How is Nikon 18-135 lens stopped down?

I am thinking of buying a D80, but cannot afford the expensive lenses. I also

don't want to buy low quality lenses (beats the purpose of having a nice

camera). I have read a lot of complaints about the 18-70 and 18-135 kit lenses

(sharpness, distortion), but people do not specify if that happens while wide

open or stopped down. Can 18-70, and in particular 18-135, produce

corner-to-corner sharp photos when stopped down to f8 or f11? Are they as good

as the more expensive lenses at those apertures?

 

I shoot landscapes, so I am always stopped down and on a solid tripod. Also, if

there is any distortion, I don't care. I would just like to know if those lenses

can be very sharp when stopped down. I would do my own post-processing of NEF

files, and print no larger than 20x30 inches.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

[just in case anyone is wondering, the reason I ask is because Canon's 28-105

f3.5-4.5 lens ($220) can produce amazing results when stopped down, so I am

hoping that the same happens with mid-priced Nikon lenses].

Where did you read negative reviews about the 18-70 lens? This is a fine lens, much better than the other kit lens i.e. the 18-55. I don't know about the 18-135 because I've never shot with it but I can vouch for the 18-70 being sharp throughout. . . . Just my 2-cents worth.

Most lenses have a sweet spot, an aperture where they work best - usually closed 2 stops. For most Nikon consumer zoom lenses, f8 is the magic number.

 

I have had several Nikon consumer zooms and they all did well wide open, but gave signicantly better results when stopped down to f8.

 

I have five Nikon lenses, and one of my best color and sharpness wise is also one of the least expensive - the Nikon 55-200dx. It doesn't focus fast and has a very, very shallow depth of field, but gives great results even wide open. I have done side-by-side tests with my 70-200 vr, and had virtually identical results (hard even for me to believe). It gives sharper pictures than my 18-200.

 

Picture quality is subjective - what you consider good, someone else might consider poor, or exceptional, and vice-versa. If you buy from a reputable store that accepts returns, you can easily find out for yourself without worrying about getting stuck with a lens you don't like. Most major stores, like Ritz, accept returns without a restocking fee.

 

Good luck!

Thanks guys. I did not mean to say that 18-70 is a bad lens (sorry). I think that most opinions are good, but there are still many that say that the lens is not very sharp, and I am hoping that those only refer to wide open. I am also hoping that 18-135 is as good. That way I could buy D80/18-135 combo for now, then add something wider later on. Thanks again.

I would think twice about the 18-135. It has a plastic lens mount, and is probably more

related to the 18-55 than the 18-70. I would go for the 18-70, though I have to admit that

the D80 set with the 18-135 is a good deal.

 

Dave

The biggest mistake people new to this game make, by far, is thinking they need

continuous coverage from 18mm to 300mm. You don't. A GREAT CHOICE would be the

Nikkor 35mm f2.0D-AF lens. In a few months, add an 85mm f1.8D-AF Nikkor. Still later,

perhaps a wider lens, or whatever lens might suit your shooting needs and style.

 

Seriously.

The 18-70 kit lens is destined to be a Nikon classic, not because its image quality is fantastic, but rather because it offers an unusual combination of quality and price. I own two Nikkor 18-70 zooms. I have more than 20,000 images with this lens.

 

 

Optical quality is very good. The 18-70 is quite sharp at all apertures, has good contrast, focuses quickly and reliably, and has excellent macro performance. On my two samples, the close focus (macro) performance is superb. There is some variability lens to lens; try to test several if you can. The differences between my two are minimal.

 

The 18-70 easily exceeds the resolution of a 6MB camera (e.g., Nikon D70s), and tests the resolution of a Nikon D200 (10.5MP). At f8, the 18-70 will match the performance of lenses costing 5X more (i.e., the 17-55mm and the 17-35mm).

 

Build quality is OK, but not first rate. On the other hand, this lens will be obsolete well before it wears out.

 

There are two significant issues. First, there is a lot of vignetting, especially at 18mm. This is easily corrected in Photoshop or Nikon Capture. Second, there is moderate distortion at 18mm, and it is complex moustache. It can be fixed easily with PTLens ($10), but not Photoshop CS2. Be careful taking pictures with a flat horizon.

 

As a one off lens, it is priced at about $300 as of November 2006. As a kit lens, it is much cheaper. At these prices, it is an extraordinary bargain. Very few photographers will be able to outperform this lens.

 

I have tested the 18-70 against two samples of Nikon's new 18-200 zoom. Up to 70mm, the two lenses are virtually identical, with similar distortion, sharpness and vignetting. The 18-70, however, is much better in close up performance. Of course, there is no VR, but that is rarely an issue with a lens that does not exceed 70mm. My experience with the 18-200 is that it starts to fall apart rapidly after 100mm. From 100mm on, there is very strong chromatic aberration (color fringing). Try the 18-200 before buying it: it has gotten both rave reviews and quite poor reviews.

 

I have not seen or tested the new 18-135 zoom. Several reviews, however, have said that it is very sharp, at the expense of distortion and vignetting. Nikon's MTF charts confirm this. Distortion and vignetting can be cured easily with software, softness is forever. Too bad the 18-135 lacks VR. I am betting that it is otherwise a great bargain.

 

Jim Meketa

Thank you Jim!