NIKON Nikkor 18-200mm AF-S VR

[SkipT]

I want to get a lens for shooting at band field shows and was thinking of the NIKON Nikkor 18-200mm AF-S VR.

The field shows are both day and night events. Depending on how the school places on the day event they may play at the night even. Right now I am useing the 70-200mm that came with my D60 which is not a bad lens but not as sharp and/or will not let me go wide enough on some of my shots.

What do you think? This lens or something in the 300mm range?

Thanks

Skip

[Len J]

Are you sure that what you have is the 70-200?

The 7-200 2.8 is one of the sharpest zoom lens that Nikon makes.

I have both the 18-200 you describe and the 70-200 2.8....there is no comparison between these 2 lens in the overlapping range. The 70-200 is just flat out better & it is better in lower light. The downside of this lens is it's weight.

The 18-200 is a great vacation/walking around lens. It's light weight, and very versitle, but it does contain comprimises aimed at it's versatility. It's not as sharp and it's not as good in low light. OTOH, it costs $700 or so compared to the $1,700 or so for the 70-200 2.8

Depending on how much reach you need...........I'd consider either the 300 f/4., the 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4 or 1.7 TC. To go wide, I'd suppliment with a low cost low light prime in the 20 to 24 range.

Len

[SkipT]

Mmmmm my 70-200 came with D60 along with a 18-55 both which can be bought all day for under $190.00 togther on ebay. The NIKON Nikkor 18-200mm AF-S VR go'd for a little under $700 before tax. Maybe you are thinking of another 70-200mm?

[Len J]

Mmmmm my 70-200 came with D60 along with a 18-55 both which can be bought all day for under $190.00 togther on ebay. The NIKON Nikkor 18-200mm AF-S VR go'd for a little under $700 before tax. Maybe you are thinking of another 70-200mm?

I almost guarantee that you didn't get a 70-200 as one of the kit lens.......one of the kits that Nikon sells with a D60 is the 18-55 & the 55-200 http://www.google.com/products/catal...ult#ps-sellers


If it is a Nikon len, 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Autofocus Lens is the lens that I suspect you have.

Please Show me a link to the 70-200 that you can buy on e-bay for $190.

Len

[Dylan8i]

i agree its not the 70-200. if it was ( its not) and you are not happy with it, then the 18-200 would be even worse.

[SkipT]

oops my bad it was a 55-200 :P

Anyhows I could use some help on the 18-200mm or should I go with a 70-300?
Or should I go with a good 55-200?
I kind of would like to not have to switch lens alot.

[Dylan8i]

what focal range do you shoot currently? are most of your pictures at the 200 end, and your looking for more reach? for the night shots the smaller f number, the better, but thats where the cost increases sharply.

im not sure the sharpness of any of them, but teh vr would also be a good idea, as i assume your hand holding for the photos?

[Len J]

The main thing the 18-200 will give you over what you have is convenience.

When you say "Not as sharp", could you give us an example (with EXIF data) of what you mean? It will help us determine if it is in fact a lens issue or something else.

Also, let us know what your budget for this lens change is.

Len

[SkipT]

I shot a lot of things but what I want is to be able to go wide and get the whole field and also be able to zoom into a single band member. I can swicth lens but lose a lot of time doing so and its kind of a pain in the butt to do.

So I am looking for the ones len solution so that I can shot wide and close up on the fly.
It seems with the 70-200 lens that came with the D60 the pictures are soft or "fuzzy" to me and could be much sharper.

I tested to see if it was me, I took a few shots off hand and a few shots with a mono pod and a few shots with a tri-pod and they pretty much all looked the same. Maybe I have a bad lens but I do know the lens that come with the D60 are pretty much low end lens.

I thought maybe the NIKON Nikkor 18-200mm AF-S VR. would be better for what I was wanting to do. But I would like to be able to zoom in more so a 300mm would be nice but then I lose the wide angle ability.Maybe there is a good telephoto starting at 28mm upto 300mm??

Thanks

Skip

[Dylan8i]

the 18-200 is a good lense if you want the range, probbably the best out there. but just remember photography is a game of sacrafices, and no lense will be perfect.

you gotta figure out what (lens and techniques) work for you and go with that.

also posting pics of your blurry images, we can probbably id the problem... ie not enought light, to slow of shutter speed for moving people, camera shake etc.

[Len J]

the 18-200 is a good lense if you want the range, probbably the best out there. but just remember photography is a game of sacrafices, and no lense will be perfect.

you gotta figure out what (lens and techniques) work for you and go with that.

also posting pics of your blurry images, we can probbably id the problem... ie not enought light, to slow of shutter speed for moving people, camera shake etc.

+1.

There is a 28-300 out there. Don't know if if it has an internal focus motor (which you need for the D60) or not. Problem with this lense is its the equivilant of a 42 - 450 on an APS-c sensor. Not wide enough for what you want to do.

18-200 is probably your best bet for a one lens solution.

As to the lack of sharpness........the 55-200, while not a super sharp lens is plenty sharp, when used correctly, for what you are describing. There are many reasons for a lack of sharpness other than the lens including:

- Strong AA filter in camera. This requires either sharpening in camera or in post processing.

- Camera shake

- Low shutter speed.

Or some combination.

Showing us a "Unsharp" picture along with the EXIF data would help us help you.

len

[SkipT]

Here is one I took at night I know there has to be somthing I can do diff. These are all shot off hand no support.

This unretuched and shot as a jpg. The EXIF data is on picture when you up load or no?

[Dylan8i]

yeah the exif data is there

iso 800
f4
1/60 second
55mm

and btw your WB was set to flash, but you didn't use the flash.


to me it looks like it is ok IQ, but the band members being blurred would be from movement/not fast enough shutter speed ( note the orange cone in the forground appears fairly sharp).

at 55mm 1/60 is just fast enough to hand hold, but not fast enough to stop the action. unfortunentally your alreay at f4 (maximum for that lense) and iso is already at 800

another thing you could try is timing your shots for when they physically stop in a location (depending on the show they are performing). then the members themselves would not be moving and as fast of a shutter speed would not be required ( flags not wthstanding)

[Len J]

Here is one I took at night I know there has to be somthing I can do diff. These are all shot off hand no support.

This unretuched and shot as a jpg. The EXIF data is on picture when you up load or no?

That helps a lot.

There are a few problems with what you are doing that are creating less than optimally sharp pictures.

1.) You are shooting at f/4 This hurts your sharpness in 2 ways. First off.......you are shooting the lense almost completly wide open (at 55MM Wide open is 3.5). Most lens's, this one included are sharpest slightly stopped down. In this case, your going to get sharper pictures at about f/8.....Secondly.....f/4 is a pretty narrow Depth of Field for the scene you are trying to photograph. That means that a very narrow area, equally distant from the camera will be in focus, with everything else in-front of & behind out of focus. What was your focus point?

2.) You are shooting at 1/60's for a 55 MM focal length. That is not fast enough to freeze anything that is moving, so your picture appears soft.....because your subject moved while the shutter was open. In addition, even the smallest camera shake will add to this problem.

You are in a tough situation shooting this subject in this light. You need a faster shutter speed which will require a higher ISO which is going to bring noise into the picture but you also need to stop down the lense to get an adequate DOF.........

An 18-200 is not going to to help you here The only 3 solutions I can think of are:

1.) A faster lense
2.) A better snesor. I have a D300 that I'm comfortable shooting up to about iso 2000...that's a stop & 1/2 better than you shot that picture with. A D700 ($$$$'s) can easily shoot 2 to 2 1/2 stops better than that iso 800 you shot in with low noise levels
3.) A flash.

Hope that helps.

len

[Franglais]

If 55mm is a focal length that you use often and you need to shoot a lot at night then the new 50mm f1.4 would be a good solution (it was only announced 2 weeks ago so I don't think it's available right now). If has a AF-S motor so it would autofocus with your D60. Plus it gives you a whole 3 stops extra light. Instead of shooting 800ISO at 1/60 f4 you could be shooting at 1/250 f2. But you should be shooting at 1600ISO, it makes no sense to shoot at 800ISO in these conditions. You're using shutter priority at 1/60 but this is too slow to freeze the action.

If you want to do a lot of action shots at night then a lens that opens to f2.8 is the minimum. I have the 80-200 f2.8 AF-S. This lens is no longer made so you might be able to pick it up relatively cheaply. But be warned - it's huge and very heavy!

[Loupey]

Skip, I've been shooting Friday night HS football & band for the last 7 weeks and have some thoughts for you:

1) even with fast glass (f/2.8), you will need to crank the ISO to at least 1600 the majority of time with typical HS lighting.

2) good coverage can be obtained from 24mm to 300mm (in effective focal lengths).

3) you don't need to always go for the highest shutter speed - some blurred/panned shots can be quite effective if you don't want to fight the low light situation.


I don't know the Nikon system but I shoot a 1.6x crop Canon and a 70-200mm on that lens is perfectly adequate for most things that require longer reach. But I also use a full-frame body with the 24-105mm on it. So I can certainly understand your reasoning for a 18-200mm lens. I just don't know if that lens is fast enough for your camera (ISO performance-wise) because you will like be in the ISO 3200 range quite frequently.

Hope that helps some (although I didn't really answer any of your questions )

[SkipT]

Ok thanks guys, ever so helpful asalways! Gives me a few ways to jump this beast