What is the worst Nikon lens you ever purchased?

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>My worst lens has to have been my 18-70mm which I bought when I got my D200. I could just not stand that lens. I could not get a sharp shot out of it. Even after I figured the D200 out in the settings. I do not miss that lens. I bought the 17-55 to replace it & fell in love - - what a lens.... Yes I sold it.... But only to replace it with the 24-70mm.<br>

My vote - 18-70mm<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[ron_scubadiver1]

<p>There definitely seems to be a trend here, kit standard zooms and the 18-200. I supose no matter who builds it, there is no way to get an 11:1 zoom right.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I think sample variation is huge on the cheaper zooms. I have the Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom (with an aperture ring and a metal mount, not the plastic G version), and it is pretty good but shooting with my full frame D700 I notice that the very left edge of the frame is softer than the right edge. Comparing it at 105mm to my Nikkor 105mm f2.5, which is sharp corner to corner, it holds up pretty well except for the softness on the left side. This is one reason I want to shoot with primes and not zooms. Even the Nikon 70-200mm VR has many complaints for softness on the edges.</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>24-50 f/3.3-4.5 in my film days. Lots of CA, and the front of the lens rotated when you focused (zoomed also? can't remember now). It was so bad I couldn't even sell it and I still have it in a closet somewhere.</p>

[kevin teachey]

<p>Believe it or not, my good ole 50mm 1.8 is absolute crap. Focus is terrible, though that may be something to do with the crappy AF servos in the D200. I shoot alot at f1.8-f2 and my old D70 would lock right in, whereas the D200 is off often enough to be a problem.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>Ron wrote:</p>

<p>>There definitely seems to be a trend here, kit standard zooms and the 18-200. I supose no matter who builds it, there is no way to get an 11:1 zoom right.<</p>

<p>I like my 18-200. So that's four opposed, and now three who like it. I say the tide is turning!</p>

<p>No worst lens here, but I never much liked my 135mm f/3.5, which my mom gave me around 1968. At the time, it just didn't seem long enough. I gave it away a few years ago, having not used it in a couple of decades. </p>

[dave wyman]

<p>Ramon wrote:</p>

<p>>decades ago i regretted buying the 70-300mm (1st generation) for my D70 over the 70-210 (non-D).<</p>

<p>Ramon! What, you could see into the future? </p>

[djcphoto]

<p>I agree that sample variation is a real factor. I've heard a lot of people slag off the 18-70mm that came with my old D70 but my copy was incredibly sharp, even compared with the pro-level lenses I've since bought. Looking back at some of the pictures I shot with that lens makes me regret selling it!</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>The 18-55mm. lens that I recieved with my D40 is really not too bad and I've also heard it did get fairly decent reviews,but again to each his or her own!</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>Nikon FE. I've owned two and both had intermitent meter power problems--you never knew when they would or wouldn't work.<br>

Another poster said they hated their D100 because, among other things, it took forever to save a compressed NEF file. Easy solution: Don't try to save compressed NEFs on a D100. I'm still wishing I had held onto my D100 when I got my D300. It was a nice little camera as long as you understood it's limitations.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>My least favorite lenses have been the 28mm AF Nikkor (pre-D) and the 14mm f/2.8D.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>18-200 DX VR - complex distortion, lens creep (which makes it impossible to accurately reframe a handheld shot after reviewing it on the LCD screen). With VR on I experienced a unique effect I'll call Selective Sharpness. Some of the frame is really sharp, some is shaky/blurry, and it's not a depth of field issue (both areas are at the same distance from the camera). <em><strong>I want my money back!!</strong></em></p>

[william_landon]

<p>I've never been happy with my 35-105mm f3.5- 4.5 as I've never captured a "zipper" with it. And forget the macro feature! </p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I don't remember having anything that I would have regretted or was really bad. If there's something I should mention, maybe the 24/2.8 AF-D -- an ok lens, excellent at close distances and small size, but at longer distances just doesn't live up to today's standards. The other one would be the 35/2.5 series E. Good for what I bought it, playing with UV, and it was dirt cheap, but for general photography there's basically one usable aperture. I still keep it though -- dirt cheap and good for playing around with UV. Doesn't take up much space either.<br>

Those old 28-80 zooms were not to my liking, but I think today's basic kit zooms are far better.</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<blockquote>

<p>I think sample variation is huge on the cheaper zooms. I have the Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom (with an aperture ring and a metal mount, not the plastic G version), ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, I have one and I have discovered that this lens (which is a Tamron design, identical down to the last screw to the Tamron 70-300 LD zoom) has a tendency to misalign, resulting in softness or chromatic aberration on one side. I had to send mine to be aligned twice and in both cases the fix did not last long. I wish I'd kept my trusty 75-300.</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>I am amazed by the amount of responces! Don't let the Canon forum see this thread :-o</p>

<p>Ian</p>

[tobycline]

<p>Sheesh, this thread . . .</p>

<p>I'll go along with the 43-86, the lens is from the stone age. But new lenses, even kit ones, that benefit from years of technological advancements, designed and manufactured by computers, are not as bad as they may seem, IMHO. Don't indict yourselves here! Often, the trap is to blame a "cheap" kit lens, when really we should be looking at our technique, lack of tripod, slow shutter speeds, etc. </p>

<p>CA? Get a new camera that corrects for it. Fuzzy corners? Don't shoot wide open at noon time. Not sharp? Get a tripod. 18-200 isn't perfect as a do-all lens? Lower the expectations. </p>

<p>Too harsh? Probably, so I'll apologize now :o)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I guess I've been lucky. None of the Nikkors I've owned were bad enough to complain about. I can pick a few nits here and there but all are good to excellent performers.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>probably the 18-70 and 70-300 ED which were my first lenses for the d80. while adequate as kit lenses, and even capable under the right conditions, i rarely use either of them now since i've upgraded to faster glass. if i had to do it all over again i would have gotten the VR version of the 70-300 and avoided the 18-70 altogether (though i'm still holding onto it, in case i get another backup body).</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>I guess I am lucky too. I haven't bought a lens that I don't like. I usually do some research before buying. However, I have a 50mm f/1.8 AF that I have never used other than testing a shot here and there. Is it the "worst" lens? Probably not. It came with a camera body bought from eBay.</p>

[vincent_peri]

<p>Over the past 30 years, I've gone through about 4 dozen Nikkors (it's hell being a manic depressive). All but one have been excellent. The loser - the 43-86mm zoom. It had too much barrel distortion.</p>

[david_seelig]

<p>I shot nikon in the 70's and 80's worst was the 35 mm f1.4</p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>The <strong>18-200mm</strong> took pretty good pictures, as good as I expected. Problem I had was the creeping barrel and awful at 18-24mm.<br>

<br />The <strong>28mm f/2.8 AIS</strong> manual lens that Ellis spoke of I love as long as the subject is not to far away. I tried shooting a sunset with it once, very bad.<br>

<br />My brother loves his <strong>18-70mm</strong>. I have seen some very good shots with it.<br>

<br />The <strong>50mm f/1.8</strong> is sharp and handles well I just always get this red spot in the center of the image when I use filters.<br>

<br />All of those lenses are inexpensive and well worth the price. I do not regert buying any of them. Of all the lenses I have I guess the <strong>70-200mm f/2.8 VR</strong> is the only lens I regret buying. For the price it stinks. I like to use it for landscapes and it hunts like crazy when the sun starts to go down. You put a filter on it and it wont lock in at all. What I normally do is take filter off, focus, when it locks I switch it to manual put filter on and shoot. When it does focus you cant beat it. However, doing all that to get a shot is BS for $1,700.00.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Well, relatively speaking, it was either a foggy 85/2 AI'd lens or a 35-135AF lens. Let's just say that neither were (ahem) keepers.</p>

[ronald_olsen]

<p>The 17-55 f2.8 Nikkor zoom. The internet gave glowing reviews about this lens, but for the money I paid for it, it was a very big disappointment. I sold it for a lot less than I paid for it soon after, as I had to be honest about it's performance, and specifically said I didn't want the buyer to return it for this reason.<br>

I have the 24-70 now and am absolutely thrilled with it, it is WAY sharper than the 17-55, no contest.</p>