Thanks very much guys for all your insights! I really appreciate all of them... I am on my way to capturing better photos thanks to all of you! Cheers! :D

Yes. The Nikon lens hoods spin and snap into place in a thread...you should be able to see the groove right outside the focus ring. The filter will screw on inside near the element...you can see those small grooves there. There are different filers and some don't screw on, but the lens hood won't make a difference either way.

No harm done tcole1983 :) everything seems really clear to me now. I will definitely purchase the OEM from Nikon. One question though, will the lens hood still mount if I have a filter on my lens? :)

Sorry if I made it sound that way. But +1 to TaoTeJared.

If you read Ken Rockwell he says to never use them and just use a protective filter. I think they do help block some lens flare and I feel safer having it on the end of the lens...I almost always use mine except in some cases where they can block the flash and then I take it off. I personally don't use any filters so they are my protection. People have modified them in some cases by cutting parts off so that they never block the flash or whatever...I think it is probably a better idea to just take it off in those cases.

porsche_earl said:
I was just contemplating on purchasing an alternative for a conical HB-45 :) I thought the flower lens hood be a good alternative - I was wrong.

I am a novice in photography, please excuse the stupidity. :p

I don't think any of us believed you are wrong or dumb, Flower hoods can be just as good. Nikon takes a great effort in designing all the aspects of the lens as well as designing the hood that goes with each lens. Most 3rd party accessories companies do not take the same amount of time or consideration.

Nikon lenses all seem to be pretty flare resistant. You can get some if you shoot directly into the sun, but the stock lens hoods are decent in most cases. Plus they are made by Nikon for the specific lens...so they have a purpose and work. I wouldn't worry about it and just stick with the stock hood that you know was made for the lens...I would have to imagine a third part hood not really working all that well and the fit being off.

I was just contemplating on purchasing an alternative for a conical HB-45 :) I thought the flower lens hood be a good alternative - I was wrong.

I am a novice in photography, please excuse the stupidity. :p

I am sorry...is this a joke though? What is wrong with the OEM Nikon one? I don't think it is really worth worrying about the lens hood on this lens.

Thanks for the advice! :) I nearly bought the flower lens hood if I hadn't consulted expert advice. :D more power to you!!!

get the nikon one because the front element rotates on that lens which is why it is conical...petal shaped hoods work only with lenses where there front element does not rotate. this is why the 70-300g has a conical hood whereas the 70-300 vr has a petal hood

Thanks for the replies :) The difference of this lens hood from Nikon's HB-45 is that this is a flower lens hood while Nikon's OEM is a conical one. Still torn on which lens hood to purchase. :|

I've never seen reviews on hoods - The Nikon is maybe $12-20? If you are worried, just buy the Nikon one.

Umm, maybe?

I've never heard of the brand, so maybe it works. It probably just screws into the filter thread.

Your best bet if you want a hood is to use the Nikon one though, you're guaranteed that'll work fine.

The title should have been "JJC HS-52 flower lens hood for AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm kit lens" sorry for the wrong model number... :D

I have recently found this lens hood online and I was wondering if it woud work on the 18-55mm kit lens of Nikon. How is its build quality and reliability? Will it interfere with the lens while autofocusing? Will it cause vignetting due to the lens' short focal range? Is it worth buying at all? I hope someone can tell me more about thus product based upon personal experiences. :)

The D700 was sold with the 24-120mm VR (not the new f/4 one) lens and that was horrible . . .

The AF Fine Tune does remember the lenses that are used, as well as a master one for body correction.

The way I see it is Nikon wouldn't sell their cameras with horrid lenses as kits, pro glass is best but there are bargains around in the cheaper glass too.

This AF fine tune facility - it needs to remember the lens requirements when the lens is fitted - does it? If not why not?

I'm done. You win! Kill this thread NOW!

studio460 said:
Try that test on the AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D, and I bet it's even worse.

On a DX body, probably not. It might do better than the 35mm DX since it is not using the edge/corners of the glass. I'll take that bet. Point is either of those two lenses are optically better than the 18-55mm lens.

studio460 said:
And, how many copies did they test? You should know that data taken from a sample of one is virtually meaningless. While the CA on that particular copy may have been spot-on, at least two members here have reported the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G as being soft, as well as my own Nikon dealer reporting several returns from customers complaining the same.

It doesn't say, but whatever lens they tested with seemed dead on. At least they came up with numbers and measurements, whereas "softness" is based on interpretation.

studio460 said:
Generally speaking, I stand by my comments. My statements are backed by first-hand observation, vague memories of 20-year-old photography class lectures, and some stupid optics textbook I have in the garage somewhere (which I have no plans on finding anytime soon, unless it's on top of my ski stuff. Goin' skiing Sunday--woohoo!). If I stumble on the class notes, or find the reference in the text, you'll be the first to know.

Well it is kinda hard for the dpreview data and measurements to beat your vague memories of class ;)
Lots have changed in 20 years . . .

studio460 said:
You do make some valid points; however, my goal was to simply comment on the fact that just because a lens is expensive, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily sharper than its more economical brethren. Also, forget about relying solely on third-party data--every photographer should test their lenses for themselves--I'm just saying (because, there may be some surprises).

Lenses can be out of whack and have discrepancies, if they were always perfect, Nikon wouldn't have put AF Fine Tune in the higher end bodies.
Also sharpness can be measured, take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page4.asp

Segura said:
So compare the 18-55mm DX lens (cheap) to a 35mm DX lens and you will see at wide open, the 18-55mm has red at .05% and blue at .1% of half picture width. The 35mm is red .04% and blue @ .03%. Much closer together and closer to 0% = less dispersion. In this case the cheaper glass was actually worse.

Try that test on the AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D, and I bet it's even worse.

Segura said:
Check preview.com lens tests for references.
50mm 1.4G RED=.01% BLUE=.01%

And, how many copies did they test? You should know that data taken from a sample of one is virtually meaningless. While the CA on that particular copy may have been spot-on, at least two members here have reported the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G as being soft, as well as my own Nikon dealer reporting several returns from customers complaining the same.

Segura said:
But more often than not, the pro lenses beat the cheap ones due to much of what I put in this post. Test it yourself at a camera shop . . . and stop spreading mis-information.

I have tested. Sure, the newest, Nano-coated, chock-full-of-ED-glass lenses may more often than not, be far superior to cheap kit zooms, but taking into consideration the entire universe of older (including ED lenses), AI-S, and D lenses, including new, current-production D lenses, there's a lot of other glass to consider.

Segura said:
Smaller maximum aperture, and low amount of glass, often contribute to higher degree of acutance - Any science to back this opinion up?

Generally speaking, I stand by my comments. My statements are backed by first-hand observation, vague memories of 20-year-old photography class lectures, and some stupid optics textbook I have in the garage somewhere (which I have no plans on finding anytime soon, unless it's on top of my ski stuff. Goin' skiing Sunday--woohoo!). If I stumble on the class notes, or find the reference in the text, you'll be the first to know.

You do make some valid points; however, my goal was to simply comment on the fact that just because a lens is expensive, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily sharper than its more economical brethren. Also, forget about relying solely on third-party data--every photographer should test their lenses for themselves--I'm just saying (because, there may be some surprises).

@studio460 -

Fast glass:
More difficult to design - Optical designs have been used for years, and the formulas are down pat. Computers make the designing much easier to design, that is why the current generation of fast primes have more elements. In the 85mm, why did Nikon go from 9 Elements/8 Groups to 10E/9G. They could have just added AF-S and been done with it. I believe that some of the cheaper zooms are more difficult to design. Look at the 18-200mm VR, 16 Elements in 12 Groups. I think you got this one wrong.

Susceptible to more optical imperfections - true, but the optical imperfections are negated by scale. Let's say you have a 1mm mark. On a pro FX lens, 1mm is small, but on a cheap DX zoom, 1mm takes up 3-4x the glass real estate it would, so the imperfection is actually compounded on smaller, cheaper glass. A fingerprint on an 85mm FX prime will distort less than if it was on an 18-55mm DX. Do this test yourself.

Requires larger elements, requiring more glass, resulting in more dispersion - Fast glass is built to higher standards using ED (extra low dispersion) elements to reduce dispersion, while cheap glass is not. The Nano coating takes this up a notch as well on the pro lenses. Dispersion = chromatic aberrations. So compare the 18-55mm DX lens (cheap) to a 35mm DX lens and you will see at wide open, the 18-55mm has red at .05% and blue at .1% of half picture width. The 35mm is red .04% and blue @ .03%. Much closer together and closer to 0% = less dispersion. In this case the cheaper glass was actually worse. Check preview.com lens tests for references.
18-200mm @ 18mm RED=.14% BLUE=.3% (high dispersion)
18-200mm @ 200mm RED=.05% BLUE=.16% (high dispersion)
50mm 1.4G RED=.01% BLUE=.01%

Expensive - What is expensive to you may not be expensive to me ;)

Cheap glass:
Less glass, with smaller elements, means less dispersion - see above, I think this is actually the opposite (dispersion). Cheap lenses are also made with cheaper glass too, keep that in mind. I agree with less glass (sometimes, except when you need 16 elements)

Typically, slower maximum aperture - absolutely.

Smaller maximum aperture, and low amount of glass, often contribute to higher degree of acutance - Any science to back this opinion up?

Slow - Painfully slow for some people . . .

Pro lenses are built to a certain level or precision as well, whereas cheap glass may not be built to the same tolerances, which may impact a picture. Every lens is different. Some pro lenses can be soft. If so, send it in to get repaired. No reason to keep a soft lens. And some cheap lenses may be sharp. But more often than not, the pro lenses beat the cheap ones due to much of what I put in this post. Test it yourself at a camera shop . . . and stop spreading mis-information.

proudgeek said:
Perfect example: I'm a freelance writer, pretty highly compensated at that and have been for 20 years. I buy a new Mac every three years or so. Does each purchase make me a better, more creative writer? Of course not. Does it make my workflow more efficient (more hard drive space, faster processor, better applications, etc.? Yes.

I appreciate your point of view; however, I'm not sure of the relevancy of your example. I used to write for a living too. But a new processor, or greater memory won't bring a whole new dimension to your writing, whereas a photographer with only a 50mm lens who buys a 14mm wide-angle, does enter a new world of creative possibility.

Recently, I started acquiring a number of new and used Nikon lenses. I have expensive Nikon lenses that are soft. I have cheap Nikon lenses that are tack-sharp. Price is no determinant of sharpness; though it's typically indicative of its speed. No one ever said that fast, expensive glass is necessarily sharper than inexpensive glass. I'm no optics expert either, but here's what I've gathered through my past photo instructors, books on optics, and first-hand observations:

Fast glass:
More difficult to design.
Susceptible to more optical imperfections.
Requires larger elements, requiring more glass, resulting in more dispersion.
Expensive.

Cheap glass:
Less glass, with smaller elements, means less dispersion.
Typically, slower maximum aperture.
Smaller maximum aperture, and low amount of glass, often contribute to higher degree of acutance.
Slow.

proudgeek said:
Bottom line is tests are tests and generate numbers.

What's wrong with using empirical data to assist in pre-purchase lens evaluations?

proudgeek said:
Does better stuff make you a better photographer?

No, but good gear can make your work product "better," at least technically. And, like it or not, photography is a technically based art. This falls under the, "ignore the numbers, and just go out and shoot," mantra, which I understand, but disagree with. I think it's worth any photographer's time, amateur or pro, to test each lens upon purchase. Any craftsman or technician needs to be assured that their tools are accurately calibrated and are performing within the manufacturer's specifications. My point is, you don't want to waste time, energy and expense, producing images with under-performing, or sub-standard tools. Performing an acutance test on any new lens purchase should be part of any photographer's routine.

In answer to the original OP's topic question, "Are expensive fast lenses really better?" The only thing expensive fast lenses are, necessarily, are just that: expensive and fast.

The discussion sort of continued here

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3223

on a lot milder manner ( until someone got aggressive and caused the topic to be closed.) I would say the second/above discussion was more meaningful/helpful in the sense that the expensive glass and the sensor size which it was on was discussed as a whole - the only reason I started a similar discussion after 7 months .

I will admit comparing them without looking at on which sensor size/Mp they are used does not make sense . While a pro lens may not make a difference in sharpness on a D90/D300 even on a D700 ( judging solely on test results ), it will make remarkable improvement on a 24Mp FF D3x.

Stumbled across this a few days ago and couldn't resist putting in my two cents worth. In a way this kind of thread is what makes forums like this both awesome (wide ranging POVs) and silly (endless debates over minutia).
For what it's worth, I try not to look at lens tests. Not being an optical engineer or a mathematician I have a hard time figuring out what those red and blue lines mean. But like most of you, I don't use my camera under controlled circumstances. I take it outside and shoot in the real world where pretty much everything is out of my control. The only test I really care about is the "holy s*&t" test. If I shoot something, take a look at it on my big monitor and I say "holy s*&t" then it passes. If a lens or camera can help me do that more than not then it's a useful piece of equipment.
Let's not forget that cameras are nothing more than dumb computers that are really good at math, and lenses are nothing more than inert pieces of glass with some variability in the amount of light they let hit the sensor. Most everything else is human error. Some of the crappiest pictures I've ever taken are the ones where I tried to think too much and show off how many of the gizmos on my camera I could use at once. And some of my best shots have been taken with a D40 and a kit lens.
Perfect example: I'm a freelance writer, pretty highly compensated at that and have been for 20 years. I buy a new Mac every three years or so. Does each purchase make me a better, more creative writer? Of course not. Does it make my workflow more efficient (more hard drive space, faster processor, better applications, etc.)? Yes.
Cameras and lenses are very similar. Will a faster (and more expensive lens) allow me to do more? Sure. When I bought my 105 macro I went out in the backyard and shot for an hour then came in and uploaded images and nearly soiled myself I was so happy. When I traded my D40 for a D90 did I notice a difference? Sure. But they're just tools. Technology doesn't take the pictures for you. When it does the best shooters will be the ones willing to spend the most money on their gear. We know that's not the case.
Bottom line is tests are tests and generate numbers. Does better stuff make you a better photographer? Maybe it makes you feel like you're better (and maybe that's half the battle)? But maybe having a few more tools creates some additional possibilities.
Sorry for the rambling rant.

shuagster said:
Finally! I have made up my mind!! I'm on a tight budget so I'm gonna forget about the 18-200 or 16-85... I'm gonna get the 18-105 as a walk around lens and the 35mm 1.8 for low light. Eventually if I feel like I need longer focal lengths I'll get the 70-300VR.

Thank You everyone you have been of great help in my decision. :)

Sounds like a good place to start. It will at least help you figure out if you need anything else down the line. I just got the 35 f1.8 and I was surprised that it was built pretty well for the price...metal mounts and all. Lol I will take the wisdom of my wife and say you even though you are all excited about the camera you don't need to have it all at one time. If it takes a while to save up for a better lens later on then so be it. You will be able to take pictures with those 2 lenses and it is easy to be caught up in needing more and better, but I don't think I have heard anyone that has been really disappointed by a Nikon lens even the kit lenses.