Do Nikon or any one else, currenty make any BAD lenses??

sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
edited July 2014 in Nikon Lenses
One of the common pieces of advice on NRF is "Invest in good Glass"
and yes we all love spending other peoples money

There was a time when Nikon made some pretty poor lenses

The old 24-120mm VR This lens gave zooms a bad name
The 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 AI-s gave variable aperture lenses a bad name

The 24-70mm f/2.8 has an excellent reputation and will almost certainly be sharper than the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5

But it three times the price and twice the weight

Does any one think the 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 AI-s is not "good glass "

are there any current Nikon lenses you would defiantly not recommend

Please let us know, if your comments are based on personal experience, reviews you have read, or just a gut feeling








Post edited by sevencrossing on
«134

Comments

  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    edited March 2014
    I don't think there are any bad lens. However, I would not invest in a D800 if I could not afford a better lens than the one mentioned, unless I limited myself to the 1.8 primes, like the 35 and 85 (or similar quality, you get the idea).

    Also, I would get the 50 1.4G or 1.8G before that 35-70, zoom with my feet, save money and end up with a faster lens with better image quality than the 24-70 2.8.
    Post edited by WestEndBoy on
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,041Member
    The old 70-300 before they switched to the VR version was supposed to be a so-so lens.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    . To me there are only a couple of lenses good enough for my professional work.
    That makes sense, if you are a professional, were the cost of a $2,000 lens written off over say 5 years is not going to have a huge impact on your profit

    But of a lot questions seem to come from people who new to digital photography and or with limited budgets
    I have feeling rather than buying a load of expensive lenses, they would be better off with a kit lens and discovering both their own and their equipment's limitations

    I am the only person who does not understand "zooming with your feet" "

    I often find my self with water in front of me and cliff, wall or road behind

    In any case, moving closer or further away from the subject does not have the same effect as changing focal length

  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 559Member
    Using a 24-70 as an example: Taking a shot at 24 - filling the frame - and taking the shot at 70 - again filling the frame - will not get you the same shot. So zooming will not always give you what you want. You may have to move your lazy bones even if you have a zoom lens :-) That has nothing to do with the quality of the lens.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,027Moderator
    . To me there are only a couple of lenses good enough for my professional work.
    That makes sense, if you are a professional, were the cost of a $2,000 lens written off over say 5 years is not going to have a huge impact on your profit

    But of a lot questions seem to come from people who new to digital photography and or with limited budgets
    I have feeling rather than buying a load of expensive lenses, they would be better off with a kit lens and discovering both their own and their equipment's limitations

    I am the only person who does not understand "zooming with your feet" "

    I often find my self with water in front of me and cliff, wall or road behind

    In any case, moving closer or further away from the subject does not have the same effect as changing focal length

    I agree completely - like a lot of glib generalisations, reality isn't as simple as that.
    Always learning.
  • MikeGunterMikeGunter Posts: 543Member
    Hi all,

    Generalizations also come with fast lenses being 'better' for all, too.

    Fast lenses do allow for more isolation of subject matter and, perhaps better bokeh, but it's also true that a smaller aperture might be better for sharper and deeper DOF - something that used to be in vogue.

    I think most lenses are pretty good. Faster does mean you can see better in lower light, likely shoot better, too.

    In the end, it depends upon what you're doing and who is doing it.

    My best,

    Mike
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    "In the end, it depends upon what you're doing and who is doing it."

    For sure….the who is doing it may be the biggest factor….
    Msmoto, mod
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    Hi all,
    ....
    , but it's also true that a smaller aperture might be better for sharper and deeper DOF - something that used to be in vogue.

    .....

    My best,

    Mike

    The f 64 group

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited March 2014
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,973Member
    edited March 2014

    are there any current Nikon lenses you would defiantly not recommend
    28mm F2.8D. Based on personal experience. Even at F8 the lens is softer than a down pillow.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    PB_PM +1.

    Yes a skilled tog can get good results with it.
    Why one would want to try is beyond me.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,973Member
    The only things I like about the 28mm F2.8 is how close it can focus, and how compact it is. It was terrible for landscape shots, but okay for some subjects. Modern kit lenses are better at the same focal length, so I cannot think of why anyone would want to try either.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    Indeed. If you need to stop it down to 6.3 or smaller for vignetting etc, the kit lens will play it even and smaller kit lenses are light and have some zoom range.

    What I find a little bit bizarre about the 2.8D is that, in my experience, it doesn't hold a candle to the 28 Ai-S, which is a much older set-up. The new 1.8G, only from what I've read, is the outright winner, but from my own experience the Ai-S is quite good and in-between on the timeline we have this red-headed stepchild D.
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    The 28mm is a classic lens. I suspect that Nikon will come out with a 28mm 1.4G in a few years and market it in a similar way to the 58mm 1.4G.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,041Member
    Indeed. If you need to stop it down to 6.3 or smaller for vignetting etc, the kit lens will play it even and smaller kit lenses are light and have some zoom range.

    What I find a little bit bizarre about the 2.8D is that, in my experience, it doesn't hold a candle to the 28 Ai-S, which is a much older set-up. The new 1.8G, only from what I've read, is the outright winner, but from my own experience the Ai-S is quite good and in-between on the timeline we have this red-headed stepchild D.
    The age of the lens has nothing to do with sharpness.

    Physics does, and that hasn't changed in who knows how long. :D

    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    It all started with "...Let there be light, and there was". The rest is an exercise for the reader.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member

    are there any current Nikon lenses you would defiantly not recommend
    28mm F2.8D. Based on personal experience. Even at F8 the lens is softer than a down pillow.
    not mine
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member

    are there any current Nikon lenses you would defiantly not recommend
    28mm F2.8D. Based on personal experience. Even at F8 the lens is softer than a down pillow.
    not mine
    apologies, I last used my 28/2,8 D with film, and was happy with it, but did not examine results at nearly the magnifications we use today.
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,973Member
    Yes, most reports state that the 28mm F2.8 worked well with film, but doesn't play nice with digital. It must be due to the design of the optics.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    @NSXTypeR: Agreed, but I'm baffled why Nikon would take such a backward step.
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 4,537Member
    The 24-120 VR is worse than most kit lenses.
    Interesting. The local camera store really pushes the 24-120. Guess I need to check out the DXO info for this lens.
    D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX |
    |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,973Member
    Which version of the 24-120mm VR? The F3.5-5.6G VR is terrible, the newer one is at least usable.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,027Moderator
    The newest one didn't ding my bell when I tried it. No sale.
    Always learning.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    I use the Nikon 24-120VR f/4 often when traveling, usually on a D800e, or on a D3x, and have been quite happy with the results as long as I stop down to f5.6 or f6.3 when longer than 70mm. I also use it for weddings, set at f5.6 with multiple flash.

    My other travel zoom is the 24-70 f2.8 which is better, if I am pixel peeping on the D800, but not so apparent on the D3x.

    I shoot for print, and regularly print large (16 X 24 - 24 X 36 on an HP Z3100 ). I can't judge colors on Msmoto's photo because it is of a print, and I have no Idea what the original looks like.

    I do handle PP slightly differently for complex zooms than for simple 4-8 element primes, primarily saturation and midtone contrast.

    If I could only have one lens for the D800 the I use the 24-120VR f/4 would be it.

    Thankfully I have no such constraint.

    ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

Sign In or Register to comment.