Did Nikon reduce the quality of the lens optics to make the cheeper entry level CPUs lenses?

[jerry_schuler]

Did Nikon reduce the quality of the lens optics to make the cheeper entery level CPUs lenses?

Just I thought I had while looking at the different lenses available and prices.

What do you think?

[frank_skomial]

Nikon and the name Nikkor, are of good optical quality and provide good pictures in hands of experienced photographers. They are also usually slower by the max F-Stop they have and therefore lighter.

 

"cheeper" lenses have more plastic, and less solid build, but I think the minimal good picture quality is maintain by all lenses having name Nikkor.

 

I will give you an example of the newest 28-200 G lens, "newest" is not to counfuse it with older model.

This 28-200 G lens has 3 ED elements, 3 Aspherical elements, and close focus support, very good lent, but is made of plastic, has plastic camera mount that I hate. But it costs perhaps 1/3 of the 18-200 VR DX lens. Since the 28-200 G lens is a full frame film lens good for the new FX format, while the VR lens is a DX lens therefore it will never replace the 28-200 G lens.

 

There are numerous lens examples of similar Nikon good reputation. As usuall there could be oposite opinions. Some people have such a high threshold of quality perception...

[User_276104]

On one hand, you get what you pay for.

 

On the other hand, any current lens used within its limits is capable of a compelling photo in the right hands.

[jerry_schuler]

Ok, I'm just wondering. Back it the 70's I have a Nikkormat, a Nikkor 35mm lens, 50mm lens, and 2x converter. There was never a doubt in my mind nor anybody elseﾒs then about the quality of Nikon lenses, no matter which lens, and the sharpness of the photos. Now, a see a made rush to acquire some of those old lenses. I have one myself now (Micro-Nikkor 2.8 AIS), and I'm look for more. Dealing with the manual focus and metering is a better trade off than a fussy picture.

[jerry_schuler]

Eric, So, why is your left hand buying those thousand dollar lenses?

[john schroeder]

Both the 18-55mm VR and the 55-200mm VR are very sharp and can deliver excellent results. Both lenses are 100% plastic bodied. They are amazingly inexpensive considering their features and performance. Would I use these lenses to shoot professionally? No. Would I use them on vacation when I don't what to carry expensive and heavy pro lenses? Yes. Lenses are tools. A smart person picks the right tool for the job at hand. Joe and Jane soccer parent don't need a 17-55mm f2.8 or a 70-200 f2.8 VR lens. Joe and Jane soccer parent mostly print 4x6" prints and occasionally an 8x10" That's if they print at all these days. Most photos stay on computers and get emailed about; but that's a different rant. To answer your question; Yes they are cheaper and of slightly lower optical quality. These lenses are built to meet the needs of NON-professionals.

[User_276104]

OK, I'm busted!

 

With your recent addition to this thread I see where you're coming from, Jerry.

 

Nikon certainly used to have a "pro only" reputation in past years. The proliferation of photography as a hobby

in the last 15 years or so has forced Nikon (and other brands) to provide products quite a few steps below their

historical standard.

 

We can all see that build quality is not a high priority for entry level gear, probably for the same reason band

instruments for 5th graders are cheaply made - why overdo it when they may not be used for more than 2-3 years?

 

As for whether Nikon has separate vats of molten ED glass for high- or low-end lenses, who knows? Not me.

[jerry_schuler]

Thank you John, I still get the impression those entry level lenses of 30 years ago were of much better of optical quality than today's entry level lenses. Personally, I use my cameras for my work, and it was a bit a shock to find out that to use the DLSR and get the same optical quality as I get from my point & shoots, I have spend a lot more money. My Micro-Nikkor AIS gives me what I need. And I'm looking for some wide angles now. I think I was making an assumption based on my old experiences with my Nikkormat that it's a Nikon and the lenses would be really good.

[jerry_schuler]

Thank you Eric for admitting you use those expensive lenses. It gets really annoying to have these pro photographers say "You can have as good pictures as what's in my portfolio if you use the right f-stop." when I know you guys use those pricey lenses.

[douglas_greenberg]

Long ago Nikon manufactured "E" series lenses that were much less ruggedly made than the more expensive Nikkor lenses. The company also produced some fairly cheap SLR cameras, including the EM and the FG. Their marketing low-end products is really not new.

[ronald_moravec1]

Personally, I use my cameras for my work, and it was a bit a shock to find out that to use the DLSR and get the same optical quality as I get from my point & shoots, I have spend a lot more money.

 

Not true. Any dslr with the cheapest Nikkor lens is better than a P&S.

 

I have a D200 and a bunch of AI S lenses and AF lenses plus and new D40 with 18/135 plastic wonder. The D40 does an amazing job and is far better than a P&S. It lacks many features of the D200 and the 18/135 should not be relied on for a shoot at a distant land, it is ok for for its intended purpose The sharpness is ok at 5.6 and is as good as the pro lenses for common print sizes.

 

If I put an AI S lens on it, I really don`t see much difference.

 

If you want pro glass, I don`t think the Nikkors are that expensive. The Zeiss lenses on the Nikon are very good and do not cost a fortune.

[jerry_schuler]

Doug, I might buy an E lens if the optics are good. But the question is: How's their optical quality? Would they compare favorably with my Micro-Nikkor AIS.

[jerry_schuler]

Ron, I tried to showing the picture from my P5000, 5600, and 990. and comparing to the 18-55mm fussy blurrs. I ran a search on the photo.net forum database today. You should too. Count how many times the word "crap" is used with the 18-55mm lens.

[marco_p1]

Jerry, I assume your Micro Nikkor 2.8 Ais is the 55. You are setting a very high standard with that lens. I am afraid even the most expensive pro 2.8 zooms will not stand up to that standard (I have experience with it and the 35-70 and 80-200). On the other hand I think it's absolutely true that you don't need the best lens in the world to make stunning images, your immagination, cerativity and the light are all much more important. I have no experience with the 18-55 but from your words it seems you have a damaged unit, or maybe you exaggerated? In that range I currently use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 which is very very good, not as good as the 55 micro but good enough for me and much more versatile than the 55 micro. Oh well I belive there is very little metal in it, the mount and some screws probably. The rest is glass and plastic and I like it that way as it's probably 1/2 the weight of the 17-55 2.8 Nikkor. Good luck, Marco

[jerry_schuler]

Marco P. No the 18-55mm is not damaged. I do mostly close-up work. The 18-55mm lacks the sharpness that Point

and Shoots (P5000, 5600, 990) can give in close-ups. The Micro-Nikkor 55mm 2.8 AIS matches it (except for the

9900). The things I'm seeing with with the close-up work would not be apparent with scenery or large room shots

etc...

 

I'm not trying to make stunning and dramtic photos but accuratly detailed close-ups.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Jerry,

 

Are you talking about the optical qualities only or the global quality of these lenses ?

 

When Nikon (like any other manufacturer of the period) was mainly producing manual primes, the main difference between what would be now called a pro-lens and what would be called nowadays a consumer's lens was confined to maximum aperture, the obtainable IQ was often of the same level, but sometimes the "sweet spot" was not exactly placed at the same number of clicks from full aperture. The lens construction was externally similar in quality and material used. Amateurs buying Nikon were supposed to be already mostly advanced amateurs and it wad thought they will be content with smaller maximum apertures and to satisfy themselves with focal lengths comprised between say 35mm and 135mm. If they wanted something more "exotic" at a relatively affordable price, they were supposed to go for third party lenses (at that time they were called Vivitar or Soligor for example), which were optically less performing and had very small maximum apertures (moreover by today's standards).

 

Then the zooms were introduced and mainly became amateur's favourites. Pro zooms were still rare and extremely heavy and expensive and confined to the tele lens range.

 

After a small decline of Reflex cameras popularity (in France at least) due to the issue of good film compact cameras (quite a number of amateurs didn' buy more than one standard lens with their reflex then). Came the time of zoom standard equipement for amateurs with something like a 35-105mm with a rather small maximum aperture and a variable one. This separated more the amateur lens range from the equipment of the pros. Though these zooms were built with the same kind of material.

 

Nikon then tried to introduce an amateur range of lens of lesser build quality, the "E" series, which was never a true success. Optically, they were generally good if not superior lenses though, build quality was... indifferent.

 

Zooms of smaller focal lengths and pro level were slowly introduced. As technology improved the IQ. They were built to the same standard as old primes but perfomed a tad less than the the primes they were intended to replace.

 

Then came AF... The old standards to build a lens were completely abandonned. Plastic construction became widespread (it doesn't automatically means a lesser quality of build, some plastics are extremely resistant and can lead to even more resistant lenses, but they always feel cheap in the hands),

As AF required the minimum angular movement between the closer possible distance and infinity to be fast, progress in optics were introduced like more and more internal focusing systems, and, but mainly for pro level lenses new tecnologies allowed the use of more and more aspheric lenses which were less costly as their fabrication didn't require manual treatment anymore. This last progress allowed the pro zooms to progress almost to the level of primes, new, more performing ways to coat the lenses too. But, on the other side, Nikon, like many other manufacturer introduced amateur level camera bodies at the same time and issued cheap lenses to go with them.

 

Cheap lenses are not ever bad ones, but they are far below the once accepted standard for a Nikon lens, they generally can give you a good image but they are seldom able to deliver it close to an already limited maximum aperture. They are mainly "sunny 16" lenses which perform well only when closed at least at f/8. This was also coumpounded by the fact the amateurs were now requiring more and more zoom range in one lens and wanted to have FOV going from really wide to serious tele-lenses. The more the range of a zoom is extended, the more you have difficulties to maintain IQ and a large aperture while keeping the price affordable (and the weight and volume of the lens). Hence, the lens range now encompassed lenses with larger difference in performance and sometimes even build quality.

 

The next step came with the introduction of digital photography. As the ISO should now be "cranked up" (or down) for each picture, it was felt by the manufacturers that large and constant maximum aperture were secondary points. AF compensated for the rather dark image in the viewfinder. Hence the fact most DX lenses are zooms with relatively slow and variable apertures. Even pros became used to these features and IQ was nonetheless maintained. Only a few of these lenses can be considered pro lenses by old standards.

 

Nowadays, with the introduction of the D3 and to a lesser level the D300, low light performance and for the former FX format will probably produce a return to larger fixed aperture (to maximalize the capabilities of the bodies) and may be large aperture primes too.

 

It is clear in Nikon lens range now co-exist - without proper official identification - lenses covering the needs of purely amateur photographers and others, destined to pro and advanced amateurs.

 

Your mileage may differ, but I consider the immediate reconnaissance features of a pro lens to be a reasonably wide aperture (of a fixed nature along the range for zooms) for the focal length. Build quality (even if the lens is plastic made) generally follows the same curve. Unfortunately, few DX lenses follow this standard and only the tests revealing their real IQ potential can allow for an objective discrimination.

 

But modern technology cannot provide for all... Beware of zooms with a very large focal length range... IQ might be good but something should be sacrificed to make them light and compact enough and affordable by the way. Generally aperture, performance close to the maximum aperture and build quality are the victims. Beware of kit lenses, they are designed to perform well the way a simple amateur will use them for the average print size he or she will use. On the opposite, don't be too shy about plastic. Plastics and moreover composites (which are used even in space technologies) can be far better than metallic materials both in resistance to shocks and inertia to dilatation. Optically speaking, Nikon has already proven a modern zoom can beat even available primes, but be aware this will cost you dearly. The old saying you get what you pay for is still valid today. It is still far easier, should the manufacturer decide to produce a very wide rectilinear prime with a large aperture, to obtain an exceptional lens which will be sold at a relatively affordable price than an exceptional wide angle zoom of the same quality. May be we will see that become a reality soon with the issue of FX format. I don't think the superiority of the last high grade zooms issued by Nikon is a valid demonstration of their capabilities to produce a zoom equal or better to a prime. New coatings like nanocrystal technology and other refinements may explain the IQ superiority of these lens, and I think primes receiving the benefits of the same technologies will be even better.

 

Finally - as far as Nikon lens range is concerned - simply remember Nikon never divided (but for the "E" series) their lens range in different categories like "the other manufacturer" with their "L" series for pro-oriented lenses. Nonetheless, both type of lenses are present.

 

FPW

[marco_p1]

Jerry, if your interest are "accuratly detailed close-ups", and have no problems with the 55 working distance I think you have all you need. I never used a 990 but if your results with that old PS are better than with the combo D40/55 Micro my guess is something is going wrong with your dsrl setup. I hope you are doing everything properly, good tripod, accurate focusing, avoiding intermediate shutter speeds to minimize mirror slap or use of flash light... What about post processing? my only PS, an old 3.1 mpix olympus produces sharpened images by default, by comparison my D200 at default settings produces files which are much more neutral. But if you apply the correct sharpening and tone correction the final result is well above that of the PS and I mean much much better. Can we see a couple of images by your 990 and DSRL with the corresponding 100% crops?

[leandro_dutra1]

Just search around, there is a difference in control quality.

 

It seems every manufacturer produces dudes that some very knowledgeable users feel compelled to return until they get a perfect lens.

 

It also seems this is more common with some brands than with another. More perhaps with Canon, less with Zeiss and Leica; Olympus Zuiko seems to be near Leica in this respect, Nikkor next to Zuiko.

[jerry_schuler]

Marco- - The point and shoots out do the 18-55mm lens hands down with close-ups. The 55mm AIS Micro-Nikor matches the point and shoots. It has something to do with the small focal length of the PS and the fact its easer to put a crisp sharp image on a small sensor.

 

The 990 especially with my Raxnox Macro-scopic lens way out does the Micro-Nikor on very small items. I can see the fibers vividly of a postage stamp with the 990. They are blended/blurred away with the Micro-Nikor. But truthfully I seldom need to get that small of a macro shots.

 

My D60 does produce very good photos with the right lens. I have no problems with the D60 body and it functions just getting the right lenses.

 

I'll give you an idea of the size of the items I shoot. Most of the items I shoot is are used computer equipment and componets. I want any flaw, crack, smudge, dust apparent in the photo.

 

When I bought my Micro Nikkor the photo on eBay made it look brand new -- jet black and not a scratch nor mark on it. But here's a photo of what I got. I want the people I sell to to get an accrate represation of what I'm offering. Not be supprised as I was. This photo was taken by a P5000.

 

 

Take my word for it. I've been throught this several times on this board. And I'm getting tired.<div></div>

[jerry_schuler]

François -- Thank very much for that brief history of the Nikkor lens. I will study your response some more in detail. It seems I missed a lot on the evolution/devolution of the Nikon camera.

 

I'm mostly concerned about optics I have not had any problem with the plastic or construction of the lenses. But I have not dropped a lens yet.

[elliot1]

In response to the OP, no. I have tested the 18-55mm, 55-200mm and 18-135mm and they all produce stunning results in good light or with flash, comparable to their pro counterparts (17-55mm and 70-200mm) costing more than 10 times more. And they all come with Nikon's 5 year warranty.

 

<<Count how many times the word "crap" is used with the 18-55mm lens.>>

 

I have seen it used many times too, especially by photographers who has never used the lens.

[marco_p1]

Well my 55 is in much better condition, and I have no filter mounter.

Here is the only shot I have on this PC at work done with the 55:<div></div>

[michael_darnton1]

The only AF lens I know of that's not up to previous manual focus versions is the 28/2.8. Unlike other lenses in the line, they played around with 28mm quite a bit before getting a really good one, and then moved backwards with AF, to a simpler and worse version. Otherwise, I'm surprised at the optical quality of the modern lenses, especially my 18-135 zoom, which I took only because it came with the camera and which has ended up doing a lot of studio work because of its convenience and quality.

[marco_p1]

A crop<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

If anything Nikon is putting relatively better optics in their cheaper lenses than they did in decades past. Rather than compromising significantly on the optics they're saving money other ways: more plastic housings and parts, including lens mounts on a couple of lenses; taping internal parts together; etc. Plenty of folks have very good photos to prove these low priced lenses are capable of very good results when used within their sweet spot.

 

Nothing new in the lens business, tho' it's somewhat newer to Nikon.

 

Many years ago the philosophy of the Vivitar Series 1 lens lineup was "Design without regard to cost; then build to a price point." (I'm paraphrasing a bit, but this was confirmed years ago when Herb Keppler interviewed the folks behind the Series 1 project.) That's why to this day the Series 1 lenses and those they inspired, including the Kirons (whose parent company, Kino, was ... umm ... instrumental in the early Series 1 lineup) remain well respected.

 

Like the cheaper Nikons, some of the Series 1 lenses were compromised to meet a price point. One or two models seem prone to oily aperture blades (not that Nikkors are immune). Some tend to loose their tiny grub screws due to less than precise machining.

 

Minolta did a bang up job with their "Celtic" line of lenses at a lower price than the Rokkors. I owned two or three Celtics and they were really good, better made than Nikon's Series E, and would do any lens maker proud.

 

These lower priced lenses are not crap. Despite my misgivings about the plastic lens mounts on some, they represent excellent values and put very good tools in the hands of people at almost any budget.