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

24

Comments

  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    edited March 2014
    LET'S MAKE ONE THING CLEAR (so not to scare new photogs or casual shooters)

    NIKON DOES NOT MAKE "BAD" LENSES.
    Some are just better performing than others.

    The 14-24mm 2.8 performs better than the 18, 20, 24mm AFD 2.8 primes but that doesn't mean they are "bad."

    I equate "bad" as meaning "there are similar priced options that perform better."

    The 24-120mm VR F3.5-5.6G VR is not the greatest lens for sure and is nothing to write home about.
    The New 24-120mm VR F4 it a top performing lens. I use that every day for my work.

    I went through three 28mm 2.8D and they were all bad-ish. That is to say the cheap zooms were better performing than that lens. The old NON-VR 70-300 was not good either.


    Post edited by TaoTeJared on
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,751Member
    +1 TJ Nikon does not make "BAD" lenses!

    I had a 28mm for one year and sold it. Did not like the image quality.
    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 |
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    Flashback to old forum:

    http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2776

    Many of the lenses discussed are still available.

    The old 24-120mm VR had such a bad reputation that even Ken Rockwell gave it a "Not Recommended" rating.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    I can't even sell my old 24-120mm VR F3.5-5.6G VR. I now use it when there is a chance I will get my lens broken off my camera. ;)

    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    @PitchBlack

    All my photos have flat colors…..of course it can also be how we have calibrated our monitors…

    Some of us like chocolate and some of us like vanilla….
    Msmoto, mod
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    I have seen several shots by Msmoto on the PAD with the 24-120 and I have never thought there were bad in any way. I am curious about those that dislike it and what they don't like. Also Tao really like his copy.

    For me I haven't shot any bad Nikon lenses...just different levels. Is the 18-55 kit lens bad...no. Does it feel slightly cheap and have plastic mounts? Yes. Does it still take pretty good shots...yes. However unless it is free or something I wouldn't get it. There are better options that cover a broader range that I would rather have in that same caliber of lens category.

    I am almost going to put my 18-200 VRI at the bottom of my list. I had some focusing issues on mine where it wouldn't lock. It was never a low light or non-contrasting issue either. It just randomly did it. Also for the price it was expensive. I got my 17-55 for only a couple hundred dollars more and the 17-55 is far superior..minus the small zoom range. It might be an OK buy at this time because I think the prices have come down. I still think Nikon could use a better performing lens in that lower to mid range zoom. They have so many from 16-200(300 even) and they are all about the same. I haven't ever heard of anyone bragging about how great their variable aperture lenses are.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • Parke1953Parke1953 Posts: 456Member
    edited March 2014
    I haven't ever heard of anyone bragging about how great their variable aperture lenses are.

    I don't think it's bragging. Read the AF-S 80-400 page and look at jimo pics on pad. I pretty much like them all. Great lens.
    Post edited by Parke1953 on
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    edited March 2014
    I have seen several shots by Msmoto on the PAD with the 24-120 and I have never thought there were bad in any way.
    Wrong lens - She is using the F4. Completely night and day.


    Just for everyone's benefit:

    THE OLD 24-120VR IS THE BAD LENS.

    The New 24-120MM F4 VR IS a great lens.


    People need to add the F3.5-5.6G when speaking to the old 24-120. Not doing so confuses others who have not memorized all of Nikon's lenses.
    Post edited by TaoTeJared on
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    I have seen several shots by Msmoto on the PAD with the 24-120 and I have never thought there were bad in any way.
    Wrong lens - She is using the F4. Completely night and day.


    Just for everyone's benefit:

    THE OLD 24-120VR IS THE BAD LENS.

    The New 24-120MM F4 VR IS a great lens.


    People need to add the F3.5-5.6G when speaking to the old 24-120. Not doing so confuses others who have not memorized all of Nikon's lenses.
    I know..that is the lens I was referencing. And the one that some people are saying they don't like. I know the old version is not good.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,751Member
    Good clarification TTj on the difference between lens. It's so easy for beginners and the less knowledgeable users to read something and pass it along as the Gospel.
    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 |
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    edited March 2014
    @Msmoto: I don't know, that photo looks super soft to me, and the colors looks kind of flat. Sorry.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7014984231

    Those colours don't look flat to me, problem is you are unable to post a direct comparison (same shot/time/body/settings) with your Sigma.

    It was the sharpness that didn't float my boat, the VR was really good though.
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    I know..that is the lens I was referencing. And the one that some people are saying they don't like. I know the old version is not good.
    I know some want the better build quality or the f2.8 of the 24-70, but I have never heard anyone who has used the 24-120 f/4 didn't think it stood up to the rest. The only other choice is the 24-70 or Tamron 24-70VC. In my mind, I have primes if I want super bokeh.


    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • TriShooterTriShooter Posts: 219Member
    I am in the same boat as TaoTeJared on newest Nikon 24-120mm F4 lens on a D800 shooting it with strobes from F8 to F11, sometimes up to F22 if shooting outside against the sun to darken the background. I think it is a great zoom lens, and worth every dime of its current price for this kind of shooting.

    I also use the 24-120mm F4 with the D800 under hot tungsten lights without a noticeable loss of sharpness, or contrast. I am shooting models, and portraits so sharp / high contrast eyes are critical for my work. There is a modest difference in sharpness, and contrast but not enough to effect my work.
  • fiziksfiziks Posts: 12Member
    Calling the AF 70-300 G (not talking about the AF-S VR model or the AF-D ED model) a "so-so" lens is being quite kind. Lots of flare and CA. Soft at the ends. Not particularly sharp in the middle. Contrast suffers when your primary light source isn't near directly behind you. But bokeh isn't horrid and can be pretty decent if there is a lot of distance between your subject and the background. Build quality, well, it's an all plastic construction. I think retail is around $150, you can routinely get it on sale for $125 and I got one for $99 about 7 years ago. And I suspect the Sigma, Tamron, Quantaray, and other offerings at the same price point are probably better in most if not all respects. It's a lens that makes you think, "Why did Nikon even bother?" (because it was the tele-zoom in the consumer two lens film SLR kits). And Ken Rockwell actually likes it.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,286Member
    I have seen several shots by Msmoto on the PAD with the 24-120 and I have never thought there were bad in any way. I am curious about those that dislike it and what they don't like. Also Tao really like his copy.

    For me I haven't shot any bad Nikon lenses...just different levels. Is the 18-55 kit lens bad...no. Does it feel slightly cheap and have plastic mounts? Yes. Does it still take pretty good shots...yes. However unless it is free or something I wouldn't get it. There are better options that cover a broader range that I would rather have in that same caliber of lens category.

    I am almost going to put my 18-200 VRI at the bottom of my list. I had some focusing issues on mine where it wouldn't lock. It was never a low light or non-contrasting issue either. It just randomly did it. Also for the price it was expensive. I got my 17-55 for only a couple hundred dollars more and the 17-55 is far superior..minus the small zoom range. It might be an OK buy at this time because I think the prices have come down. I still think Nikon could use a better performing lens in that lower to mid range zoom. They have so many from 16-200(300 even) and they are all about the same. I haven't ever heard of anyone bragging about how great their variable aperture lenses are.
    Gosh, good to hear an honest review of the 18-200. I had considered getting that lens as an update to the 18-135 just for the zoom range. I don't think I can give up the sharpness of the 18-135 for extra range. I might as well get the 70-300 VR at that point.
    Calling the AF 70-300 G (not talking about the AF-S VR model or the AF-D ED model) a "so-so" lens is being quite kind. Lots of flare and CA. Soft at the ends. Not particularly sharp in the middle. Contrast suffers when your primary light source isn't near directly behind you. But bokeh isn't horrid and can be pretty decent if there is a lot of distance between your subject and the background. Build quality, well, it's an all plastic construction. I think retail is around $150, you can routinely get it on sale for $125 and I got one for $99 about 7 years ago. And I suspect the Sigma, Tamron, Quantaray, and other offerings at the same price point are probably better in most if not all respects. It's a lens that makes you think, "Why did Nikon even bother?" (because it was the tele-zoom in the consumer two lens film SLR kits). And Ken Rockwell actually likes it.
    I called it a so-so lens because it was hearsay and I've never owned that lens. Good to hear that confirmation on what I've heard.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,329Member
    I've got an 18-200, which I've gotten some fine shots with on a D5100. I've read that Thom Hogan has downgraded his opinion of the image quality from this lens, at least in terms of its use on a 24 MP sensor body.
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    @sevencrossing

    Per your suggestion… my 50mm f/1.4 D albeit from at least ten years ago was OK when stopped down, but wide open is not sharp…period. And, this I did not fully realize until a few months ago…why I do not know. In any case, from my perspective this lens is currently not acceptable in view of today's very nice offerings, e.g., the new Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4.
    Msmoto, mod
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited April 2014
    On the rare occasions I use my 50mm f 1.4 I am also shooting hand held at ISO 6400 and at a slow shutter speed so I suspect, I would not notice if it was not pin sharp
    lets be honest a lens you have been happy with for 10 years cannot be categorized as bad
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • GaleritaGalerita Posts: 10Member
    My oldest DX lens is an 18-200 VR, bought with a D80. Great travel lens, and nice shots are possible below 70mm, but in the tele range (100-200) it is very hard to get shots that I would be happy to share with even slightly discerning photographers. Even at f8-f11 in ideal light it is not sharp. From my reading these kind of issues bedevil most of Nikon's DX range. "Bad" depends on the application.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    I Had the 18-200 VRI on my D70 and the VRII on my D90
    not the sharpest knife in the draw but defiantly not a bad lens
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    @sevencrossing

    Actually, I had not used my 50mm f/1.4D wide open as I had mostly used a different focal length. At a stop or two down, the 50mm works well, but when I checked it wide open it was not good at all. So, the best way to couch my remarks might be to suggest the lens is a great lens for general work, but, if one likes to shoot wide open it is a disappointment.

    My opinion does change as my needs change and my memory fades…LOL. And, if I were to use a lens like I did years ago, film, this lens would no doubt be just fine.
    Msmoto, mod
  • GaleritaGalerita Posts: 10Member
    edited April 2014
    @Msmoto,
    It's the old advice: if you want sharpness, stop down a few stops - to f4 in the case of the Nikon 50mm f1.4D (click on sharpness and then "field map") . Even the fabulous new Sigma 50mm f1.8 Art is soft on the sides at f1.4 - stopping down to f2.0 gives superb sharpness.

    It is really hard to make sharp lenses at f1.4, but comparatively easy down to f2.8 (half the radius). Old primes were sharp down to f4 or f2.8, but soft wider open. Even the best modern pro zooms don't venture below f2.8 - they would be too soft even with the latest technology.

    The big advantage of the 50mm f1.4 primes was the ability to take shots in candlelight a 1/60th sec with ISO400 film. The wow factor overwhelmed any concerns with sharpness.
    Post edited by Galerita on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    edited April 2014
    ISO 400 film? What is this… LOL.

    I agree fully and I usually stop down one or two stops to get to the sweet spot. The new Zeiss Otus has set a new standard, one Nikon may wish to think about.

    In complete honesty, unless I am doing pretty big prints, almost all Nikkor lenses are good when used appropriately.

    Oh, re: film… I used to shoot Plus-X, ISO 80, developed for 80% of normal times in D76 1:1. Prints on 3 or 4 glossy….finished matte.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    ISO 400 film? What is this… LOL.
    It's what we used for well lit indoor sports. ;)
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    Capture NX2 aca and lca correction (and distortion correction) help this lens a lot.

    It will never be a 24-120 f4, but can get better.

    .. 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.