|
Articles and Reviews
|
Home >> Photography >> Digital Photography Nikon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6G AF-S DX & 55-200mm f4-5.6G AF-S DX About
the Lenses The parts and construction quality is obviously not professional level like Nikon’s constant f2.8 zoom lenses and they do not inspire confidence in the way that the large, professional quality Nikon lenses would, but they also don’t cost like expensive pro-grade Nikon lenses – not even close. The 18-55 is priced at CAN $200 and the 55-200 is priced at about CAN $250. They’re pretty much all plastic, probably even some of the lens elements are plastic too. Even the lens mounts are plastic and these lenses remind me of the first lenses I ever owned for the Nikon system, a 35-80mm f3.5-5.6 that I got in a kit with the F70 SLR and the 80-200 f4.5-5.6 lens that I bought shortly after to supplement the kit lens. Both of those lenses were also almost all plastic including the lens mount.
Within a few months, I traded in that 35-80 lens towards a 35-70mm f2.8, my first professional quality glass. And shortly after buying the 35-70 lens, I bought my first of three 80-200 f2.8 lenses to supplant the consumer 80-200 lens from my bag. The consumer 80-200 lens was later sold off in a F70 kit to a relative where it remains, but never used since the relative received a digicam as a gift. Using the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses brought back memories of those heady days when I knew nothing about photography (some might suggest I still don’t J), when auto mode ruled the day for everything I shot. I have no desire to return to those days… If these lenses were dropped onto a hard surface, they would probably bounce, get a bit scuffed, but probably wouldn’t be the worse for wear. If you drop a heavy, pro lens, you’re probably going to cry and then allow Nikon to have their way with you for the repair bill to ensure that all those elements in the complex design didn’t get out of whack from the drop.
While I don’t recommend that anyone ever buy kit lenses, it isn’t the end of the world if you do because of budget constraints. Nikon has been known to put some care into the glass of its consumer-oriented lenses and just because a lens is beer-budget does not mean that the optics are "too" bad. The late Galen Rowell was known to have used the old consumer 80-200 lens that I once owned, because of its lightness and acceptable optical quality. It just shows that an inexpensive lens can still be used for quality photography when placed in the right photographic hands. You too can get good results from them by figuring out where their sweet spots are. Most lenses offer their best resolution two or three stops down from maximum aperture, but digital changes the game a bit and you have to be more careful and mindful of diffraction especially when shooting at an aperture smaller than f8.
These are DX lenses, meaning they’re meant for use with cameras that have APS-C sized sensors. While some people enjoy trying out DX lenses with full frame film cameras to see how big the image circle is, I don’t see the point and prefer to use the lenses with their appropriate companion cameras. These are also G lens, meaning they have no aperture rings and aperture values are set with a command dial on the camera. Some have taken an almost religious fervor in criticizing Nikon for moving into the 21st Century and daring to use electronic lens mounts. While I like the historical lens mount compatibility it’s not a make or break issue for me, as I haven’t used an aperture ring since the days when I used the F90x and F70 film cameras and I only own and use fairly current auto focus lenses. These lenses are also, surprisingly, AF-S equipped, which would normally mean fairly fast and silent focusing because the focusing is through a built-in lens motor instead of through a screw drive mechanism in the camera. However, it’s not all peaches and cream with the AF-S motor used in these two entry-level lenses. AF-S has three advantages:
With the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses in A mode you would find the thin focusing ring at the front of the lenses to be locked and unavailable for instant override. It’s too bad that the lenses don’t have this feature, but understandable given how low cost these lenses are. Another cost-conscious consideration is the slow focusing of the 55-200 lens, especially at the telephoto end of the lens. You will not be photographing birds in flight with this lens given the glacial speed the lens focuses at 200mm even in daylight. The 18-55 lens isn’t so bad because it’s only reaching into very moderate telephoto range at its long end. The 55-200 lens is one of the few where at the long end I can focus faster than the camera can and that’s saying a lot given my lack of manual focus experience and prowess. It’s a prime candidate for VR to be incorporated because the low mass and small size actually work against it for steadying the lens in your hands. Even without the VR benefit, I find I’m more stable using the big 70-200 f2.8 lens than the 55-200 thanks to the increase in size and weight naturally stabilizing my shaky hands. I doubt that any future version of the 55-200 lens will have VR incorporated though as the price would go up and there is the expected 70-300 f4-5.6 AF-S VR lens (no official confirmation as of this writing from Nikon) that would cater to those wanting even more telephoto reach with Vibration Reduction.
Testing
and Comparisons I compared the 55-200 lens primarily with my 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR lens due to the similar focal length range, as well as to the 50mm f1.8 prime lens for the short end of the zoom range. The comparison to the big pro lens is not at all fair because at f5.6, the 55-200 is wide open except at 55mm where it opens up to f4, while the big lens is already two-stops down from its f2.8 maximum aperture. But life is never fair and even at f2.8, the big lens is still resolving more than the budget lens at f5.6, but then this is expected given the big price premium the big lens demands of its purchasers. I don’t discuss too much about distortion because distortion is pretty easily controllable these days in RAW conversion or in Photoshop. Distortion may have been a big deal in the days of film, before the digital darkroom gained supremacy, but anyone who makes a big fuss about it now is barking up a tree that rotted away and fell a few years ago. Besides, one has to keep realistic expectations with lenses that are so affordable.
Generally, the 18-55 is weakest at the wide-angle focal length and at its best at the telephoto end of the range. This is normal performance for these types of lenses. The 18-55 will also show purple fringing when shooting subjects under the right conditions, just like with the 18-35 lens, so I’m not surprised or concerned about this. Generally, the 55-200 is at its best at the short end of the focal length range and weakest at the telephoto end, which seems a bit odd, but it’s been a long time since I’ve used a consumer quality telephoto zoom lens that I don’t know if this should be expected. My 70-200 lens for instance, seems excellent throughout its range, but push comes to shove, I’d say that it is ever so slightly weaker at the 70mm end compared to the 200mm end of the range. Actual
Use and Printing of Images How did the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses actually perform in the real world? In a word, fine (except for the AF speed of the 55-200 at or near 200mm). When you step back from the clinical side of photography and just go out and photograph you’ll find that things such as lack of M/A capability and ultra fast aperture settings don’t come into play as often as you might think, especially at the consumer level of photography that’s most often during daylight hours. Using a camera like the D50 with its very clean higher ISO performance compared to my old D100, allows one to use ISO 400 with no fear of noise and this helps to compensate for the slower maximum aperture of the lenses. With the D50 shooting in JPEG mode, I received nicely sharp images with good color saturation. It’s only under direct comparison to the more expensive lenses that these budget offerings are going to be shown up. While the much higher cost of the professional quality zoom lenses is worth the money for serious amateurs and professionals, for the target buyers of the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses, they may just say to hell with spending 8x the amount because the differences aren’t enough. And I don’t mean viewing at 100-percent on a monitor, I mean looking at actual prints, the end product, the reason why we want to be photographers in the first place. I printed off some decent looking 8x10 and 10x15 sized prints of photos taken with these two lenses. For 4x6 sized prints, which is what I'd expect the casual D50 user to print most often, they were very crisp with nothing to indicate that the photos were taken with entry-level lenses. More often than not, it's photographic technique that allows an image to be printed at large sizes. Use a tripod, 2-second self timer or cordless remote with the right aperture setting and you should be able to get good enlarged photographs. However, for larger 13x19 size prints generated from a 6 MP camera, I’d be wanting use pro-grade glass or primes to maximize resolution and detail to hold up at the larger interpolated print size. For example, comparing the quality of the 55-200 and 70-200 lenses at f11 for 8x10 prints clearly showed the superiority of the larger zoom lens, but a casual observer might question how there can be an 8x difference in cost. However, comparing 8x10 print crops of files interpolated to 12x18 inches separates the boys from the men and the 55-200 is not suitable for such demanding enlargements - and at f11, the 70-200 is not even at its best because diffraction is already robbing it of sharpness compared to the lens set to f5.6 or f8. Conclusion Pro-grade lenses cost a lot of money to buy and because they're packed with the latest technology and developments from the brand, the user expectation is very high. If expensive lenses don't perform as expected the disappointment is that much more (speaking from experience with one particular lens). I don’t place the same burden on the 18-55 or 55-200 lenses because they are not built to the same standard. They are not priced to the same standard and are not expected to perform at the same standard. However, being budget lenses do not mean that they are not capable of producing acceptable photographs. They are if the user understands how to use them for best results and what their limitations are. These lenses are appropriate for the kind of beginning photographer that Nikon expects to buy and use them, but just as I suggested with in the D50 review, if you’re at all serious about where you’re going with your photography, look to Nikon’s better lenses for a little bit more money. It doesn’t mean having to blow big bucks on pro-grade glass as Nikon does produce some great bang-for-the-buck lenses like the 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 lens. Partner that lens with a fast and cheap 50mm f1.8 prime and maybe that future 70-300mm AF-S VR lens and it could be a pretty darn good and still lightweight kit - or, how about the sexy 18-200 AF-S VR lens? |
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
 |
|
Although
these lenses are available for purchase individually, they 
Even the lowly 50mm f1.8 AF prime has a metal lens mount >>
At
the telephoto end of both lenses, their maximum aperture is
f5.6 and two-stops down is f11, which is getting pretty slow
for hand held shots. With the 18-55 lens, it isn't all that
clear to my eyes that you actually get an increase in resolution.
The 55-200 lens does improve by stopping down to f11.
Unfortunately,
the AF-S motor in these two lenses only offer about one-and-a-half
of the benefits and not all three. Tellingly, the switch on
the lenses only have an A – M setting and not 
Same
goes for vignetting – I didn’t specifically test
for this and I didn’t notice anything amiss, but if you’re
terribly concerned about the light fall off behavior (and other
aspects of distortion) of lenses then you should be looking
at Nikon’s pro zooms or prime lenses.