A bad lens is one you don't carry and have available for use. Otherwise there is no such thing. A plastic lens or a pinhole camera can take a beautiful picture.

alphanikonrex - sure it will kill the image (at least to some point), but this doesn't change the fact that I would love to have this lens one day for it's bokeh, and I agree with You that it's a very special, even more, very exotic lens.

bmxdad - I would love to see a 400mm f4 prime from nikon and a new 300 f4 with VR and nano coating with a price around $2k

Yes Nikon need to do some work on F4 lenses

Pete

LOL, after I made the post a B&H ad popped up above it.

So you are one of the people who actually needs stuff like that, eh?

On second thought, I'm sure I would be able to make room for it if actually purchasing one became a reality.

But my point is that the 200mm ƒ/2 is a speciality lens. You would be using the 2x teleconverter which kills image quality. Wouldn't you prefer a real 400mm ƒ/4? Instead of us going out and buying the speciality stuff, which is what Nikon wants, lets all threaten to switch to the C-word unless they offer us some slower and more affordable lenses that actually are "good" (for our purposes).

If you want a 400mm ƒ/4, consider the 200-400mm ƒ/4. Of course you'll have more flexibility, and no degradation of image quality. On B&H the 200-400mm ƒ/4 only costs about $500 more than a 200mm ƒ2 plus TC.

alphanikonrex - I have to disagree with You, 200/2.0 is a great lens, and one day I hope to have it in my camera bag as it gives You a huge potential of having a 400/f4 lens for a fraction of price, and at the same time allows You to get this great bokeh You can't easily obtain with a telephoto lens. OTOH I have to agree, that it's not a lens for everyone. as for 400/2.8 it's also a great lens if You do wildlife or sports

gentoo - that's what I started to do once I got d90, I use it with my 70-200 and mount 24-70 on d200, that gives me a lot of flexibility

"and yes, a long zoom can be versatile, I carry my 4 lenses on me and I often have to change, it takes some time, but its the cost of having fast lenses are good price, I simply couldn't shoot with ƒ/3.5 - 5.6 so I prefer having to change lenses all the time."

I agree with this. Now when I do birding shoots, I will be carrying two bodies with me; The D300 with the 300 prime on it and the D90 with the 70-200 attached. The second set up will be for those grab shots of birds that suddenly appear closer than my main subjects which may be some distance away. I also did this with a recent for fun photo shoot I did. I kept the 70-200 on the D300 and the 12-24 on the D90. I have a slingshot backpack so getting to the gear is quick and easy and I'm lazy at times.

Yeah, seriously. The Coolpix 3700 even does time lapse! Let's see the D40 do that straight out of the box!

And it's so cheap, I don't mind bringing it everywhere with me. I mean, at this point, the memory card is the most valuable part of the camera. Which means I usually get shots of what I want, as long as it's bright out and not moving really fast- because the startup time is about 2-3 seconds. :D

Right On!

My first digital camera was actually the Coolpix 3100 and it is probably the most pocketable photographic equipment I own.

Getting all philosophical now huh?

In a way yes, because it's not practical to lug it everywhere you go.

In fact, if you really wanna go that route then my 3.2 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 3700 from 2004 or so is my best camera, because it's small enough for me to take everywhere and even takes videos, which my D40 can't do.

What good is a 200mm f/2.0 when you can't carry it wherever you want?

Edit- in fact, it's from 2003, according to DPReview. :D

Here's a thought:

Can a lens be so good that it's bad?

Like the 200mm ƒ/2G. It may be useful for some people, but it's big, heavy, expensive, and I'll bet that more people would prefer a 200mm ƒ/2.8G. Doesn't that make the 200mm ƒ/2G a bad lens for most people, because it is such a fast and great lens?

What about the 400mm ƒ/2.8G?

Yeah, I know what you mean. In some conditions, a slow lens just won't cut it- like when I'm in a museum or something. But I learn to live with that- I just don't have the money to spend on a couple of prime lenses- old or new. So I just make do with what I have. Most of my shooting isn't in museum quality light, so it's quite rare that I shoot in dark situations. But you do bring up valid points.

Hmm true.. a manual focus lens doesn't always do the job.

and yes, a long zoom can be versatile, I carry my 4 lenses on me and I often have to change, it takes some time, but its the cost of having fast lenses are good price, I simply couldn't shoot with ƒ/3.5 - 5.6 so I prefer having to change lenses all the time.

about optic quality, the 18-55 is far from decent, unless you stop it down (and stopping down such a lens is pure suicide) its soft everywhere but in the middle.

To me, a kit lens would be an option if I was shooting outside, during day light. But I'm unfortunately not doing so.

Drop your lens to the rock, It'll really bad lens!!

"and I will not, I think that only those ones can say that they don't need 2.8 lens if they never worked with any of fast lenses; for me it was like discovering a new way of taking pictures once I've got my first f2.8 lens."

:) I figured I was long enough on my soap box but well said adamz!

jbl, you made great points there. The issue with manual focus lenses is what you want to shoot- if you're shooting street photos, or just general photography, you usually need autofocus. Manual focus lenses are great for things that don't move.

It may work out for you, but it wouldn't work out for me at all.

Also, I didn't say you couldn't get a fast lens for cheap, I said I don't think you could get a lens with a zoom range like the 18-135 for its price. Obviously it's a the cost of speed, but I'm aware of that.

From what I hear the 18-55 is optically fine, but the build quality just sucks. I had looked at a friend's example of the 18-55, and it really isn't that great. Slightly flimsy, and there is no automatic focus override like other AF-S lenses. The 18-135 has slightly better build quality, which I like as well.

We all have our own opinions, and that's certainly fine. :D

I just like the versatility of having a bit of play as far as zoom goes. There's no doubt the primes have optical advantage, but you are stuck at that focal length.

"As far as not needing a 2.8 lens...I'll rest on that one" - and I will not, I think that only those ones can say that they don't need 2.8 lens if they never worked with any of fast lenses; for me it was like discovering a new way of taking pictures once I've got my first f2.8 lens.

"Another thing, when we think about cheap lenses, we should include the possibility of buying really cheap used manual focus lens, I bought a 105mm ƒ/2.5 for 100$ about 2 months ago and it is awesome. It's by far my sharpest lens. Of course it's a prime, it lacks VR, it's not macro and it doesn't autofocus, but all this is luxury and I only paid 100$ for a fast and ultra good lens! If I was on a really tight budget, I would get all manual focus primes."

Spoken like a person who has good vision. At least better than mine. MF lenses aren't an option for some of us (one reason I guess the number of photographers increased when AF came out). So for some of us, AF is the way to go.

As far as not needing a 2.8 lens...I'll rest on that one.

It all comes down to what you like, what you need, what you want, etc. So I'll speak with what I like, what I need, what I want.

NSXType-R you say that for its price you can't get a fast lens, yet, for the same price you can get a 50mm ƒ/1.8, which is not a pro lens, but a very good fast lens for its price.

Now let's see why (imo) the 50mm ƒ/1.8 is superior to the zoom.

Ok so the long end of the kit lens is about the same as this fast prime. This focal lenght on DX is best used for portraits... yet, at ƒ/5.6, you will lack DOF with the kit lens... and when you use it wide open (ƒ/5.6) it's not really sharp anyway.

Now the kit lens offers 2 other focal length (yes, I understand that in fact it offers more than 2, but I reduce that down to 2 to "analyze" them. A "normal" length between 30 and 37mm and a kinda wide one at 18mm. Let's start with the wide. It sure is nice, before I buy my own photo equip I was using my friend's old canon with this lens. I was using it at 18mm all the time. Now the thing is, if you're going for landscape, it simply won't be wide enough... and it's so soft wide open (even today's version, on both nikon and canon) that you won't be able to use it indoor... even with relatively good lighting. The lens is only good at about 35mm @ ƒ/5.6 and ƒ/8. Again, which lens isn't?

In the end, if I had a 150$ to spend, I would rather get a good portrait lens that can be a nice back up for low light situation than a lens that tries to do a bit of everything but is bad at everything but 35mm ƒ/5.6

Plus, the 50mm prime has a better construction.

Now considering that for the same price, there are 2 lenses and one of them is clearly superior, it makes the other one a bad lens.

This is why I (me, my opinion) think that the 18-55mm kit lens is bad.

Now if we think about the 18-70, 18-105, 18-135, I believe each of them are already better due to their increased versatility and better overall aperture. I still dislike these lenses.

The 18-200 (or other brands 18-270 and such) is (are) the king(s) of versatility, but generally don't offer very good performance.

Another thing, when we think about cheap lenses, we should include the possibility of buying really cheap used manual focus lens, I bought a 105mm ƒ/2.5 for 100$ about 2 months ago and it is awesome. It's by far my sharpest lens. Of course it's a prime, it lacks VR, it's not macro and it doesn't autofocus, but all this is luxury and I only paid 100$ for a fast and ultra good lens! If I was on a really tight budget, I would get all manual focus primes.

Anyway, it's only my opinion but I guess it clears the "cheap less can't be fast" argument. You don't need those ƒ/2.8 zoom to have fast and sharp lenses.

Well since the 18-135 is my only lens, I love it for what it is. There are obviously many other better lenses, but I'm happy with what I have so far, as is.

I prefer 18-105 VR to 18-135, but they are almost identical and I would really love 18-105 VR with metal mount (it is to big for plastic) even for 100$ more . And I agree on 10-24, but Nikon has different opinion.

jbl, I disagree with calling the 18-55 a bad lens. It works for what it is and its price- everyone knows that at its price point, you can't have a fast lens. For its price it performs admirably. If everything made were fast lenses, then every lens' price would go through the roof.

If the same 18-55 lens cost $600, then I would wholeheartedly agree that it's a horrible lens.

mb- I agree there, although maybe the new 10-24 might be too expensive for its performance. But then again, the 18-135 not everyone likes. But I do like the 18-135 for its flexibility. I couldn't afford the 18-200 at the time, and that was the only option for me. I didn't want to carry the 18-55 and 55-200. The 18-135 turned out to be perfect for my uses. It does have distortion, but it's generally sharp throughout.

Today it is very hard to find a really bad lens, most are good enough for the price.

To me, there are 2 kinds of bad lenses.

First kind would be those zoom lenses with slow apertures and far from ideal focal lenght, such as the 18-55 kit lens for DX, not wide enough to be wide, not tele enough for anything but portrait. so it's pretty much a portrait lens at ƒ/5.6 while you can get the 50mm ƒ/1.8 for the same price.

The other kind would be those with interesting specs but with optical imperfections, vigneting, soft, bad bokeh, etc.

And of course, any lens that override a focal length that you already have, without giving another particular advantage (minimal focus distance (macro lens) or very fast aperture.

NAU: that's pretty funny, I only have 1 dx lens and it will become an ashtray before a flower pot.lol.....

I luv my L's.