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

Galerita

@NSXTypeR said:

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. - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2514/do-nikon-currenty-make-any-bad-lenses/p2#sthash.p8TK4C3L.dpuf

Definitely get the 70-300 VR - it's vastly superior in the tele range to the 18-200.

Photobug

Agree with Galerita, the 70-300 VR is a good lens. I borrow it once in a while form my wife's back pack.

sevencrossing

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.


If you want a really sharp, super tele zoom, get the 80-400mm AF-S Nikkor f4.5-5.6G ED VR

yes more than twice the price

but no who has bought this lens has any regrets

studio460

I'm actually looking for Nikon's "worst" lenses. I own two: the AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D and Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5 pre-AI. While both exhibit a lot of flare, I bought the 43-86mm specifically for its high flare characteristics. According to some guy named "Ken" these are Nikon's two worst. But, I have so many super-sharp, flare-resistant, modern optics, I've been wanting to shoot more organically "degraded" images. Any other recommendations?

studio460

By the way, I use the newer AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VR as my go-to event lens. It's super-sharp!

studio460

AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VR

sevencrossing

I've been wanting to shoot more organically "degraded" images. Any other recommendations?

Pre Photoshop we used to smear Vaseline around the edges of a uv filter
This seemed to best on large format and did not work so well on miniature format
my tutor used to shoot through a layer or two of nylon stocking
the exact denier was a closely guarded secret

Msmoto

As I understand this thread is about our opinions and not about anyone's scientific research about a particular lens. Thus one opinion may be diametrically opposed to another, both being the correct expression of their current thinking.

Pistnbroke

Rockwell has a list of his 10 worst Nikon Lenses ...but are they actually making any of them Now.
Of course what is good on a D700 may be very bad on a D800

Elvishefer

Too many vanishing posts these days...

sevencrossing

Rockwell has a list of his 10 worst Nikon Lenses ...but are they actually making any of them Now.

There is in fact,only 6 and all have been discontinued
all the lenses below are fine on my D700 and D800

The TC-20E AF-S Teleconverter III with the 70 -200 f 2.8 vr was just about OK on the D700 but I would say, a bad combination on the D800

studio460

I've been wanting to shoot more organically "degraded" images. Any other recommendations?

Pre Photoshop we used to smear Vaseline around the edges of a uv filter
This seemed to best on large format and did not work so well on miniature format
my tutor used to shoot through a layer or two of nylon stocking
the exact denier was a closely guarded secret

Yes, I've experimented with both techniques in the past, way back when I used to own a complete Mamiya RB67 system. I also had the specific brand of the super-secret sheer black stocking (Dior?). Instead of Vaseline, I used KY (thinking it was more "optically neutral") on a sheet of acetate--not recommended since it dissolved the acetate.

But neither the 18mm nor the 43-86mm disappoints--both exhibit tons of natural flare. I just haven't had a chance to fully exploit these effects on a shoot yet (I was actually looking for additional suggestions of other equally "bad" lenses).

SquamishPhoto

Too many vanishing posts these days...

Tell me about it. I mentioned PitchBlack disappearing from the board and scrubbing his posts and magically my post vanishes as well. Will this one stand the test of time? We shall see....

sevencrossing

Too many vanishing posts these days...

And too many vanishing formalities

sevencrossing

I thought I might expand this thread
Does any one currently make any bad lenses

spraynpray

By the way, I use the newer AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VR as my go-to event lens. It's super-sharp!

Funny you should say that Studio, I recently tried the 24-120 as it would be perfect on a D610 for me but I found it really MEH and promptly forgot about buying it. Talking to a guy in a shop last week and he said exactly the same thing - he bought one, tried it and sold it. I can only surmise that the 24-120 is very variable in sharpness. I rated the VR, as amazing but not the sharpness.

sevencrossing

I can only surmise that the 24-120 is very variable in sharpness. I rated the VR, as amazing but not the sharpness.

Out of interest _ was the 24 -120 , and or the D600 you tried it on, new or S/H ?

WestEndBoy

I'm actually looking for Nikon's "worst" lenses. I own two: the AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D and Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5 pre-AI. While both exhibit a lot of flare, I bought the 43-86mm specifically for its high flare characteristics. According to some guy named "Ken" these are Nikon's two worst. But, I have so many super-sharp, flare-resistant, modern optics, I've been wanting to shoot more organically "degraded" images. Any other recommendations?

Buy my 50mm 1.2 and shoot it at 1.2. I like the effect on some images and it is quite obvious.

Ironheart

@studio460, one way to degrade even the best lens is to use a cheap filter. I have a clear Promaster 77mm that I've nicknamed the flaremaster. The cheaper the better for good organic effects, you can even scratch them up or beak em for cool effects. Did I say cheap?

spraynpray

I can only surmise that the 24-120 is very variable in sharpness. I rated the VR, as amazing but not the sharpness.

Out of interest _ was the 24 -120 , and or the D600 you tried it on, new or S/H ?

Both new.

[Deleted User]

The Nikon AF 35-70mm F/2.8D should have pretty much the same optical performance as the 24-70mm f/2.8. I bought the 35-70mm F/2.8D and used it on my D300. F/2.8 was unusable, just crap photo's came out of it, this became a little better by f/4 ( a little). Tried another 35-70mm F/2.8D from a friend of mine, same story. I sold this - flagship -, kept reading reviews and every review said, it is a little soft on f/2.8, but better on f/4.

This was the moment I skipped reading reviews (ok most of them).

I bought the D300 instead of the D700 at that time, but my next camera should be FF. I sold a lot of my lenses and went for good FF lenses. The first one was the 24-70mm f/2.8, great on the D300. Incredible on the D600 for me and compared to the 35-70mm F/2.8D, day and night.

my 2 cents.

sevencrossing

I don't think the AF 35-70mm F/2.8D is a current lens
have pretty much the same optical performance as the 24-70mm f/2.8. -
don't believe everything KR says

[Deleted User]

@sevencrossing Sorry, I read it wrong, did not see current lenses. What is it with KR?

sevencrossing

from KR web site

This 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D was Nikon's flagship professional midrange zoom of the 1990s, and has pretty much the same optical performance as the newest 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS, with a lot less size, weight and cost.

sevencrossing

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm