Mongo needs lens help please

[mongo]

Need help to choose a good all round walkabout lens for trip to Europe – Nikon system.

Mongo is thinking 18-200 VR OR 24-120VR assuming Mongo will have an FX camera body also by then.

Here is the problem you can help with . If anyone has an 18-200 Nikkor and an FX body, can you please tell him if it is possible to use the two together and if so, what is the widest you can get the 18-200 on the FX without distorting or vignetting too much , that is, what is the widest that lens can be really and happily used on that camera body ??

It has been Mongo’s experience that DX lenses on full frame do work quite well to a point e.g. his 11-18mm Tokina works OK on full frame film camera at about 14mm upward. Mongo is hoping that the 18-200 may work well enough at say, 22 to 24 mm wide – if it does, its his pick.

Anyone that can help with a real and practical confirmation (rather than theoretical) of the above exercise would by much thanked by Mongo

Mongo is working right now but will check any answers tonight when he gets back to his cave

thanks

[reaction]

for the FX camera body there's the 28-300mm
as a tourist do you really need that tele part?

[ksolomon]

Mongo, still a beginner so not that tech savvy but will try to help. Have recently purchased a D700 and have a D7000 with 18-200mm lens happy to take a few photos on my D700 with my 18-200 lens and will post results tonight or in the morning for you. By then however I am sure someone more experienced will have pointed you in a good direction but I am curious myself now :D

[kiwi]

I know a few that are replacing even 24-70 2.8's with the 24-120, it's getting a good rap from what I can tell

[ameerat42]

Mongo. On my several trips to the same continent I have always found myself craving the wider end of the lens. I even bought a semi-fisheye to tide me over, but I didn't like its IQ. I am trying to think of how many times I really did want to photograph pigeons atop St Mark's Basilica, for example. Even at times, I found f=28mm on my 35mm film camera a bit tight.
Am.

[mongo]

Reaction - thanks but Mongo has indicated it has to e one of the two lenses nominated and the wider end would be preferred

Kiwi - thanks that’s really good to know and encouraging.

Ameerat42 – thanks and Mongo agrees , that is why he has asked how wide the 18 can actually go on an FX useably. Need at least 24mm wide or wider if possible.

Ksolomon – sincere thanks – would love you to try the exercise Mongo spoke of above i.e the D700 on FX mode with the 18-200 and see what the clearest and widest angle you can get on it. At this rate, I doubt anyone will beat you to it and would be great to get your feelings on the result over the weekend if possible.

[Tommo1965]

interesting thread..as Im off to Rome/London/ Paris in 6 weeks and have been wrestling with this exact topic.....lens I have are a Nikon 17-35 F2.8..Nikon 70-200Vr II and a tamron 24-135 F3.5-5.6..which is a unexpected sharp lens....all on a D300s.....

my thoughts were the Tamron..its light..quite sharp...then I bought the 17-35..and thought Id use my feet to zoom...Im even thinking of taking the 70-200VR II in its lens bag when I walk around....but I may regret that ?..or the tamron....but it doesnt have the 17mm:confused013

so Im in a right pickle as what to take ...

one thing I do want is sunsniper strap with the steel cable...


im interested in the suggestions this thread might kick up

[J.davis]

On our last few trips to Europe I had lens failure with my mini zoom (28-105 - Dropped it:() so had to rely on my 12-24 Tokina F4. Super sharp and with over 2000 pics taken, very happy (cropped several to 100% and was still useable.
Never really needed a zoom as we where mostly in towns, and they have very narrow streets. and when we where on the Rhine shooting the bank - 24mm did the job.:th3:

[ksolomon]

Ksolomon – sincere thanks – would love you to try the exercise Mongo spoke of above i.e the D700 on FX mode with the 18-200 and see what the clearest and widest angle you can get on it. At this rate, I doubt anyone will beat you to it and would be great to get your feelings on the result over the weekend if possible.

Mongo heading up to Wellington Point this afternoon for some arvo and dusk photography I will be taking the 18-200mm and will post pics and result either late tonight or first thing tomorrow:):)

[ksolomon]

Hi all, sorry so late ok have done the experiment and found this lens quite good during the exercise, one downside I have found so far is at 18mm you can't take photos with the flare/lens hood attached. I took these at Beaudesert today these are unprocessed images as I just wanted to get them up for comment. Looking at the exif data from my D700 camera raw images are 5.5mb and jpeg images 1.6mb in comparison to my full frame lens the raw images are 10.6mb and jpeg at 3.2mb. Hope any of this helps :)

Image 1906 is taken at 20mm

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5193/5847529639_470d8cf058_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksemas/5847529639/)
Beaudesert-1906 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksemas/5847529639/) by ksemas (http://www.flickr.com/people/ksemas/), on Flickr

Image 1907 is taken at 200mm

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/5848086208_d70707c507_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksemas/5848086208/)
Beaudesert-1907 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksemas/5848086208/) by ksemas (http://www.flickr.com/people/ksemas/), on Flickr

Image 1910 is taken at 60mm

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/5848089502_7b8a8c058b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksemas/5848089502/)
Beaudesert-1910 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksemas/5848089502/) by ksemas (http://www.flickr.com/people/ksemas/), on Flickr

Image 1915 is taken at 18mm with lens hood attached

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5317/5847526021_49fda13328_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksemas/5847526021/)
Beaudesert-1915 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksemas/5847526021/) by ksemas (http://www.flickr.com/people/ksemas/), on Flickr

Image 1920 is taken at 18mm without lens hood

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3496/5848082594_2ed85442c5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksemas/5848082594/)
Beaudesert-1920 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksemas/5848082594/) by ksemas (http://www.flickr.com/people/ksemas/), on Flickr

[virgal_tracy]

My opinion is related to both field of view and aperture. The 18-200 as a DX lens on an FX body will give you a field of view equivalent to a 27-300. You will also lose resolution as you will only get 6mp equivalent as the D700 adjusts the sensor size. The 18-200 also loses aperture values very quickly. It does begin at f3.5 but very quickly goes out to f5.6.

The new 24-120, is a constant f4 and gives a true 24-120 fov.

My facts may be wrong and I welcome clarification if I am but that is the way that I see your query. I owned both at the same time and have kept the 24-120 and sold the 18-200.

[colinbm]

Need to take the bolt-cutters to the lens hood :eek:
Col

[mongo]

Kassy, you are a real gem for doing this – many thanks from Mongo.

If Mongo interprets your results correctly, he is quite pleasantly amazed. Because Mongo is having trouble getting the EXIF data, can you confirm Mongo’s understanding as follows:

1. All images were taken in FX (full frame mode only)
2. The last image was taken at 18mm using the 18-200 nikkor on full frame mode
3. The first image was taken at 20mm using the 18-200 nikkor on full frame mode

If this is correct, then, it suggests that (contrary to a strong belief by many) the 18-200 is far more usable on full frame than has been suggested. It is also arguable on these results that even at 18 mm with some allowance for light fall off and vignetting (correctable later) that you can actually use it at 18mm !!

In any event, it seems (on these results) very usable from 20mm upwards. This means that with a full frame camera, by switching from DX to FX mode and vice versa as needed, this lens is capable of giving good images from approximately 20mm to 300mm effective!!!! What more would anyone want ???

Kassy , would love to get your confirmation of Mongo’s understanding at points “1” to “3” above.

Many thanks
Mongo

[mongo]

My opinion is related to both field of view and aperture. The 18-200 as a DX lens on an FX body will give you a field of view equivalent to a 27-300. You will also lose resolution as you will only get 6mp equivalent as the D700 adjusts the sensor size. The 18-200 also loses aperture values very quickly. It does begin at f3.5 but very quickly goes out to f5.6.

The new 24-120, is a constant f4 and gives a true 24-120 fov.

My facts may be wrong and I welcome clarification if I am but that is the way that I see your query. I owned both at the same time and have kept the 24-120 and sold the 18-200.

Thanks vince. Mongo understands that you can override the camera from going automatically to DX mode when you put on a DX lens like the 18-200. What Mongo is trying to find out is exactly how good can you get the 18-200 to operate in FX mode (not DX mode) and how wide will the lens operate at - useably. This is the whole purpose of this exercise.
Mongo is reluctant to buy the 24-120 at the moment because 24mm is not wide enough and if it means taking a second wider lens with him, it defeats the whole purpose of having a single travel lens that covers everything that Mongo needs to do with it.

[kiwi]

Yip, I think these are taken in DX mode, I'd be expecting a lot more vignetting at 18

[old dog]

interesting read Mongo. I`ve just been to France and Italy and rarely took the 17-55 off the D7K. A bit heavy but ok. Was in Egypt a couple of years ago and used the 12-24 mostly and good results there also. If the 18-200 works on full frame with a tweak to DX mode for 18mm them I`d be running that way too. The 24-120 sounds a good lens BTW. I met a bloke a couple of months ago who had the D700 and the new 28-300 lens and absolutely raved about it.

[ksolomon]

Mongo,
After reading the manual I think Kiwi is correct these are taken in DX mode, it would appear this is set automatically on my camera. I will need to read into this more to try the lens in FX mode (and here I was thinking these came out great).
That would mean all mm have been taken in DX mode. Damn!!
They do still give a reasonable wide range even in this mode. Ok back to the drawing board :( so sorry Mongo:(

[mongo]

It seems you are right Kiwi – Mongo too was expecting far worse results for FX.

Graham, Mongo took his 11-18mm last time to Canada etc and it was very good but frustrating for anything longer than 28mm that was needed and that happened quite a bit. Mongo does not expect the 18-200 to operate at 18mm on full frame – but hopes it might work at about 22mm or wider maybe. That would be enough.

Kassy, please do not worry or trouble yourself with this problem. You have gone out of your way enough and Mongo is immensely grateful to you anyway.



Thanks all – the answer will intrigue all of us ! Mongo is also surprised that no one has tried this already over the years and told everybody the findings !

Mongo thinks he will have to walk into a store and put an 18-200 on a full frame camera, set it to FX mode and just look through the viewfinder to see how it looks at the various settings. It is NOT really necessary to actually take any picture with this combination to tell how good or bad it is going to be. You should be able to tell just by looking through it.

[ksolomon]

Kassy, please do not worry or trouble yourself with this problem. You have gone out of your way enough and Mongo is immensely grateful to you anyway. .

Mongo - It is my pleasure to anytime help and no trouble at all, I see the help you give to all others :)I would also like to find the answer to your question for my knowledge since I already own that lens, Happy travelling