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

13

Comments

  • GaleritaGalerita Posts: 10Member
    edited April 2014
    @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.
    Post edited by Galerita on
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,751Member
    Agree with Galerita, the 70-300 VR is a good lens. I borrow it once in a while form my wife's back pack. :D
    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 |
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited April 2014
    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

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • studio460studio460 Posts: 205Member
    edited May 2014
    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?
    Post edited by studio460 on
  • studio460studio460 Posts: 205Member
    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!
  • studio460studio460 Posts: 205Member
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited May 2014
    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

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    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.
    Msmoto, mod
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,443Member
    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
  • ElvisheferElvishefer Posts: 329Member
    Too many vanishing posts these days...
    D700, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, 24-70mm f/2.8, 14-24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4G, 200mm f/4 Micro, 105mm f/2.8 VRII Micro, 35mm f/1.8, 2xSB900, 1xSB910, R1C1, RRS Support...

    ... And no time to use them.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited May 2014
    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

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • studio460studio460 Posts: 205Member
    edited May 2014
    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).

    Post edited by studio460 on
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    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....
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited May 2014
    Too many vanishing posts these days...

    And too many vanishing formalities

    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    I thought I might expand this thread
    Does any one currently make any bad lenses
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    edited July 2014
    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.
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    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 ?

  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    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.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    @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?
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    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.

    Always learning.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited July 2014
    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.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
    Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    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
  • @sevencrossing Sorry, I read it wrong, did not see current lenses. What is it with KR?
    Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.