Good Glass?
Nikkor 50mm 1.8
Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR
Nikkor 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VRII
A comparison of the three Nikon lenses I own. These are the 50mm 1.8 Nikkor, the 70-200mm 2.8 Nikkor, and the 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 Nikkor.
These lenses are quite different in nature. They are marketed to different audiences and used for different purposes. For this test, I wanted to see the relative sharpness at their maximum lengths and medium apertures.
Each photo was shot at the closest focus distance and longest focal length possible. The aperture for all three shots is f/11. I used strong flash to minimize camera shake.
The 50mm lens is a Nikon classic. It’s been around for years and hasn’t changed much. It always worked well and continues to do so. It doesn’t zoom and it doesn’t have the newer, faster and more quiet autofocus motor of the newer lenses.
The 70-200 and 18-200 are zoom lenses, and somewhat new to the Nikon lineup. The 18-200 is a “casual” lens while the 70-200 is marketed to professional users. The price reflects this; the 70-200 lens (~$1650) is twice the price of the 18-200 lens (~$800). If you’re new to digital photography, you might wonder why a lens that “does less” (zooms less) costs twice as much as another lens. One answer is the maximum aperture. The 70-200 is a 2.8 constant aperture lens which means it can attain faster shutter speeds in low light and have more shallow focus. For the other answer, just look at the pictures above. You really do get what you pay for!
Photographers who know their stuff always recommend good glass over new camera bodies and gadgets. Good lenses are expensive but, lucky for us, they last for years and years when camera bodies and computers can become out of date in a year or two. The same lenses have worked on Nikon’s bodies for tens of years.
My good buddy Scott Kelby (he doesn’t know me but I know him through his books and podcast, does that count as buddies? no?) recently quoted someone “There are two types of tripods: ones that are easy to carry, and good ones.” I think the same can be said of SLR lenses. There are some exceptions. Notice the $110 50mm lens, which is tiny and weighs nothing, is as sharp as the $1700 70-200mm. But then again it can’t zoom, and it’s not very long.
The moral of the story is; there is no perfect lens. All lenses have issues. Looking at the photos above, one might assume I’m unhappy with the 18-200 lens, but I’m not. It’s half as long and 1/3 the weight of the 70-200, and it zooms from very wide to long telephoto. It also has VR (image stabilization). This makes it invaluable to just pick up and go to casual outings and not have to worry about what lenses I might need or carrying a heavy lens. These are fairly extreme tests. In real pictures printed on paper or viewed on the web, the 18-200 can still produce wonderful shots.