Do all Nikkor Kit lenses function poorly?

Msmoto

@ ;CaptMike

I suppose my suggestion was to post a full size mage on Flickr, then post a photo on PAD.  When one looks at a full-size image, it will in almost all cases reveal any defects.

spraynpray

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

Amen Mike, Amen.

tcole1983

@ 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.  

I will +1 this...what is even being discussed anymore?  That there is obviously no VRI and VRII actually on the 18-200 lens?  To be correctly stated one is red and one is gold.  The gold lettered lens is VRII and specifically stated on the Nikon website as such.  Optically there is no performance difference...there were two changes in the models...a zoom lock and VRII instead of VRI.

Capt is being a jerk as far as I can tell and the question was a beginner type question, but for what apparent reason I am unsure.

Almost everyone on the forum has used a kit lens at some point...and they do what they do.  They are "cheaper", but still take pictures and in cases when used correctly can take excellent ones.  If I had, had the funds I would have kept my 18-200 along with my 17-55 F2.8...I miss having an all in one zoom with such a large range.  I find myself switching lenses far more times now without it, but I knew that was going to happen. 

Myrddin

Nikon kit lenses are by far the best lenses Nikon make as far as price/performance goes and always have been.

Some 'professional' lenses sell in quantities as low as a few thousand a year. The kit lenses are sold by the million. So there is a heck of a lot more R&D that goes into each lens and refreshes of the design are much more frequent.

If they could sell the f/2.8 constant aperture zooms in those numbers, well prices would be a LOT lower. In car terms the 18-55 kit lenses are like having a Honda Accord and the 18-200 is like having an Odyssey. Its an absolutely great deal for the capabilities you get but it isn't a Mercedes or a Jaguar and it is a little boring.

The main problem with the kit lenses is that they are all slow with f/3.5 at best at the wide end and f/5.6 at the narrow. That makes it pretty difficult to get good DOF isolation. But that is simply a matter of math, DOF is a function of aperture and that depends on the size of your front element. Big apertures cost money.

What is disappointing is not the kit lenses or the pro lenses but the ones in the middle. A kit lens adds a hundred, maybe a couple of hundred dollars to the price of a kit. A mid priced lens is only a little better and costs three to four times as much. A professional lens will cost double the price of a mid priced lens but they are very considerably better.

So the best lens strategy in my view is to buy the kit lenses to get coverage of the full range and then invest in a small number of professional lenses as you can afford them.

The only kit lenses I would avoid would be the mid priced lenses Nikon sometimes offers with the D600 and other pro bodies as a bundle. The kit might be worth buying but the lens is best recycled on EBay.

heartyfisher

Good points Myrddin, Which lenses you you clasify as the "mid" lenses..

MikeGunter

Hi Myrddin,

Great post.

But... I do have a point that I would ask for a slight edit.

"A professional lens will cost double the price of a mid priced lens but they are very considerably better."

That would be better in build, weatherproofing, and low-light performance and overall ruggedness. Sharpness and 'general' optical quality are very near the same.

Paying for the those differences are worthwhile - I have the lenses and stand by it, but sharpness of lenses is generally not the reason for an upgrade to lenses.

My best,

Mike

Dredden85

Regarding the Nikon 18-200mm VRII, I am looking to replace my Tamron 18-250mm (on a D5000). It has been a great lens but I need VR. Right now B&H has a good D7000 bundle:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/872033-REG/Nikon_13019_D7000_DSLR_Camera_with.html

I am also looking at the Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM. Any thoughts on the comparison of the two regarding image quality and focus?

TaoTeJared

Sick with Nikon on these types of lenses - it just works better.

Edit: Stick

Dredden85

Sick or stick?

adamz

@dredden85 - stick of course

1. generally Nikon lenses are better than its 3rd party competitiors (with some exceptions).
2. as it was written before, pro lens (2.8, 4.0) is not pro because of the sharpness, at f8 most of the lenses gonna perform pretty much the same. they are pro, because they are 2.8/4.0 and are build like tanks
3. You can buy the best camera on the market and if Your technique sucks every single lens will looks soft
4. even the best lens and best camera can not work properly together, if this happens You can either use the AF tuning or send the whole set up for calibration.

Ratatoskr

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.

Not completely true.
There is more demand for super zooms than let's say a 200mm prime. If you produce 10 million of the specific super zoom you can cut costs unlike the 200mm prime which has a MUCH more narrow segment of buyers and therefore all the components will have to have a greater profit margin. The super zoom will therefore have a better price/performance ration. So it's not as simple as to say that the less a lens costs the worse it is or the more compromises have to be made.
"you get what you pay for" works for the more "special" focal length's.

My 28-300 is amazingly sharp, even at 300mm. Every time I shoot with it (pretty new lens in my bag) I try to stay at max 250mm as to not get too soft images but when I happen to go for 300mm I'm always baffled over how sharp it still is at max. I'm of course not comparing it to top primes, but I am comparing it to other more expensive zooms I have or have tested.

Gab

The 18-200 is not a sharp lens period. The 18-55 & 18-105 are both sharp lenses, they have other issues like unreliable & slow focusing, bad work against bright light, not so great contrast, horrible nervous bokeh, but they are definitely usable, especially when compared to some not so cheap 4/3 kit (or not kit) lenses. Pro lenses don't have these problems, it's not just the build quality.
For example the 16-35VR is not rlly sharper than a 18-55kit lens (on a DX camera), but it's very reliable. It's focusing fast and accurately, it has great bokeh, you will have great color and contrast with the sun in the frame and also when doing night photography street lights and car lamps will look great, same goes for sun stars. (despite common belief nano coating isn't just a snake oil and all newish nikon pro lenses have it)

GhostRider117

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

Well, I haven't tried the 50mm 1.4G (yet?) but basically, and assuming proper technique / clean lens / properly fine-tuned AF...

Yes, kit lenses are far from the standard of the pro lenses, especially wide open. You get what you pay for.
Yes "ultra-zooms" have issues, they always are a compromise.
Yes, 14-24mm + 24-70mm + 70-200mm f/2.8 will be better at ALL focal length (plus, faster), but while they are significanlty heavier you'll likely be lighter by EUR 5.000... If you paid that price for the 18-200mm, man, you got robbed...

However, should you really need better than a kit lens...