Nikon's worst lens in the last 20 years! Post your least favorite

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Nikon's worst lens in the last 20 years! Post your least favorite

(44 posts) (27 voices)

Tags:

2350
Acrylon

« Previous 12

studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

PB PM said:
The 35mm F1.8G is very sharp, even wide open. The Bokeh is a little ugly at F1.8, but by F2.8 it is buttery smooth.

Thanks, PB PM!

Great! I'll be adding a new AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G to my next B+H order! Hopefully, I'll get faster focusing, and a one-third stop gain in speed too. Finally, I'll have 'D' lens info relayed to my body when shooting at 35mm as well--I still have several non-D AF lenses I bought as refurbs years ago. I'm also planning to replace my non-D AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 with an AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF soon.

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

Faster AF is not something you'll get. The 35mm F1.8G is slowish, the 50mm F1.8D focuses twice as fast.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

Darn! I knew it! Thanks again, PB PM!

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

My vote goes to the cheap and nasty 70-300 G

Posted 2 years ago #
JohnT

junior member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 5
offline

I've heard the 70-300 G/non-VR is terrible, but I'm surprised to see the VR version on this list. I've heard a lot of good things about it, and mine's reasonably sharp. I'd group it with lenses like the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 as one of Nikon's best lens values, but maybe there are sample variations.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

My vote would go to the 85mm 3.5 macro. Probably a good lens optically in general, but I don't get the point of this lens. 3.5 is not good enough for subject isolation for portraits either- you'd be better off with an 85mm 1.8.

It's only about $300 off from the 105 macro. Who in their right mind would go for the 85mm? I would have preferred Nikon to have spent the time and money on a wide angle DX prime, maybe a 24mm or 18mm 1.8.

Just an odd lens.

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

I disagree about the 85mm F3.5G, I have one and love using it, and not just for macro work. Why do I love it, it weighs 355g, it's like it's not even there. The same could never be said of the 105mm VR.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

NSXType-R said:
My vote would go to the 85mm 3.5 macro. Probably a good lens optically in general, but I don't get the point of this lens. 3.5 is not good enough for subject isolation for portraits either- you'd be better off with an 85mm 1.8.

It's only about $300 off from the 105 macro. Who in their right mind would go for the 85mm?
Just an odd lens.

It's closer to 1/2 the price ($475 vs $885), less than 1/2 the weight, and uses the DX kit standard 52mm filters.
I think there is something to be said for Nikon producing a bargain macro lens. But that is what it is - a bargain macro lens. Just because you're not in its market segment doesn't mean it's one of "Nikon's worst lens[es]"

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

PB PM said:
I disagree about the 85mm F3.5G, I have one and love using it, and not just for macro work. Why do I love it, it weighs 355g, it's like it's not even there. The same could never be said of the 105mm VR.

Drab said:
It's closer to 1/2 the price ($475 vs $885), less than 1/2 the weight, and uses the DX kit standard 52mm filters.
I think there is something to be said for Nikon producing a bargain macro lens. But that is what it is - a bargain macro lens. Just because you're not in its market segment doesn't mean it's one of "Nikon's worst lens[es]"

Right, points taken. It should be more of an awkward lens for me than a truly bad lens.

Posted 2 years ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

70-300 ED, non-G. Takes too long to AF.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Is this really it?

28mm AF-D F/2.8
35mm AF F/2.0 (Older non "D" version)
70-300mm G (non VR)
70-300mm G VR (Evidently build variations)
55-200mm G (non VR)
24-120mm F3.5-5.6 (just my vote)
18-55mm - (Build quality - Both versions)

I don't use any of the consumer lenses but I'm surprised that not many are on here.
I'm leaving off the "Not so useful" or "slower AF" since that doesn't really make them dogs. If I shoot my 105vr through a screen window it hunts for frick'n ever but it is no dog.

What about 3rd party lenses? Any crappy one's to run from?

Posted 2 years ago #
GeorgeBoumrad

new member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 4
offline

I had nothing but trouble with my 18-200 v1. My 18-55 and 55-200 were much better in image quality,

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

TaoTeJared are you really that surprised? This is Nikon we are talking about here! I bet the people who posted had to think a while in order to post one. Even the one I posted the 80-200 only had slower AF! No big deal. In fact I have never used a poor image rendering piece of Nikon glass and I have used thousands over the years now. Nikon is unreal even compared to Leica, which I shoot often now as well.

You are asking about 3rd party lenses now, and this will be a completely different kettle of fish. My only experience there is the Tokina 11-16mm DX pro and it was great optically just to small of a range for me so I sold it. I have the Tokina 100mm Macro and it is also superb. Should get some Tamron or Sigma lemons posted here maybe though.

Posted 2 years ago #
JorPet

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 261
offline

My vote would be for the 18-200 VRII. Not due to optic quality (it's about what you would expect from an 11x lens). I have personally had very bad luck with its durability. First time it got smacked and cost about $250 to get it fixed. Then the focus quite working (manual and AF). So it is sitting in a drawer. Not sure I want to spend a couple hundred more fixing something that isn't really that great of a lens to begin with.

Posted 2 years ago #
Segura

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 120
offline

Nikon 35mm f/1.4G gets my vote for the worst because you CAN'T FIND IT ANYWHERE YET EXCEPT 1 STORE IN CANADA!

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

lol, somehow I doubt the lack of availability makes it a bad lens.

Posted 2 years ago #
andrewz

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 143
offline

GeorgeBoumrad said:
I had nothing but trouble with my 18-200 v1. My 18-55 and 55-200 were much better in image quality,

JorPet said:
My vote would be for the 18-200 VRII. Not due to optic quality (it's about what you would expect from an 11x lens). I have personally had very bad luck with its durability. First time it got smacked and cost about $250 to get it fixed. Then the focus quite working (manual and AF). So it is sitting in a drawer. Not sure I want to spend a couple hundred more fixing something that isn't really that great of a lens to begin with.

Funny, I love my 18-200. Yeah it's not the sharpest Nikorr I've owned but it's worked well for me without any problems. I even dropped it once broke the cheap lens hood. I wonder about quality control and different manufactering lines or factories. My was make in Thailand. Anybody have good info on different factories?

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

TaoTeJared said:
Is this really it?

28mm AF-D F/2.8
35mm AF F/2.0 (Older non "D" version)
70-300mm G (non VR)
70-300mm G VR (Evidently build variations)
55-200mm G (non VR)
24-120mm F3.5-5.6 (just my vote)
18-55mm - (Build quality - Both versions)

I don't use any of the consumer lenses but I'm surprised that not many are on here.
I'm leaving off the "Not so useful" or "slower AF" since that doesn't really make them dogs. If I shoot my 105vr through a screen window it hunts for frick'n ever but it is no dog.

What about 3rd party lenses? Any crappy one's to run from?

I would say Nikon is quite good with their optics, and quite consistent at least.

Other than price being an issue on more than just a couple lenses, I don't see an issue with any lenses really.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

kanuck said:
TaoTeJared are you really that surprised? This is Nikon we are talking about here!

I'm a little surprised that a few more consumer level or some old zoom designs didn't come out but at the same time I'm not surprised. My pet peev is distortion on any lens so most of the consumer zoom lenses are not my cup of tea.

I find it interesting that many who compare older models to new ones here and review sites tend to exaggerate and make it seem that upgrading is the only way to go. I know that no one does so in malice but I find it gratifying that just because one has an older model of lens, that it won't begin barking at them anytime soon.

I'm still awaiting any 3rd party "steer clears" since so many seem tempting.

Posted 2 years ago #