dx, sometime Nikon Service Center can only do calibration the body, not the lens (17-55Dx) as few cases which I had on my book from my customers, or if they did the calibration on the D2x well to Nikon Standard, then other lenses as 12-24 or 200-400VR will be out of its calibration.

Yes, Maxwell sent those bodies and lenses back to Nikon Japan for service, guess what? they swapped another 17-55Dx which is suitable with the calibrated D2x and working with other lenses.

[birddog114]

Here's story about D2x + 17-55Dx from one of my customers:

Hi Thanh
Have just returned from Maxwells picking up my D2X , 17-55 and 12-24 after service/calibration.

Quite an eventful week or so! Firstly my D2X seems so much better now, focussing much better than before. Secondly, Maxwell were also unable to rectify a focus issue with my 17-55, not being able to get it to focus accurately at either 55 or 17 at the same calibration adjustment.

After clocking up 25 hours!!! on my gear they decided to call it quits and give me a new lens!!! I came home with a new factory calibrated 17-55 ( # 213232 which is an older s/no) but does appear to focus a lot better and more accurately. It appears brand new but I wasn't given any paper work/warranty papers etc?

Hopefully I will now acheive the sharp results I have been looking for.

And here:

Thanh

Maxwell now have all new tehnicians apparently, the longest serving is 6 months? I don't know how they can be expected to know any of Nikons gear with such short service? Even the service receptionist doesn't know the difference between film or digital cameras, booking an F90x in for a CCD clean when I was there today!!

I can't believe they spent 25+ hours on my camera and lenses, the NPS rep reckons the warranty cost to Nikon will be over $2300 for labour plus having the 17-55 lens returned! Really don't know how Maxwell are still in business? Also not sure why Nikon allow so many products out of their factory with such poor quality control.

Thankfully both my D2X and 17-55 seem much better now. The 12-24 though seems the same and doesn't focus too well at 12mm - 15mm on distant subjects, I have to zoom in a little to lock focus and re frame.

I will now check my lenses with Murrays D2X to see if there are any calibration problems, Maxwell stated that my D2X is now set up exactly as their Nikon Factory calibrated sample D2X and to spec.

[kipper]

Dave, the flickr shot is definately resampled and sharpened you can tell.

However Phil has some shots on dpreview from the d70 and d200 that are tiffs/jpegs under various settings (eg. in-camera sharpening at various levels eg. none, very low, low, high, very high or whatever the names are). The ones at none looked pretty damn sharp but I'm guessing he probably shot in a studio with no wind, cable/ir release etc etc. That's why I want to compare your shots from out of the camera with mine I know Paul (Nikonuser) felt his 100% crops were fairly soft and I seem to think mine are aswell compared to the sharpness that some of the NSN canon guys get. For me it's either a back focus issue, a technique issue (I suck) or the D70 just plain sucks

[NikonUser]

I've seen some very sharp shots at 100% from the D70 and often feel that I can't get the same results...

I know my D70 has backfocus issues (easy to replicate) with my kit lens but my other three lenses seem fine (although haven't done any formal tests).

I've always put the softness I get in some of my pics as user error. I guess if my pics get heaps sharper with a new camera then I'll know if I had a backfocus issue or not Either way it's not serious enough for me to worry too much about.

Thom has a very nice review there. I will probably end up getting the D200 (the funds are there right now burning a hole in my bank account...GRR). I'll always dream of the CAM2000 but in reality I just can't justify the cost when digital bodies have such short life-spans (upgrade-wise). If anyone wants to buy one of my photos for $7k then I'll soon change my mind

Paul

[Zeeke]

Im seriously considering getting a D200 Now.. Even tho ive been playing with a D2x for the last few days... and am Mighty impressed.. if I get a d200.. i can spend extra money on more glass.. and possibly a flash or 2.. and keep my d70 as a backup body..

Tim

[NikonUser]

My Thoughts exactly Tim

D200 + Grip + Nikon 12-24 + 1.4xTC + 50 f1.8 + Wimberly Head + RAM upgrade + more


or


D2X

That's the choice I'm faced with

[kipper]

I have all that....perhaps I should just get the D2X

[NikonUser]

Oh.... I forgot one more minor expense

+ money for house deposit

[kipper]

Yeah I got that expense too! Guess back to the D200, or wait until I see how well the jobs pan out in the UK

[energypolice]

"Price/Performance winner." I think I will buy one (18-200).
.

[feldy]

Hi guys - a newbie i'm afraid (will work on getting a pic up).

Just wondered what the final verdict was on 18-200 VR - especially regarding sharpness?

-A