What's wrong with the 18-200VR?

Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
517
Location
Canada
So after a little searching it sounds like the d300 has some in-camera programing that with NX removes CA. Does anyone else know of this? or more towards this?
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
966
Location
Nottingham, UK
It is not You neither NX nor jpeg:
it is the quality and size of the posted samples - but if You read carefully every single word of the posted article in flikr, You might recognize, that the regarding issue is not sharpnes!

tom
I know the original post wasn't about sharpness, but the major difference there for me is the loss of resolution/pixellation from the JPEG/NEF compared to ACR.

The fact that the D300/D3 automatically fixes CA is nothing new and already well discussed, although similar reductions are achievable through post-processing in Lightroom.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
1,074
Location
SF Bay Area, California
It is not You neither NX nor jpeg:
it is the quality and size of the posted samples - but if You read carefully every single word of the posted article in flikr, You might recognize, that the regarding issue is not sharpnes!

tom
I'm at a loss here....what does this have to do with the 18-200 lens???
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
771
Location
Greater NYC
Tried cutting back last trip. Was pretty happy going with the 16-85 and 70-300 combo. The 16mm came in useful for slightly wider shots - though I did miss the 12-24 on a few occasions.

The Sigma 150-500 proved to be very useful for wildlife shots - bear, a moose lounging by lakeshore and bighorn sheep and mountain goats. However I think the revamped 80-400 may be better, smaller and lighter - worth losing 100mm on longer treks and a perfect pairing with the 16-85.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
35
Location
Seattle
I dunno, maybe I'm asking too much, but this lens doesn't get me the sharpness I was looking for. Maybe I need to
A. get over it or
B. go with Nikkor "pro" level glass.

if "B", does anyone have suggestions? (since this is MY fantasy, money is no issue)
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
342
Location
Inukjuak, Canadian Eastern Arctic
I dunno, maybe I'm asking too much, but this lens doesn't get me the sharpness I was looking for. Maybe I need to
A. get over it or
B. go with Nikkor "pro" level glass.

if "B", does anyone have suggestions? (since this is MY fantasy, money is no issue)

A. get over it. It's not a pro lens so you can't compare. It's an all in one do it all "Walk around" so don't expect pro results. You can always sharpen in PP after if needed.

B. If going for Pro glass in any brand, then you will need to carry more than one to get the versatility of the 18-200vr. Unless you don't want that much range.
Then a 28-80 f/2.8, 12-24 f/4, 30 f/1.4 or similar to these and maybe add the 70-200 f/2.8. Now we're starting to lug around a bit. Okay with a good backpack like the Fastpack 350. I've been out before for a month just with the 18-200vr and got great shots. I've also been gone for a another month period which I brought everything and used almost all.

Pro v/s practicality?
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
966
Location
Nottingham, UK
B. If going for Pro glass in any brand, then you will need to carry more than one to get the versatility of the 18-200vr. Unless you don't want that much range.
Then a 28-80 f/2.8, 12-24 f/4, 30 f/1.4 or similar to these and maybe add the 70-200 f/2.8. Now we're starting to lug around a bit. Okay with a good backpack like the Fastpack 350. I've been out before for a month just with the 18-200vr and got great shots. I've also been gone for a another month period which I brought everything and used almost all.

Pro v/s practicality?
You don't need that much kit to better the 18-200, even the 18-55VR and 55-200VR have visibly better picture quality.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
35
Location
Seattle
"You can always sharpen in PP after if needed."
Nope, gotta disagree - sharpening by getting more pixels to cluster and contrast just ain't the same as having a sharp image to begin with. I've been a Photoshop geek since version 1.0 - you can't make it up in PP - fake it yes, but REALLY sharpen - nope.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
342
Location
Inukjuak, Canadian Eastern Arctic
"You can always sharpen in PP after if needed."
Nope, gotta disagree - sharpening by getting more pixels to cluster and contrast just ain't the same as having a sharp image to begin with. I've been a Photoshop geek since version 1.0 - you can't make it up in PP - fake it yes, but REALLY sharpen - nope.
I agree. Better to have good glass and know it's sweet spot. PP is only last solution.

And as for which kit instead of the 18-200, well there are a few options. but to keep it simple stay with the 18-200vr. It is a nice lens. Why get complicated.
 
A

Adam73

Guest
I loved mine right up until the moment the front element fell out and cracked. I'd love it again if Nikon would ship the damn replacement part so I could get it back.
:biggrin: LOL I don't know why but this cracked me up here at work. heehee.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom