What is the worst Nikon lens you ever purchased?

<p>Kerry wrote:</p>

<p>>200 f4 micro...loved the lens, soft wide open, 52mm matched 4 other Nikkors I carried at the time, precise focusing difficult with quick turn barrel.<</p>

<p>You loved this lens, Kerry, but it was one of your worst? You are picky! :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Not sure if it's fair to call this a "worst" lens because it's been very serviceable. In about 1979, I bought at Nikkor 28mm 3.5 manual focus used for about $65. It was pre-AI and I think it was an H series. Worked fine for the first few years, then one of the screws came lose and the whole metal and glass block that housed the optics came lose from the outer shell and focusing mechanism. Got it repaired but it eventually happened again. Repaired a second time and eventually happened yet again. Finally taped the pieces together and it kept working. Then somehow the link that opened and closed the diaphragm stopped working, so I got it to f/16 and taped that down. Along the way, it got multple scratches on the rear element (but a filter kept the front nice and clean). At that point I couldn't focus or change aperture, but it became my fixed-focus f/16 28, that believe it or not still shot sharp pictures that were published (I was still working for newspapers then). Eventually replaced it with a 35 f/2 and a 24 2.8 (not to mention a 12-24DX), but it's still in the camera cabinet downstair. Definitely the worst "dog" of a lens I have, but probably the one that's kept earning its living more than any other.</p>

<p>I didn't purchase it per se, but it would have to be the 18-50mm kit lens that came with my D60. Pretty puerile, not to mention useless. OMG, I sound like a snob when only two years ago I had might have thought an F-stop was a roadside diner.</p>

<p>Mea culpa.</p>

<p>I notice that only a few people mentioned the 43-86, which on some other sites has been named dog-of-all-dogs among Nikon lenses. I recently got a pre-AI one from a friend, to split the Ebay take with him. </p>

<p>A question I have about this lens and its various versions is: rotten by Nikon standards (which can in some cases mean not rotten at all), or rotten, period?</p>

<p>Rotten because it was one of the first attempts to make a "consumer" zoom, in those days in which primes were the results of decades of development.</p>

<p>24-120 non-VR. Considering the price of the lens at the time, the IQ was not very good, especially at larger apertures. The focal length just seemed like such an ideal walk-around lens; I was very disappointed.</p>

<p>I guess I've been lucky. The 18-200 VR I got produces good images, imo, especially considering the range it's covering. And the 18-70 is one of the sharpest zooms I've owned. Neither lens is fast which seems to make some people stick their noses in the air. I doubt anyone who spent a couple of grand on a "pro" zoom would bad mouth it even if it had issues.<br>

I had a 35mm f2.8 non ai Nikkor that I loved. Years later I got the ai versions and itr seems soft--a normal trait for that model from what I've read.</p>

<p>If any of you 70-200 f/2.8 VR G haters out there just can't stand those "soft corners" anymore, I take donations. I guess one of three things must be true:</p>

<p>(1) I'm genetically predisposed to love "soft corners"<br />(2) I'm too blind to see softness in corners<br />(3) You guys bought a bad copy</p>

<p>Every time I use this lens I'm thrilled. I read somewhere that AA used to darken the edges of his photos to make his subjects stand out. Maybe those so-called "soft corners" are making my photos look better, too!</p>

<p>55 mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor. Fantastically sharp lens with great flat-field optics down to half life size. But, this particular design has a reputation for drooling sticky grease on the aperture blades which soon freeze up. My copy was cleaned and repaired twice by Nikon before I gave up on it. Too bad because the optics were incomparable for its time (I purchased mine in the mid-1980s) and the mechanical quality (other than the grease issue) is simply not seen in even today's highest priced Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>OK, now let's be honest - what did we do with all the Nikon dogs? Sell them to unsuspecting fellow photographers or trade them in to be sold to other unsuspecting photographers.</p>

<p>Nikkor 35-80 f4-5.6 I bought together with F50 in 1997.<br>

I don't like it because it has so cheap feeling with very poor focus ring. Combine that with the worst Nikon ergonomic of F50. Well, that's the price of first experience on purchasing a camera.<br>

Luckily they both were stolen three years later, so I didn't have hassle selling them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1147401">John Lai</a> , Mar 05, 2009; 11:16 a.m.<br>

Some of the complains here.. Bad samples?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I know, what's up with this? Seems like bad QC than anything else. Either this or "One man's softness is another's sharp".</p>

 

<p>A long time ago I bought a 43-86/3.5. It was an early zoom that was easily the worst Nikon lens I ever owned.</p>

<p>Dan South, I am with you 110% on 70-200mm f2.8. Although it is not my job to defend Nikon, I am awed every time I go out with this lens on the D700.<br>

jf</p>

<p>jz and Dan, I agree. The 70-200 haters probably hate the 17-35 for the same reason. Thats why so many pros carry them, you know, people who earn a living with them. Have the 24-120 VR. So terrible I just had an image from it published along with one from the 70-200. One of the reasons I shoot Nikon is the glass. Of course, I love the layout of the bodies as well. </p>

<p>Jf zhang and Dan South, have you tried shooting your 70-200mm f/2.8 VR in the low light of dusk or dawn? I have many times and it will not focus. Like I said I have to shoot in manual focus. Sure, it works fine during the day it is just that first and last 30 minutes of light where it sucks. I know nothing of soft corners, I use it with D200/D300.</p>

<p>What does "bad example" mean? Does that label make it immune from a "worst list"? Maybe I have a bad example, regardless, it is the only lens I have that I regret buying.</p>

<p>Bob, I have no problems with 17-35mm.</p>

<p>Well, having to shoot in the low light was the reason I got the D700. So, yes, I did shoot quite a few times at ISO above 3200. I had no problem using AF in low light situations.<br>

jf</p>

 

<p>Wow DF. I shoot my 70-200 2.8 vr in low light all the time and it is wonderful. Could you have a bad copy? It might be worth sending it to Nikon for a check-up. I don't fault you not liking it but it surprises me you dislike it for low light. I had a 35 to 70 2.8 that I had a spite for. At the time I thought it to narrow to be practical. Now I wish I had it back. What a great portrait lens. <br>

The worst? 43 - 86. There was nothing good about this lens. I suspect there are few who have ever used one though. There are dog-eared first editions out there but I would avoid them like the plague.</p>

 

<p>OK, now let's be honest - what did we do with all the Nikon dogs? Sell them to unsuspecting fellow photographers or trade them in to be sold to other unsuspecting photographers.<br>

Ok, here is my list. No bucket passed on e-bay.</p>

<ul>

<li>35-80 4-5.6 - It came with the camera, with or without the lens, the price was the same. Actually never used, only tested on the camera without shooting. I don't know about performance, it wuas the handling that I did not like. Returned to the shop after few days from purchase and got a 50 mm 1.8 with some discount. Guess the lens was sold as new with the next camera.</li>

<li>300 mm 2.8 - Traded to a camera broker for a bunch of Euros. The lens was perfect, just too big and too heavy for my needs. </li>

<li>35-70 mm 2.8 - Problem fixed, I still own and use it.</li>

<li>28-50 mm 3.3 - 4.5 - Lens was good, distortion was too much for my urban landscape shots. Given to a friend who does PJ in exchange for a 28-105 mm 3.5-4.5 lens that was not enough wide for him. I still have and use it. Guess it was a win-win solution.</li>

<li>70-300 mm 4-5.6 ED - Time for the third re-alignment. Then another couple of years of good performance will follow. I will keep it as backup if I find a really mint 75-300 mm 4.5-5.6. </li>

</ul>

<p>I was always pleased with my 24-120 non-VR and it got some excellent reviews on release. However, I recall that there seemed to be a lot of sample variation with this lens in particular. There seems to have always been two camps when it came to the lens' optical performance. Count me as a fan (although I sold it several years ago).</p>

<p>So what have I learned from this magnificent thread? ....<br>

On average more expensive lenses often produce a better overall IQ than cheap lenses. <br>

I'm more of a person to look for for price-performance ratio and this combined with actual "need"<br>

In these terms the 70-200 2.8 is a crappy lens, and my 18-105 VR is one of the best Nikon lenses I have owned. Same goes for my Camera's. Again under these terms my D60 with 18-105VR outperforms my D700 with 24-70 2.8, the latter of course being a great lens in absolute terms.<br>

I actually take more images with my D60 set then I do with my D700 setup, yes I have corner fall-off, does it bother me? ..... only perhaps in 5% of the case. At least I have it with me all of the time and am able to images which would of been impossible to take with my D700 merely because of the fact that I refuse to lug this set around all of the time.... well I don't personally refuse, but my back and shoulders do....<br>

as in life, all is relative, even choice and need of camera's and equipment involved, like lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>By far the worst Nikon lens I've owned is the original 24-120mm (non-VR) zoom. The image quality was atrocious. While I managed to sell pictures made with it, getting rid of it was one of the best photographic decisions I ever made.</p>

<p>Second worst is the 70-200 f/2.8. The image quality (DX) is outstanding. Contrary to at least one post, mine works fine in low light (I shoot dance and musical productions). The problem is reliability, at least for my sample. This lens has been repaired three times for different reasons. So, for reliability, I classify this lens as the second-worst Nikon lens that I have owned.</p>

<p>Regarding the 18-70mm and 70-300mm ED zooms, my copies seem to be OK. The 70-300mm suffers from softness an CA at 300mm (which are known issues), but is otherwise decent. However, these budget lenses would not be first choices for paying work.</p>

<p>I've used Nikon lenses since 1976, but have owned only about twenty over that time. Every lens has benefits and liabilities (the exception being the 24-120mm zoom -- my copy had no redeeming values). It's up to the photographer to understand the equipment and exploit it to its greatest use -- horses for courses.</p>

<p>Dan South, Bob Bill, jfzhang,<br>

The 70-200mm VR is incapable of producing even decent corners - let alone good - at any aperture. Take your 70-200mm, stick it on a D700/D3/D3x or film (don't bother with DX - it is fine there) and shoot a subject that is at infinity in the corners. Even at f8 or f11 it is woeful. If you don't shoot subjects whose corners are at infinity, or that are on a closer but flat plane of focus, you will never notice this. Shooting across a valley is typically where this is obvious.<br>

Don't confuse soft corners with vignetting (darkening) which is not a problem with this lens - this is detail that is very badly smudged. NPS UK told me point blank that this lens was optimised for DX and it sure shows it.<br>

Plenty of people have said that their 70-200mm is wonderful on FX but when asked to perform the simple test above nobody as yet has been able to come back with the goods. Please feel free to give it a go if ou don't believe me.<br>

Quite simply for what, and how, you gentlemen photograph the 70-200mm performs as you would like - good for you! For what I often photograph - subjects at infinity (very testing requirement!!!) - the 70-200mm is overpriced junk bested by the humbler Nikon 80-200mm two-ring, the Sigma 70-200mm and any of the Canon 70-200mm Ls including the cheap and cheerful f4 non- IS which is fabulous. I wish Nikon would copy that little jewel.<br>

As for the 17-35mm, it is the best Nikon zoom lens of the many I have owned.<br>

All the best,</p>

<p>James</p>

Worst? No way, Jose. Lucky me.