Do all Nikkor Kit lenses function poorly?

MikeGunter

Hi all,

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

Better is a subjective word. It can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, such as the quality of bokeh (which to some isn't more than than a fuzzy picture), or chromatic abberation (a quantifiable - but still seen by some as subjectively acceptable), or even what's affordable. I wouldn't put anything on the word better when talking about lenses, save for what better means to you, not to someone else. 

I would say that kit lenses are generally sharp. It seems that all the lenses from Nikon have been in my experience, no matter what the cost. The depth of field and quality of bokeh changes dramatically, and the low light performance does, too, but the imagery from the all the lens in terms of edge to edge sharpness is usually excellent.

One pays dearly  for that additional speed, but I don't see any additional sharpness (the usual touchstone for measuring quality for a lens) from the faster lenses, nor have I seen any meaningful data that support that.  The additional costs come from maintaining the quality of optics, the weather proofing, and the additional speed.

My best,

Mike

KnockKnock

To the original post, I guess I would ask, what's sharp enough for you? (Then secondarily, what was the question?)  There isn't a fixed number where bam everything is great and everything below that sucks. (Well, maybe 42.)  You're probably getting a good idea from the previous responses, but I'm curious what you were asking.

Maybe the question is, do you need to buy primes to get sharp photos?  I think the answer to that would be no.  But again, how sharp do you need?

Maybe the question is how can you get sharp images out of your 18-200? Lots of work here, but the basics are minimize moving the camera and make sure you're in focus.

Maybe the question is, do I need to get a new lens or a handful of them?  Probably not, but we need consumers to keep the economy growing, so yes, definitely.

So I guess that further discussion would be, what kind of shots are you taking where the 18-200 seems to be failing you?

MikeGunter

@ Knock Knock - the Answer is always 42...

My best,

Mike

heartyfisher

I said : "seriously though it does suck compared to a 50mm at 50mm"

CaptMike

said : "Not as sharp as my 50mm 1.4G at 1.4"

>:D<  I did say so .. glad you agree :-)

From your replies it looks like sharpness is a key factor in the images you want to take.  Me not so much, when I have the kit lens on the camera.  I use my macro lens when I want sharp :-)

Just use the tool that fits the task.

PS sorry for taking you as a less than experienced photographer. Your original post does have the tone of a noobie..

heartyfisher

"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. 

Hmm the forum seems to have lost my previous post .. anyway .. I was saying . that the 50mm is probably a great lens for you on your trips..

The following are pictures from my, probably once in a life time, weekend trip to NewYork Manhattan by the Hudson river. All photos taken early one Sunday morning, on average about 15mins of each other.. the picture of the snowy  wharf in my previous post included. Did I have time or ability to move to a closer location or care abut sharpness? nope :-)

TaoTeJared

@ Knock Knock - the Answer is always 42...

My best,

Mike

I am laughing so hard right now!  Great timing Mike!

TaoTeJared

@ CaptMike - Seeing that you have made smart comments at everyone who is trying to help.  Your question was very basic and elemental and it appears you wanted advanced answers.  How about restating your question in what you are really looking for because evidently our comments were widely off the mark.  

CaptMike

I said : "seriously though it does suck compared to a 50mm at 50mm"

CaptMike

said : "Not as sharp as my 50mm 1.4G at 1.4"

>:D<  I did say so .. glad you agree :-)

From your replies it looks like sharpness is a key factor in the images you want to take.  Me not so much, when I have the kit lens on the camera.  I use my macro lens when I want sharp :-)

Just use the tool that fits the task.

PS sorry for taking you as a less than experienced photographer. Your original post does have the tone of a noobie..

Actually, I do not know how you misread my reply for your to understand and comment:

" I did say so .. glad you agree :-) "

I do not agree and that was what I meant by the reply in the prior posts.

It was difficult to reply to your particular post that included the attachment of the picture, as this forum is quite a bit unusual as compared to the structure and layout of most other forums.

heartyfisher

@ CaptMike : "I do not agree and that was what I meant by the reply in the prior posts."

lol !  sorry, what exactly don't we agree on ?

CaptMike

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.

Actually I believe I referred in the OP to it being a VR II and not the VR as you indicated

CaptMike

@ ;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.

I find that most anything that is posted "ON LINE" is quite different when processed and printed at a PRO lab to a size of 16 x 20 or larger.

heartyfisher

CaptMike said : "Actually I believe I referred in the OP to it being a VR II and not the VR as you indicated."



I don't see the relevance of that statement to the post you are replying to ..
( also the 18-200 VR 1 and 2 are exactly the same optically and Vr Capability .. they only added the zoom mechanism to stop the lens from extending by itself).

CaptMike

Actually I believe I referred in the OP to it being a VR II and not the VR as you indicated



I don't see the relevance of that statement to the post you are replying to ..
( also the 18-200 VR 1 and 2 are exactly the same optically and Vr Capability .. they only added the zoom mechanism to stop the lens from extending by itself).

There is technically no such thing as a "VR 1" It is called a VR

heartyfisher

@ CaptMike : "There is technically no such thing as a "VR 1" It is called a VR"

Actually there is usually 2 different points of confusion when discussing the 18-200 VR and 18-200 VR 2

Firstly the 1 and the 2 relates to different version of the lens and not the VR.

Secondly there is actually at least 2 versions of VR available. the first generation VR can be found on lenses llike the 18-55, 80-400  The second generation VR can be found on the 18-200 VR 1 and 2, and 70-200, The Third generaton VR  i think is still not with us yet .. but its around the corner. Maybe the latest lenses have it but I am not sure have not checked in a while.. (any one know ?? )

PB_PM

@hearty According to Nikon VRIII is in the new 70-200mm F4.

heartyfisher

@hearty According to Nikon VRIII is in the new 70-200mm F4.

Thanks for that ..

TaoTeJared

Actually I believe I referred in the OP to it being a VR II and not the VR as you indicated

As others have said, there is no difference optically between the two.  When you refer to the "II" version, it is assumed the answers are referring to it.

CaptMike this is what you asked/statement:

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

Everything after that you have written after your original post has been either a smart a$$ comment or splitting hairs on unrelated words or terms or in general, just rude.   I'll take it as a lack a patience on getting the information on your part.

One last stab:

You can always get sharp results with any kit zoom if you work within the limitations of that lens.  That may mean you should shoot at f8-f16, base ISO and always a shutter equal or greater then the focal length or on a tripod.  That will give you sharp results almost always.

What pro zooms provide, is an expanded capability to shoot at higher speeds, expanded sharper f-stop range for a faster shutter or to shoot at lower ISOs.  Basically less limitations  so you can shoot in greater "less than ideal" situations to get more consistently sharper results. 

In general, what you "gather" is not correct.  For what situations you shoot in, that may be correct.  

SkintBrit

Am I the only one here who's NEVER shot with a kit lens? :-?

PB_PM

Guess so. I was actually impressed with the 18-55mm VR (build quality aside), it might not be the 24-70mm F2.8, but it is better than the other kit lenses I tested (18-105mm/18-70mm, 18-200 in the same range).

Ironheart

CaptMike said:

I find that most anything that is posted "ON LINE" is quite different when processed and printed at a PRO lab to a size of 16 x 20 or larger.

Nobody will disagree with this in principle. However the convention on this forum is to either link photos posted here to full size images, or provide a link to such an image so that we can all see at 100% pixel detail what the issue being discussed looks like. @CaptMike, If you have any questions on how to do this feel free to message me privately. There are also a few threads devoted specifically to how to do this on the forum.

spraynpray

Am I the only one here who's NEVER shot with a kit lens? :-?

Am I the only one here who's ONLY shot with kit lenses?  )

heartyfisher

Am I the only one here who's NEVER shot with a kit lens? :-?

Am I the only one here who's ONLY shot with kit lenses?  )

LOL !!
)

CaptMike

CaptMike said:

I find that most anything that is posted "ON LINE" is quite different when processed and printed at a PRO lab to a size of 16 x 20 or larger.

Nobody will disagree with this in principle. However the convention on this forum is to either link photos posted here to full size images, or provide a link to such an image so that we can all see at 100% pixel detail what the issue being discussed looks like. @CaptMike, If you have any questions on how to do this feel free to message me privately. There are also a few threads devoted specifically to how to do this on the forum.

Thank you, it is slow going with my current PC for this @512 mb of RAM

Once I receive my back ordered imac I will post a few pics

CaptMike

@ CaptMike : "There is technically no such thing as a "VR 1" It is called a VR"

Actually there is usually 2 different points of confusion when discussing the 18-200 VR and 18-200 VR 2

Firstly the 1 and the 2 relates to different version of the lens and not the VR.

Secondly there is actually at least 2 versions of VR available. the first generation VR can be found on lenses llike the 18-55, 80-400  The second generation VR can be found on the 18-200 VR 1 and 2, and 70-200, The Third generaton VR  i think is still not with us yet .. but its around the corner. Maybe the latest lenses have it but I am not sure have not checked in a while.. (any one know ?? )


"Firstly the 1 and the 2 relates to different version of the lens and not the VR."
Correct, my error.  However, while "II" refers to the version on that particular lens, there has never been a "1" or "I" printed on a lens.  If it is a first generation lens, it will be absent of those markings.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

Just to be clear @SkinBrit, could be that you are! Even when I recouped loss after thief and bought cameras and lenses, I didn't always pickup "kit" lenses in the packages, but that hardly counts, because I would get a 'kit' lens with another camera package later and use it!

To all, I'm pretty sure that most (if not all) Nikon lenses will behave similarly at f8 - the sweet spot- at the same focal length on the proper sensor (apples to apples). 

Sharpness isn't the 'separator of the tools. Durability (build quality, low-light usability, close focus, bokeh  and weather sealing are.

Apparently, some of you should be prepared to be astonished with the tools you have in your hands now. Be happy!

My best,

Mike