Nikon 18-200 VR lens user question

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

01/24/2007 11:06:06 AM · #1

So I wanted to take a picture of something directly below me on the floor with my trusty new 18-200. I got a good focal length and released the lens to grab the body ... the zoom then slowly increased and the crop had tightened ... and the lens continued to move on its own.

The question is: is this normal? It's probably rare the I would use the lens like this but I'm wondering if the weight of the lens / glass itself is causing this and whther it was common with this lens.

Bugzeye

01/24/2007 11:09:50 AM · #2

Mine does that too, in fact all my longer lenses do that when I point them directly downwards. kind of sucks. I think you have to buy the big $ glass to stop that from happening.

Originally posted by metatate:

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

01/24/2007 11:11:01 AM · #3

a thread from a different site about this topic.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

01/24/2007 11:11:36 AM · #4

google "18-200 zoom creep" and you'll get a ton of results. :)

01/24/2007 11:11:39 AM · #5

I always wondered why people bought the big $ glass ... now I know ;P

01/24/2007 11:14:52 AM · #6

Yeah it really sucks there is no zoom lock.
Woulda been cheap to add.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

01/24/2007 11:15:01 AM · #7

I guess I'm sorta relieved that it's normal anyway ... Maybe I'll invent a collar for lenses with this problem and sell it for a mere 99.99 ;&

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

01/24/2007 11:16:57 AM · #8

Theres this thing called gravity.

One end of your lense is a hell of alot heavier then the other.

COmbine this you get a slow pulldown.

Mainly the only way to prevent this is to make it much harder to turnthe lense. Then you'd be bitching this lense takes alot to turn and doesnt zoom smoothly. Big dollar lenses can maka compromise between the two along with precision measuring hehe.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/24/2007 11:22:51 AM · #9

As observed, many lenses exhibit this behavior. It' pretty specific to lenses that extend when zooming, in other words, lenses iwth internal zoom rarely are affected by zoom creep. These designs are typically more expensive to produce, and so yes, the big buck zoom lenses tend to not have this problem as much. Not all big-dollar zooms are non-extendign designs, though.
It's possible to design a mechanism that is both easy to operate and resistant to creep. The Canon 24-70L, for instance, is an extending lens, is very easy to operate, yet does not creep at all. IMO, there's really no excuse for zoom creep, except that the designers didn't pay attention to it.

01/24/2007 11:23:14 AM · #10

Hmmm ... I'm sure we could argue about this "idea" you speak of.

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Theres this thing called gravity.

But seriously, it seems like these expensive* lenses would have things like "focal lock" or something - I mean a point and shoot auto-zoom would never have this problem - not that I want to bring the lens back to the store or anything (*I use the word expensive because it costs more than many of the best point-and-shoot cameras alone, not because it's the most cosly lens)

Message edited by author 2007-01-24 11:26:04.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

01/24/2007 11:27:43 AM · #11

THe first thing I noticed abou the 18-200 VR was the huge thick piece of glass compared to my other zooms I had owned ... I knew that would be a problem! ;()

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

01/24/2007 11:36:41 AM · #12

Originally posted by metatate:

Hmmm ... I'm sure we could argue about this "idea" you speak of.

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Theres this thing called gravity.

But seriously, it seems like these expensive* lenses would have things like "focal lock" or something - I mean a point and shoot auto-zoom would never have this problem - not that I want to bring the lens back to the store or anything (*I use the word expensive because it costs more than many of the best point-and-shoot cameras alone, not because it's the most cosly lens)

Find me a point and shoot with an 18-200mm Lense.....

01/24/2007 01:34:19 PM · #13

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:

Originally posted by metatate:
Hmmm ... I'm sure we could argue about this "idea" you speak of.

Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Theres this thing called gravity.

But seriously, it seems like these expensive* lenses would have things like "focal lock" or something - I mean a point and shoot auto-zoom would never have this problem - not that I want to bring the lens back to the store or anything (*I use the word expensive because it costs more than many of the best point-and-shoot cameras alone, not because it's the most cosly lens)

Find me a point and shoot with an 18-200mm Lense.....

Nobody claimed there was such a p&s.
There is a p&s with a 38-270 though.
The point was that the zoom is locked on the cheapest of p&shooters.

Oh, and what is thing thing called "gravity" you refer?

griz210

Nikon D300s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

01/24/2007 01:42:45 PM · #14

other then the lense creep how do you guys feel about the 18-200 vr?

i have been condsidering buying one buy havnt been able to talk to anyone who has actually used one. Is it worth the extra money over a Sigma?
Thanks

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

01/24/2007 01:48:29 PM · #15

Originally posted by rswank:

Nobody claimed there was such a p&s.
There is a p&s with a 38-270 though.
The point was that the zoom is locked on the cheapest of p&shooters.

Oh, and what is thing thing called "gravity" you refer?

I beg to differ. Do you know for sure that they are locked?
The zoom mech's are oriented for an electric motor. They dont actually twist or operate inthe same way as an SLR's zoom does. This actually helps with making the assembly slimmer and shorter. This alone would make it difficult to move by hand if you wanted to force it.

The asembly could also be made to resist moving, this would suffer at the cost of battery life, but give the compromise of a "Locked State".

As far as i know there is no locking actuator or ring on any P&S I own. Including the one i took apart.

As far as the gravity goes It is a curved field in the space time continuim caused by the presence of mass. For the record that actual contradicts Newton.

Message edited by author 2007-01-24 13:52:51.

donenright

Nikon D200

01/24/2007 01:50:14 PM · #16

Zoom creep aside, I've been using one for eight months now and it is a pretty tasty lens. Incredibly versatile, sharp, and the VR is surprisingly helpful.

01/24/2007 02:00:47 PM · #17

Originally posted by donenright:

Zoom creep aside, I've been using one for eight months now and it is a pretty tasty lens. Incredibly versatile, sharp, and the VR is surprisingly helpful.

Other than the obvious shortcomings of the so-so maximum aperture, the lens is very nice.
I got good results recently at 150mm at 1/16s.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/24/2007 04:08:02 PM · #18

My Tests of using the VR ON vs. Off have been quite impressive.
Other than that, I haven't had enough use with it to say but it's definitely pretty well built and tough to find at retail price without waiting ... which must mean it's good right ? ;P

PS: I did notice some vignetting today when fully zoomed.

Message edited by author 2007-01-24 16:12:40.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

01/24/2007 04:11:33 PM · #19

I tested one on a friends camera. But I wasn't impressed with the Bokeh. Can someone convince me otherwise by posting samples of the bokeh from this lens?

(Sorry, if this is considered off the original topic--it IS about the lens!)

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

01/24/2007 04:15:05 PM · #20

Originally posted by nshapiro:

What did you not like about the bokeh? (I'm considering buying it)

01/24/2007 04:18:56 PM · #21

I saw some complaints about bokeh ...
anyway, here's some samples I found with some bokeh

//www3.flickr.com/groups/72604026@N00/discuss/72157594344016853/

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/24/2007 04:24:42 PM · #22

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by nshapiro:
I tested one on a friends camera. But I wasn't impressed with the Bokeh. Can someone convince me otherwise by posting samples of the bokeh from this lens?

(Sorry, if this is considered off the original topic--it IS about the lens!)

What did you not like about the bokeh? (I'm considering buying it)

I'd say the Bokeh is somewhat harsh.
But come on, this is an 18-200 lens.
It's not going to do everything perfectly. What it's intended for it does great.
Here is a shot at the end of the zoom wide open.
//photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4131/2340/1600/DSC_0486.jpg

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

01/24/2007 05:19:29 PM · #23

I think "Harsh" is a pretty good summary word for the bokeh examples I am seeing.

I am not "condemning" the lens, but I did find it surprising that I read so many glowing reviews, but none that I read mentioned this (maybe I just didn't read enough) until I saw the bokeh in the quickie test shots I made.

I have to look at this lens with a very critical eye, since I am considering switching to Nikon mainly for the convenience of this lens! I basically want a camera with IS/VR and a minimum set of travel lenses (walkaround 18-200 and an ultrawide, e.g. 10-22).

Remember, this lens is over $800 (and very difficult to buy, so many are paying much more!). I am comparing it to other superzoom lenses--which happen to be much cheaper. Like the Sigma 18-200 . I don't have a bokeh sample from that, but I do have one from my $200 Sigma 18-125:

I thought it had pretty good (not perfect, of course) bokeh, and it certainly looks much better to me than the Nikon. It doesn't have VR/IS, but a new Sigma 18-200 (which doesn't seem to be available yet) does, and I think will be in the $500 range. But I don't think it has ultrasonic focus like the Nikon. (And if I decide to go with the Sigma superzoom, I would either stay with Canon or go for a Pentax K10D.)

Now of course, Bokeh's not my only criterion for picking a lens, but it does affect your use of shallow DOF, which is a pretty important aspect of photography. So it certainly is making me think twice.