 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2007Nikon 18-200 VR
Many people have used this lens. Is there any noticeable extra drain on the camera battery from the VR mechanism? > Many people have used this lens. > Is there any noticeable extra drain on the camera battery from the VR > mechanism? not that i can tell. > > Many people have used this lens. > > Is there any noticeable extra drain on the camera battery from the VR > > mechanism? > > not that i can tell. But, battery drain is not the major defect in this lens.  Signature"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis >> > Many people have used this lens. >> > Is there any noticeable extra drain on the camera battery from the VR [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But, battery drain is not the major defect in this lens. ok so what is?? On May 17, 8:16 pm, " banjo`s" <- deeeenoregist...@hotmail.co.uk_not_this_bit> wrote: > > In article <170520071624530242%nos...@nospam.invalid>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ok so what is?? A lot of folks like this lens, I have seen a few good photos with it, but not that many. I have also seen a lot of complaints of dust on the sensor, with "I have kept my 18-200 on the camera and not changed lenses much". Sounds like a dust bellows. If i wanted an all in one lens I'd buy the Nikon 18-200 accept no substitutes, but why buy a DSLR with only one lens, or use only one lens. But then again I like single focal length lenses. tom >> > But, battery drain is not the major defect in this lens. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > DSLR with only one lens, or use only one lens. But then again I like > single focal length lenses. Clearly you don't own it, which probably has much to do with your disdain [as opposed to having disdain so you don't own it]. It is a variable apeture zoom lens, it will suck air, as about any other variable apeture lens will. Yes, that may eventually mean dust on the sensor ... part of owning a DSLR. I, for one, like the lens as an all around lens. I have not put it through extensive trial yet, but it seems to do a pretty good job and the VR seems to work VERY well. I have had sharp images well into the telephoto range with no obvious defects [that weren't caused directly by me]. I prefer my Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 when I need absolute sharpness and speed [and can use a tripod] and I prefer my Tokina 12-24 f/4 for wide angle. The 18-200 from Nikon does what it is supposed to do and it does it well. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > >> > But, battery drain is not the major defect in this lens. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Thomas T. Veldhouse > Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 Did you read the line, if you want an all in one lens buy the Nikon, accept no substitutes. I think Nikon did a marvelous job with that lens, given its range, it is just not a lens I want. The dust thing is no lie, I have seen several threads complaining about dust with the 18-200. I just like single focal length lenses, small and as unobtrusive as a D200 can get. Came from shooting Leicas, just how I am. If you like the lens enjoy it. Tom > Did you read the line, if you want an all in one lens buy the Nikon, > accept no substitutes. I think Nikon did a marvelous job with that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > unobtrusive as a D200 can get. Came from shooting Leicas, just how I > am. If you like the lens enjoy it. That's fine. But go knocking what you don't own [or haven't used]. Dust is not specific to a Nikon 18-200 lens; as I mentioned, it happens with most variable apeture zooms [most constant apeture zooms don't extend and blow air]. The lens is actually better than how Nikon markets it and that is a good thing, and explains why demand is so high. If you don't have a good "all around" lens or want one that is of longer reach, than this is the lens in my opinion. Save the the special compositions for the special lenses. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >>>> But, battery drain is not the major defect in this lens. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > variable apeture lens will. Yes, that may eventually mean dust on the sensor > ... part of owning a DSLR. And how does the dust get past the rear element? This is a sealed lens. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >> It is a variable apeture zoom lens, it will suck air, as about any other >> variable apeture lens will. Yes, that may eventually mean dust on the >> sensor >> ... part of owning a DSLR. > > And how does the dust get past the rear element? This is a sealed lens. It's quantum dust. > It's quantum dust. As far as dust goes, it is all quantum dust. You either have a spec of it or you don't. No such thing as 1/2 of a spec of dust. ;-) SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> It's quantum dust. > > As far as dust goes, it is all quantum dust. You either have a spec of it or > you don't. No such thing as 1/2 of a spec of dust. ;-) Wow. Dude, you just blew my mind. >>> It's quantum dust. >> >> As far as dust goes, it is all quantum dust. You either have a spec of it or >> you don't. No such thing as 1/2 of a spec of dust. ;-) > > Wow. Dude, you just blew my mind. Seems easy to do I guess ;-) SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> It's quantum dust. > > As far as dust goes, it is all quantum dust. You either have a spec of it or > you don't. No such thing as 1/2 of a spec of dust. ;-) It's not really there until you measure it. SignatureIt Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net >>> It's quantum dust. >> >> As far as dust goes, it is all quantum dust. You either have a spec of it or >> you don't. No such thing as 1/2 of a spec of dust. ;-) > > It's not really there until you measure it. Schrodinger's dust! SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> As far as dust goes, it is all quantum dust. You either have a spec of it or >> you don't. No such thing as 1/2 of a spec of dust. ;-) > > It's not really there until you measure it. And then it's not really *there* any more. One might think that this technique might be utilised to make an effective dust removal system, but no. Unfortunately, it's only practical with sensors that have insanely small pixels. ASAAR wrote in part: > Unfortunately, it's only practical with sensors > that have insanely small pixels. Don't give'em any more encouragement in that direction, pleeeease. SignatureIt Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net "'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets! Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer." -St. Bill Hicks > And how does the dust get past the rear element? This is a sealed lens. If the rear element is sealed, then I guess it won't. It will suck air in and out of hte lens though and that could lead to eventual dust accumulation in the lens, but again, that is part of owning a zoom. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > >> > Many people have used this lens. > >> > Is there any noticeable extra drain on the camera battery from the VR [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ok so what is?? Lens creep. If you hold the camera/lens combo either a bit up or down, you will constantly lose focus. Have a son in law and a friend who sent it back. the range of the lens is just too great to be stable when they build it with less than optimum components. Find one and check the distance it moves when changing focal length. Too much movement for flimsy components. Signature"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis >>>>> Many people have used this lens. >>>>> Is there any noticeable extra drain on the camera battery from the VR [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > moves when changing focal length. Too much movement for flimsy > components. Yep. They just didn't use as good components on this 12-1 consumer lens that costs less than half what a faster pro lens with half the zoom range has. Can't imagine why they did that. Right. What I really can't imagine is why idiots think a cheap consumer lens with this kind of zoom range for that kind of price should be held to the standard of pro lenses costing more than twice as much. The lens does what it does. It is sharp, flexible, and fun to use. It takes pretty good pictures. It is a heck of a value for the money. No, it is not an 18-55mm f/2.8 DX wedding photography lens. Neither is it as good as the razor sharp 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. But it costs a lot less than those lenses, gives pictures almost as sharp, if not as sharp, and it weighs a lot less. Given a choice of which lens to walk around with all day at the cruise ship port, I will take the 18-200mm any time. I will have pictures as good as I would have taken with the pro lenses and I won't have to come back needing cold compresses on my neck. Everyone knows that this lens has some lens creep now. Good grief, deal with it. Are you really telling me that you are too lazy to change the zoom when setting up your shot? Is it really that hard to turn the zoom all the way to 18mm so it doesn't creep? Aw, you sent it back because of lens creep. Poor baby. Hope you don't get hangnails or we would hear the wailing all the way to Madagascar. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > Yep. They just didn't use as good components on this 12-1 consumer lens > that costs less than half what a faster pro lens with half the zoom > range has. Can't imagine why they did that. Right. What I really can't > imagine is why idiots think a cheap consumer lens with this kind of zoom > range for that kind of price should be held to the standard of pro > lenses costing more than twice as much. Some people think *all* lenses should be held to those standards; that the compromises are too great to use a lens like the 18-200 for *anything*. (And I can't imagine it would be only *twice* as much; the 70-200/2.8 VR is twice as much already, and going from 3:1 to 12:1 has gotta *really* cost.) (Just to be clear -- I have uses for less-than-top-line lenses myself, so I can't afford to sneer at other people who also use less than the very best now and then.) > The lens does what it does. It is sharp, flexible, and fun to use. It > takes pretty good pictures. It is a heck of a value for the money. No, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have pictures as good as I would have taken with the pro lenses and I > won't have to come back needing cold compresses on my neck. I have Canon. I have the EF-S 18-55, the EF-S 70-300IS, and the EF 24-105 f/4L IS (also the EF 50 f/1.8). I'm going on vacation. I'm going to use the EF 24-105 as the walk around lens. This lens is BIG and heavy. I'm also going to carry the two EF-S lenses for use as necessary. I'm also going to carry a sensor cleaning kit. Thus, I am doing back strengthening exercises. You get what you pay for and are willing to carry. If Canon had an 18-300 EF-S f/4L IS that was as sharp as the 24-105 f/4L for $2500 or $3000 I'd have paid for that. BUT THEY DON'T AND NEITHER DOES NIKON. The question is ... does ANYBODY have one of these at any price, i.e. $100,000 (by "these" I mean AS SHARP.) I note that EF-S size is close to regular 35mm non-wide screen move frame size, also HDTV size. Do any of the cinema/broadcast zoom lens purveyors have lenses that will do the equivalent of 18-300 and are as sharp as the Canon 24-105L? IF they do .... I'll bet there is a reason for those bellows lens hoods the you see on such lenses: really really bad flare from the 25 elements in 18 groups! There is no question but that HDTV cameras have the zoom range and to spare ... but then, HDTV is only two megapixels at most ... even at 1080p, so the sharpness need is less. Doug McDonald >> The lens does what it does. It is sharp, flexible, and fun to use. It >> takes pretty good pictures. It is a heck of a value for the money. No, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > as sharp as the 24-105 f/4L for $2500 or $3000 I'd have paid for that. > BUT THEY DON'T AND NEITHER DOES NIKON. Dude. How many people are going to look at these spectacular vacation photos, anyway? So, I have a great back strengthening exercise for you that should help a lot. It is perfect for the physical condition of most photographers. You get two ten pound potato sacks. You hold one sack in each hand with your arms outstretched to the side for as long as you can. You do this every day until you can do three reps of 30 seconds each. Then you go to two 20 lb. potato sacks, one in each hand, until you can do three reps of 30 seconds each. Then 50 lb. sacks and finally <ugh> 100 lb. sacks. Once you can do three reps of 30 seconds with a 100 lb. sack in each hand, you go back to the 10 lb. sacks. Only now you put a potato in each sack. :-) > The question is ... does ANYBODY have one of these at any price, > i.e. $100,000 (by "these" I mean AS SHARP.) Of course not. The laws of physics must be obeyed. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >> If Canon had an 18-300 EF-S f/4L IS that was >> as sharp as the 24-105 f/4L for $2500 or $3000 I'd have paid for that. >> BUT THEY DON'T AND NEITHER DOES NIKON. > > Dude. How many people are going to look at these spectacular vacation > photos, anyway? Everybody who comes through my office. >> The question is ... does ANYBODY have one of these at any price, >> i.e. $100,000 (by "these" I mean AS SHARP.) > > Of course not. The laws of physics must be obeyed. Nothing in the laws of physics prohibits such a lens. Its on the borderline of commercial feasibility. As I already said, getting one with few enough elements to have flare problems is the main design hurdle. Doug McDonald > > Dude. How many people are going to look at these spectacular vacation > > photos, anyway? > > Everybody who comes through my office. You must be selling the most coveted product in the world. Signature"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis > Lens creep. If you hold the camera/lens combo either a bit up or down, > you will constantly lose focus. I just picked up my version of this lens last week [B&H Photo] and my copy has no creep at all. Further, there is no rough zoom as others have reported. Perhaps they fixed the issue in later models? Or perhaps there is some variance, but I am quite happy with my copy. > Have a son in law and a friend who sent it back. > > the range of the lens is just too great to be stable when they build it > with less than optimum components. Find one and check the distance it > moves when changing focal length. Too much movement for flimsy > components. See above; I have to disagree. My copy does just fine. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> Lens creep. If you hold the camera/lens combo either a bit up or down, >> you will constantly lose focus. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Perhaps they fixed the issue in later models? Or perhaps there is some > variance, but I am quite happy with my copy. It will eventually loosen up a little. If you keep it at 18 mm when carrying it around it probably will never creep. The real lens creeps are the idiots who think this is such a major issue that the lens is unusable. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > It will eventually loosen up a little. If you keep it at 18 mm when > carrying it around it probably will never creep. > > The real lens creeps are the idiots who think this is such a major > issue that the lens is unusable. Even my 18-70 creeped if I left it extended. Just about any extendable lens does I think. To avoid creep, you have to buy a lens that doesn't extend [i.e. Nikkor 70-200 ... and probably not the push-pull variet of years past ... like the 80-200]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 >> Lens creep. If you hold the camera/lens combo either a bit up or down, >> you will constantly lose focus. > > I just picked up my version of this lens last week [B&H Photo] and my copy > has > no creep at all. Mine doesn't either. But mine is still pretty new too. If it does develop some creep it won't bother me that much anyway, and I can't really see why this supposed fault gets so much talk. > Further, there is no rough zoom as others have reported. Not with mine either. There's a slight change in resistance around 135mm but it's not in the least bothersome, and no roughness at all. > Perhaps they fixed the issue in later models? Or perhaps there is some > variance, but I am quite happy with my copy. Same here. I absolutely love this lens. Neil >>> Lens creep. If you hold the camera/lens combo either a bit up or down, >>> you will constantly lose focus. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >some creep it won't bother me that much anyway, and I can't really see why >this supposed fault gets so much talk. Because it's really very annoying to be walking arouns and have the lens extend. The easy fix is to go to Ace Hardware and get a 2 7/7" diameter o-ring and put it where the fixed part meets the rotating part. Works like a charm and actually makes the whole action smoother. Otherwise, I love this lens. >> Further, there is no rough zoom as others have reported. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Neil > Many people have used this lens. > Is there any noticeable extra drain on the camera battery from the VR > mechanism? Noticeable by whom? I don't notice it. There are some people who spend more time measuring their equipment than using it. They probably notice. As to the alleged 'flaws' of this lens: It is a 12-1 stabilized autofocusing zoom that has a street price of less than $800. It works amazingly well, all things considered. Of course it has compromises. It only gives the field of view of a 200mm lens when focused at infinity. At closest focus, the field of view is more like that of a 135mm lens. It is made of lightweight plastic. It might break if you drop it. If you drop it with the lens extended, you could break the plastic extension tube. You might damage or dislodge the VR or autofocus chips with rough handling. There is slight distortion varying from barrel to pincushion throughout the zoom range. VR does not work as well at close distances. The bokeh is not as good as on lenses costing twice as much. In other words, it is not as good a lens as a fast pro lens with half the zoom range and costing two or three times as much, nor is it as well built. You will find that that is what all the flaws boil down to. It is a very good value for the money. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > Many people have used this lens. > Is there any noticeable extra drain on the camera battery from the VR > mechanism? Yes, there is a noticable drain. Then again, you don't need to turn it on all the time either. It does only come on when you press the shutter release button. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 This is my third 18-200 lens. On extended treks I only want to carry one lens, although I may now also carry an ultrawide as the field of view at 10-12mm focal length is unreal. On extended treks battery longevity is a real consideration, hence my original question at the top of this thread. In my limited, one interrupted afternoon test, my impressions of the Nikon will disappoint the Nikonophiles out there: The Nikon is not obviously sharper and does not have obviously less distortion at 18mm than its less pedigreed competitors. Same camera, same subject, two different lenses. The Nikon is not built any better. The Sigma 18-200 has a lens lock tab to defeat creep when you are walking around with the camera hanging off you. This is a real helpful touch. But the advantages of image stabilization are immediately obvious and worth the price premium. That is why I got the Nikon. And when Nikon comes out with a Dxx with built-in OS I do not want to buy yet another camera body. (Also because Sigma announced their OS 18-200 last September and has yet to actually produce the thing and I need the lens.) > This is my third 18-200 lens. > On extended treks I only want to carry one lens, although I may now [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (Also because Sigma announced their OS 18-200 last September and has > yet to actually produce the thing and I need the lens.) Well, exactly. Heck, it is hard enough to find the Nikkor. The 18-200 is a good value for the money if you use it as intended: a non-professional general walking around lens for vacation shots and such. Probably not the lens of choice for NatGeo or for a wedding photographer, but then you never know. :-) How come you have had three of these? SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > Well, exactly. Heck, it is hard enough to find the Nikkor. The 18-200 > is a good value for the money if you use it as intended: a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How come you have had three of these? Simple economics! You buy a total of 4 of them for $750 ea. from Ritz Camera and sell three of them on eBay for $900+ to offset costs of justifying keeping one. Though the 18-200 VR is a great convenience lens it is *NOT* a $750 lens. Had Nikon tagged this lens with an MSRP of $425 it might be worth buying a single copy. Rita >> Well, exactly. Heck, it is hard enough to find the Nikkor. The 18-200 >> is a good value for the money if you use it as intended: a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > $750 lens. Had Nikon tagged this lens with an MSRP of $425 it might be > worth buying a single copy. You can beat that drum all you want, Rita, but people keep paying that much for it whether you think it is worth it or not. Apparently Nikon did not appoint you to decide how much their products are worth and nobody else is listening to you, either. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >>> Well, exactly. Heck, it is hard enough to find the Nikkor. The 18-200 >>> is a good value for the money if you use it as intended: a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > not appoint you to decide how much their products are worth and nobody > else is listening to you, either. Just so. The value of anything at any given point in time is whatever people are willing to pay for it, and as we've seen lots and lots of buyers over the past year or so have been willing to pay $1000+ for this particular lens. So at $750 it's a bargain. Neil >> You can beat that drum all you want, Rita, but people keep paying >> that much for it whether you think it is worth it or not. Apparently [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > buyers over the past year or so have been willing to pay $1000+ for > this particular lens. So at $750 it's a bargain. The very same people said this about Beanie Babies and Cabbage Crotch Kids when they were introduced and hyped. These very same people came to their senses shortly after getting one and realized they got caught up in the moment. A lot of people find this to be true with the 18-200mm VR and have sold theirs once the "excitement" died down. Rita > Many people have used this lens. > Is there any noticeable extra drain on the camera battery from the VR > mechanism? Oh, yes. Even the D2x battery is drained noticeably more quickly when using this thing. Andrew. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.