Lens performance not according to expectations

[yoni_perlmutter]

I was taking stock today of my photo gear in preparation for the

inclusion of a DSLR into the lineup.

As I was doing this I was reminded of the good

or even excellent performance over many years

of cameras & lenses and whatnot.

 

I think I mostly knew how each of the lenses would perform well

before I acquired them. So no surprises, right?

Well, not exactly.

 

Two exceptions (lenses) come to mind. One is the highly touted

80-200/2.8.

This is the non-D, push-pull, sans collar, earlier model. It is a

fine lens

and it does give good results, but . . .

it does not perform to my expectations, never did;

it?s nothing like the 85/1.4 or the 180/2.8. Not at all.

I just can?t seem to get it right with this lens and it

is one of those raved about Nikkors.

 

At the other end of the spectrum is the oft-maligned 24-120,

again the older, non-VR model. This lens I bought without the baggage of

expectations in the hope that it would be a decent knock-around eventer

and travel lens. This lowly, plasticky, zoom-creeping lens makes

absolutely wonderful images. Put some 400UC into the camera, stop

down to f8, f11 at 50mm and above, or f5.6 for 24-35mm and you?ve

got one hell of a lens. It?s good close and it?s good far, colours

are vibrant

and resolution is nearly on a par with some primes, at least with

a 4X Schneider loupe, or something printed to A4. Because of its

good close-up performance I?ve even gotten some good images out of

this lens at 80mm (or thereabouts) together with an achromat.

 

This lens may be for knock-around shooting but it isn?t a lens to be

knocked.

It?s really very, very good. Mine is at any rate.

 

This got me wondering about lenses or gear others use and how they

may have surprised, delighted or disappointed.

[j_sevigny]

My 80-200 is about the best lens I own in terms of optical performance. The 17-35 2.8

meanwhile, has been a bit of a letdown compared to what I expected. Not as sharp. Not as

contrasty. Still, a good all around focal length for a DSLR and far from a bad piece of glass.

Even less stellar is the 28-70 2.8, which is not mine but belongs to the agency where I work.

In terms of construction, it's great, but as with the 17-35, I find myself applying a lot of

sharpening to get the pictures I want.

[bill_bayless]

Throughout the eighties, the sharpest lens in my collection was a Vivitar, 100mm macro. Vivitar did not (and does not now) have a reputation for sharpness. Go figure.

[don_cooper]

I had the 400 F3.5, a very highly rated telephoto. Bought it to replace a Tamron 300 F2.8 but was never happy with it, finally sold it. Found when looking back at the images I took with the 300 plus matched 1.4 TC they looked much better than any I ever got with the 400.

[john schroeder]

My 80-200 f2.8 one touch zoom is amazing. I could write paragraphs about how good it is. You must have a poor example.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>One is the highly touted 80-200/2.8. This is the non-D, push-pull, sans collar, earlier

model. It is a fine lens and it does give good results, but . . . it does not perform to my

expectations, never did; it?s nothing like the 85/1.4 or the 180/2.8.</I><P>Mine wasn't

either --iamges from it were just not crisp enough, even when it was tripod mounted

using the old Kirk bracket made for that lens.<P> Individual lenses have their own

character --

this is why those who can afford to or absolutely need the best quality they can get will try

several samples of the same lens and pick the best performer.

[Robert_Lai]

While there is such a thing as sample variation, here are some experiences that I've had. The bottom line is to use the lens yourself and make up your own judgments rather than rely upon someone else's claims.<p>

35 f/2.8 AIS. I thought that this lens was "OK", as it was the one that came with my camera. I could never really get a truly sharp image out of it, regardless of what aperture I stopped it down to. After I compared it to other 35mm lenses (a Leica 35 f/2), this one had to go.<p>35 f/2 AIS. This one is nice and compact. The peformance was great too. Web reviews seem mixed on this one. However, the one I had was a winner. I read some more, and decided to get the 35 f/1.4. I sold this one, which was probably a mistake.<p>35 f/1.4 AIS. This lens was ridiculed by Ken Rockwell as a passe' piece of ancient history. OTOH, Bjorn Rorslett rated it as one of the finest Nikkors. It's got a lot of barrel distortion up close, and wide open performance is not truly spectacular due to some veiling flare as well as curvature of field. But, stopped down to f/2 and less, it's a knockout. My only regret is that it's rather big and bulky for a 35mm lens. For the performance/price ratio, I think the 35 f/2 would win. But, I can't say that I've been disappointed with the 35 f/1.4.<p>20 f/3.5 AIS. I bought this because I couldn't afford the 20 f/2.8 at the time. It's decently sharp, and outrageously sharp up close! Even better, it is about the most flare resistant lens that I've ever seen. Best of all, it's a tiny thing that weighs almost nothing. This was one lens that I had no preconceptions about when I bought it, but I love it! A definite winner!<p>24mm f/2.8 AI/AIS. This lens was always talked about as a classic. Sharp, etc. Unfortunately, only when I obtained the lens did I realize how easily it flared even if the sun is somewhere near the front element, even if it's not in the frame. It does live up to expectations when away from direct light sources, but after the fun I had with the 20 f/3.5, this was a let down.<p>50 f/1.2 AIS. A very high speed optic. As such, you don't expect much from this lens. However, it has a unique look which is almost a signature when wide open, or at f/1.4. Stop it down to f/2.8 and it's just about as good as the 50 f/1.4 or 50 f/1.8 lenses. This is the most intriguing of the 50mm lenses as far as pictoral possibilities go. It's the lens that I reach for most now.<p>50 f/1.4 AI/AIS. Not so hot wide open, and with the same amount of barrel distortion as the 50 1.2. It has some curvature of field too. At f/2 and f/2.8, it is superior to the 50 f/1.2 and 50 f/1.8 lenses in terms of contrast, and evenness of illumination. I've gone through about 6-8 of these lenses. However, I could never grow to love it. Its Achilles heel for me is its ugly, harsh bokeh. No matter how sharp the image is, the big ugly 7-sided shapes in the background turned me off. A big disappointment, as many people consider this to be one of Nikon's finest.<p>50mm f/1.8 AI. When I first bought my camera, I was still a student. It had come with the 35 f/2.8 (see above). However, I wanted a normal lens, and this was all that I could afford. This modest, unsung lens is one of the sharpest little devils that Nikon ever made. It has no visible distortion at portrait ranges to infinity. It focuses close up to 0.45m, and stops down to f/22. What more could you want? Below f/2.8, it is slightly bettered by the f/1.4 lens, but I didn't know that until I had the 50 1.4 to compare with. It has similar bokeh characteristics to the 50 1.4, but at least the background shapes are reasonably small and tolerable.<p>If I had to summarize, I would put it this way:<p>Big Winners :-) 20 f/3.5 AIS, 35 f/2, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, 50 f/1.8 AI.<p>Highly rated but has some flaws (not enough to warrant selling): 24 f/2.8<p>Bad or overrated (sell): 35 f/2.8 (just bad), 50 f/1.4 (overrated).<p>Now, before you flame me, remember my second sentence: make up your own mind.

[Robert_Lai]

I should add that another lens that was panned is the 85mm f/2 AIS. Moose Petersen in his Nikon Handbook referred to it as a "mistake", or something to that effect. I've tried two. One was a reasonable performer, but it had evidence of having lead a hard life. The other one was really, really good - even better than the 105 f/2.5. I notice that photo.do give both the 85 f/2 and 105 f/2.5 lenses the same rating of 4.2, based on their MTF results. Again, it goes to illustrate that you shouldn't believe the "experts".

[wayne_cornell2]

I also consider my 24-120 D zoom much better than some of the reviews I've seen -- sharp and good contrast. As far as I'm concerned the price they are fetching nowadays make them a real bargain.

[icuneko]

It's kind of like looking down into a beer bottle that you've just emptied, and

looking out through the glass at the bottom. Sometimes things look great. Sometimes lousy. Hmm ... is it the glass, or the quantity of beer consumed?

 

I have the much-maligned 85mm f2 AI (earlier non-I version). Just as

good as the 105 f2.5 I had which was excellent and is always touted as

excellent. Go figure.

[hayward]

I was never blown away by the 180mm 2.8 AF or 85mm 1.8 AFD lenses I had, although I seem to be the only one.

[chris_chow]

What the hell.

 

I have bought and sell a 50/1.8 AF twice. Believing it to be great, I bought the first one, new. It was a non-D version made in China. Good (but not great) sharpness but bad out-of-focus backgrounds. Contrast also suffers possibly due to internal flare.

 

When the D vesrion came out and suspecting sample variation at work, I bought a second one also new. Same story.

 

Would not want to buy a third one. Given its modest price, it may still be a good buy. But for me, no miracle.

[lex_jenkins]

I can't think of any Nikkor that really disappointed me. They've all performed as I expected. I didn't expect much from the 18-70DX and it's turned out to be an okay but not great lens. About equal to the older 28-85 AF-Nikkor, just different. The 24-120 VR is better than either of those zooms and it's a VR, which I desperately need if I expect to handhold well.

 

I was surprised that my 28mm f/3.5 PC-Nikkor and 50mm f/2 AI Nikkor didn't perform as well on my D2H as on my film cameras. Not bad. Just not up to the standards I'd expected. I got a 50/1.8D AF-Nikkor for the dSLR and work a little harder at optimizing images with the PC-Nikkor.

 

The 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor, 85/2 AI-S, 105/2.5 AI, 180/2.8 and 300/4.5 AI ED have all been completely satisfying.

 

Most of the really crappy lenses I've owned were third party lenses. I've had some good ones too - three Vivitar Series 1 zooms, a couple of Tamron Adaptall wide angles. And one Canon FD zoom in the 80-200mm range that really sucked. Ditched it and got the 100-300/5.6 FD, which was a good lens for the money.

[jeff h.]

I wanted a Nikkor 50/1.4D with mixed feelings: I wanted the low-light capability of f/1.4,

but all I'd ever read was that the f/1.8 was sharper, cheaper, and "better." I got the f/1.8. I

hated it. It felt poorly made, it wasn't a "D" version (this was before Nikon made a 50/

1.8D), and I wasn't convinced that the pictures were really that sharp. I returned it. Then, I

got the f/1.4D. I couldn't have been more happy: the lens was well constructed, it had the

"D" technology, it allowed me to take pictures in places or lighting where I thought I'd

never get a good picture, and I like the "bokeh." I love the images I've made with this lens;

when I go back through my albums, most of the pictures that strike me emotionally or

visually were taken with this lens. I have lenses that cost more than the 50/1.4D, but that

is the one lens I treasure.

[lex_jenkins]

I agree that the latest 50/1.4D AF-Nikkor is a good one. I shot it side by side with the 50/1.8D AF-Nikkor while trying to decide which to by. IMO they were dead even at every aperture in terms of sharpness, contrast and color rendition (easy to spot on a dSLR). Even wide open they were comparable. And I don't think the bokeh of the 50/1.8 is bad at all when used wide open or nearly so. I couldn't justify spending the extra money for the 50/1.4 for a marginal gain in speed so I went the cheap route. No complaints.

[melvin_bramley]

Lemons...Two copies of the "famous" 80-200 F4.5. 300 F4.5 AI (but wonderfully built).One copy of the 70-210 F4 AF; my second is very good. I would agree with the comment on the 24-120 but who wants to use a lens at F8 or F11 all the time? I call mine my Mexico lens (lots of light) but can't afford to go back at the moment.Both my 50mm F2 AI lenses beat both my 50mmF1.8AF which is still pretty good.35mm F2 AI; a love hate relationship! The 85mm F2AI is under rated & is better than my 85mm F1.8 AF.The list goes on. One thing that we all must understand is that sample variation is much more common than one would expect & even the best of lenses can be "off" or faulty. I can't believe the comments on the 180 F2.8!! Was it run over by a bus?