Do all Nikkor Kit lenses function poorly?

CaptMike

I have a D7000 that came with the 18-200 3.5-5.6 ED VR II and have had soft focus results compared to using my Nikkor 50mm 1.4G

I have read that:

1. Any kit lens is not that great
2. Any super zoom will have issues

I gather that the only way to get sharp results is to purchase 3 normal pro zoom lenses of different length to cover the 18-200mm range

spraynpray

What can I say?  You get what you pay for - five times the price has got to get you more than f2.8.

But to say the kit lenses suck, is not true.  None of the current kit lenses 'suck', I have an 18-105 VR which is pretty good, and my wife has an 18-55 VR which is better.

If your super zoom is a Nikon, then you can get distortion correction done on import in LR and so most of the 'issues' go away.

Msmoto

I had an 18-105 which was not very fast, but I thought it was sharp.  So often, the lack of sharpness for me is in my technique.  I guess that is why I shoot a lot of images....to get some good ones.

Oh, I thought if the kids are looking over our shoulder I would eliminate the word s... from the thread title.

Photobug

As Spraynpray said "kit lens do not suck".

The kit lens was designed to allow amateur photographers to get a good camera and have a "kit" lens bundled with the camera body.  Take a good look at the Nikkor lens and you will find they are divided into two categories; amateur lens at an affordable price and pro lens.

The pro lens have metal mounts, faster f stops, and different combinations of glass for better pictures.  Some of the kit lens are really good, such as the 18-55mm.  They will make excellent images that can be enlarged to at least 8x10".

The old saying definitely applies; "the more you pay the better the lens".

heartyfisher

Suck ? lol ..

I think the 50mm 1.4 g sucks.  cant zoom at all no VR try taking it on a trip..

None of the following shots could be taken with a 50mm either bec its a diff focal length or bec it does not have vr .. but were taken with the 18-200 vr..

Correlli

A zoom lens is always a compromise compared to a prime lens. And the less expensive a zoom lens is the more compromises have been made to get the low price.

But the term "not that great" is very relative. Sure there are better zoom lenses than the kit ones, but they do cost a lot more as well - as spraynpray said: you get what you pay for.

Any super zoom will have issues? Yes and no. The bigger the zoom range is the more compromises again. But on the other hand you get the large zoom range and in some cases that is worth a lot - just look at the images of heartyfisher! You might get better optical quality with splitting the zoom range into two or three zooms, but then again you might miss a shot because you need to change lenses and you got more to carry around.

It all comes down to "lenses and cameras are just tools and you need the right tool for the job". And if all you do is images of your family or some landscapes to show on smaller prints or the web who cares if the image is sharp down to the last pixel. But if you make a living from your images your clients might expect something different from you...

Msmoto

Lots of very nice photos have been produced with the 200-400mm f/4 Nikkor VR.....maybe this is not a "super zoom" but the price tag suggests it is close.

heartyfisher

seriously though it does suck compared to a 50mm at 50mm ;-) ..

But as Correlli says.. you work with what you have ...  and stopping down a bit makes it sharp enough if you want sharp.

This one taken with the old 18-70..

tcole1983

I actually think it is the opposite of the thread title.  For very cheap you can get the 18-55 with VR that is decently sharp and pretty good all around.  For a sub $100 lens it is a steal.  My thought has always been what do you expect at the price point. They are actually pretty good for the price. I loved my 18-200 and shot it for several years. I also owned the 18-55 for a short time and I thought it took decent pics as well. I think there seems to be some copy variation in the 18-200...I found mine to be pretty sharp. 

Now are they $1000+ f2.8 pro lenses...nope. Can they still produce excellent pictures...yep. They will sure beat the pants off a P&S. When I get on a computer I will post some examples up.

kyoshinikon

Optically not too bad... Performance however is meh

TaoTeJared

The 18-200vr is one of the lenses I sold, that I which I still had.  It is probably one of if not the best DX vari-zoom lens.

Every lens consists of compromises.  One person's opinion of a "bad" lens comes from a lens's compromises exist in an area that it does not work for that photographer.  It does not mean the lens is bad.  

Every lens is sharp.  If an image is not sharp, then 99% of the time, the user is doing something wrong, not the designers of the lenses.  

If your 50mm is consistently sharper, then you should start looking at the settings of images of each.  Sharpness is impacted by shutter speed (DX: shutter speed needs to equal 1.5 of focal length (maybe 1:1 with VR)), ISO (the higher the ISO, the less sharpness) and aperture (f8-11 on vari-zooms is usually optimal.) If those  are not met and you can't/don't use a tripod, mirror lock up, shutter release, etc., than your sharpness can drop quickly.  

My guess with your 50mm, your shutter speed is faster & iso is lower than when you use the 18-200vr.

PB_PM

I laugh when people discount the 18-200mm VR. My Dad has one, in fact it is the only lens he uses on his "old" D80, and has taken photos with that combo have won or come in the top 3 in national competition. If you cannot get good images with that lens and the D7000, the issues isn't the gear (unless the focus needs to be adjusted).

kyoshinikon

While a shooter like me or most of you can see areas that kit lenses fall short or are acceptable my beef with them mainly lies in the users. Too many people buy a dslr kit and care only about the zoom because they are too uncreative to expand their knowledge then they turn around and try to teach someone like me how to use the lens.

CaptMike

And if all you do is images of your family or some landscapes to show on smaller prints or the web who cares if the image is sharp down to the last pixel. But if you make a living from your images your clients might expect something different from you...

Professional photography with a D800

CaptMike

Every lens is sharp.  If an image is not sharp, then 99% of the time, the user is doing something wrong, not the designers of the lenses. 

Incorrect statement

If your 50mm is consistently sharper, then you should start looking at the settings of images of each.  Sharpness is impacted by shutter speed (DX: shutter speed needs to equal 1.5 of focal length (maybe 1:1 with VR)), ISO (the higher the ISO, the less sharpness) and aperture (f8-11 on vari-zooms is usually optimal.) If those  are not met and you can't/don't use a tripod, mirror lock up, shutter release, etc., than your sharpness can drop quickly.  

My guess with your 50mm, your shutter speed is faster & iso is lower than when you use the
18-200vr.

Ahh....thanks but this is photography 101 information

CaptMike

While a shooter like me or most of you can see areas that kit lenses fall short or are acceptable my beef with them mainly lies in the users. Too many people buy a dslr kit and care only about the zoom because they are too uncreative to expand their knowledge then they turn around and try to teach someone like me how to use the lens.

LOL...After having taken photography in school for over 3 years and shooting for more than 40 years, I do find humor in this

Msmoto

@ ;CaptMike

Maybe you just got a poor copy of the lens you have.  If you post one of your images on PAD, we can see what you shoot and you can explain the issues you have with the current 18-200.

CaptMike

heartyfisher

said:

seriously though it does suck compared to a 50mm at 50mm ..

But as Correlli says.. you work with what you have ...  and stopping down a bit makes it sharp enough if you want sharp.

This one taken with the old 18-70..


Actually, my 50mm 1.4G is sharper than that AT 1.4

spraynpray

...and we were doing so well....

@ CaptMike:  I think you ought to make clear what you want from your OP as so far, you have just managed to come over like a smart @ss which I am sure is unintentional.

We like to help people, learn ourselves along the way, debate points and have fun here, that is why I seek clarification of your aims then we can help, debate, learn, laugh or ignore as applicable.

No offense intended.

Godless

"I think the 50mm 1.4 g sucks.  cant zoom at all no VR try taking it on a trip.. "

A sad comment, that. The 50mm is certainly no birding lens, although with patience and decent baiting or some crafty trigger use you can get bird shots with it as well. 

As for the lack of VR, I find it very odd that people "need" VR with focal lengths below 100mm. That is lack of skill. Boost the ISO and use faster shutter speeds. Then a bit of Photoshop/LR/whatever you use and all is good.

A 50mm is an excellent trip lens. You get what you can get from a 50mm focal length. 

CaptMike

seriously though it does suck compared to a 50mm at 50mm ;-) ..

But as Correlli says.. you work with what you have ...  and stopping down a bit makes it sharp enough if you want sharp.

Not as sharp as my 50mm 1.4G at 1.4

This one taken with the old 18-70..

Tabazan

One criteria : your level of requirement, the rest is blah, blah.

A kit can't compete at all with pro gear if you need top notch pics (er ... assuming the shot is good).

Just ask yourself if anybody cares about bokeh and sharpness. Yes ? No ? Then your choice is made 

roombarobot

I felt that the kit lens on my Nikon D5100 felt better than the kit lens on my Canon Rebel XTi, if that matters. The kit lens on my D600 seems to produce beautiful images. 

Tiger

Some years ago I bought a D60 with a 16-85 kit lens for a total price which was a real bargain. Well, I had to change the lens twice within a week due to a "buzzing" VR mechanism. The third lens failed again after two weeks. I took it to Nikon which admitted there was a real problem and they changed the VR mechanism all together. No problem since.

I guess this offer was to get rid of a batch of not-so-good lenses. The fact is that this special offer stopped after a week…

spraynpray

So Tiger, given that you have had seemingly no problems for 'some years' and did not complain about the image quality of that lens at any stage in your post, would you say then that it is a bad lens?  Seems to me like you were unlucky but they fixed it free.

I am equally sure that Nikon would not knowingly (as you implied) sell a batch of items they knew to be defective.

Tiger

Once the problem was solved, I was very happy with the lens. It was just a waste of time and money going back and forth to the shop and to Nikon in Paris.

Since this offer was in only one - but major - shop in France, I believe it's possible that they organized the deal themselves, but I'm only guessing…

But back to the point, I think that kit lenses are excellent for amateurs. They may not suit pros, but they would suit the majority of people.