Nikon 18-200 vs Nikon 14-24

[rashley]

It is clear from the photos that at 18-24 the Nikon 14-24 f2.5 takes better, sharper pix than the 18-200 in the same range. Can any one explain why that is so? The 18-200 has nowhere near the sharpness.
Before I spend another $1500 on a lens, I sure hope to understand why this is so...Thanks

[dsp]

The difference is in the quality of the optics and the design, the 14-24 is a pro level lens with high quality optics and a design intend to produce superior images. To achieve this it is big, heavy and expensive. The 18-200 is a consumer level lens designed to be small, light, much less expensive and have an 11x zoom, all of those features require compromises that impact image quality. Lenses are a perfect example of the phrase ' you get what you pay for '.

[Jeff Perry]

Very well put DSP. Another example, I have both lenses and lugged them both to the Grand Canyon this summer. At 18mm, with the 18-200 in those landscape pictures of the canyons, you could see the "curvature of the earth". Fully 1/3rd of my images captured with the 18-200 when the lens was not held exactly parallel with the earth showed this distortion.

The optics of the 14-24 produced rock solid results with no such distortion. Even my girlfriend shooting a 12-24 Tokina didn't have the troubles the 18-200 had "keeping it [the horizon] straight". Fortunately, even PS Elements can get the distortion out without too much difficulty, but still, who wants to have to correct hundreds of images (together we shot over 4,000 images).

Don't get me wrong, I love the 18-200 VR. It is ALWAYS on one of the DX-sized bodies, but I have had to mount the 24-120 VR (my next favorite "walk-about" lens) on the D3.

Jeff

[Nikonfreak]

Can't really add more to what's been said. I can say that the 14-24 f/2.8 is a large, chunky, superb lens. There is very little distortion through the whole range. I've used it for interiors and concert work and it's absolutely fabulous.

These two lenses that you are discussing are meant for very different uses. The 18-200 is meant for a DX body as a one lens general solution. As with all wide range lenses, there are compromises involved in getting a 10X zoom range into one package. As good as the 18-200 is, it isn't a professional grade lens and doesn't have a professional lens level build quality.

Most professional grade lenses have no more than a 3x zoom range. This eliminates the "compromises" in the build and they can focus on quality exclusively. The 14-24 f/2.8 is a top performing lens. It's price reflects as much as well.

Julio

[rashley]

Thank you all for responding. The compromise argument makes the issue clear. Also, the reason there is no filter option for this lens is clear from the "curvature" argument...light wanting a direct angle and all. I believe from what I have learned, any decent fixed focal lens will out perform a zoom in its range. Thanks for all the carefully considered responses. Now to find $1500 for the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by rashley

Thank you all for responding. The compromise argument makes the issue clear. Also, the reason there is no filter option for this lens is clear from the "curvature" argument...light wanting a direct angle and all. I believe from what I have learned, any decent fixed focal lens will out perform a zoom in its range. Thanks for all the carefully considered responses. Now to find $1500 for the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8

The reason there is no filter possible for the front element is it's bulbous. It sticks out and is pretty round. Nikon probably could have build a filter holder into the back of the lens as they do with the long lenses but I presume there's a reason they didn't. Now, you can still expose two images at different exposures (or more) and combine them in photoshop to achieve the same results as some filters.

As to the decent fixed focal length lens will out perform a zoom, I say that very much "used" to be true. It's not necessarily so anymore. Case and point is the 14-24 f/2.8 lens. It does outperform it's fixed focal length predecessors in one package and would replace 2-3 prime lenses in a pro bag.

I would also argue that the 24-70 f/2.8 does the same if not comes very close.

Julio

[rashley]

I use the filter soley to protect the lens;something I am fanatical about. For any hdr requirements I use PS or Photomatix. Thanks for the info.