What is the worst Nikon lens you ever purchased?

[phototransformations]

<p>18-200VR. Sent in for repair twice and, apparently up to specs as far as Nikon is concerned, but still lousy IQ on many levels.</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

<p>I vote for the 43-86mm zoom too...<br>

Not awful but far from usual Nikon optical quality nevertheless.<br>

FPW</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Agree with Elliot. 70-300mmG (not the VR-version) is too soft and nearly useless from 250mm and up. Lots of CA when used on my D70, however not that much CA when used on my D300. I should have sold it, as a paper weight it is too expensive.</p>

<p>Sorry, Nikon.</p>

[dan park]

<p>28 2.8 af. Sold it a couple days later and bought a sb-600.</p>

[dcphotography]

<p>I actually quite like the 18-55mm kit that came with my D40. According to the charts at photozone.de, it's sharper than Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8 at 18mm f/3.5.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Many moons ago (in the 70's), the 43-86 Nikkor zoom... a heavy old dog that wasn't very sharp.</p>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>35mm f/2.8 AIS. I hate this lens!<br>

It came with my F3 purchase. I could never get a truly sharp image out of it. Focus meant minimized fuzz.<br>

I bought a 50mm f/1.8 and 105 f/2.5 instead to reassure myself that Nikon lenses aren't somehow overrated, as I had just switched from Canon FD/FL at the time. The 35mm lens went into the oblivion of ebay. I have the 35mm f/1.4 now which is far superior.</p>

[OPK]

<p>18-200 VR...mechanically and optically. I sold it after a trip I bought it for.<br>

It produced flat contrast and distorted images.</p>

[stephen_schoof1]

<blockquote>

<p>The 70-300mm would do nothing but seek and hunt. I threw it off a cliff in the North Cascades.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Ha - this reminds me of my first tripod, purchased from K-Mart and totally inadequate. I got so PO'ed at it one morning I smashed it into a rock face above the French Broad River like a baseball bat.</p>

<p>As far as lenses I had an 80-200 4.5-5.6 AF-D that was totally misaligned and would not form a sharp image on the left half at any aperture. Not sure if it counts since I bought it off Ebay and replaced it with another used copy from KEH that is very sharp stopped down and makes a great trail running and backpacking telephoto.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Naming a kit zoom lens is cheating. Of course it's not as good as pro lenses. That's why it's cheap.</p>

<p>BTW my copy of 18-55 VR gives me nothing to complain about - sure it's slow and if I ever dropped it the focus ring would be toast but it's sharp, contrasty, has little to no flare and I don't know where the vignette comment came from but the only way I can think of to get a bad vignette from it would be to use it on my film camera. Not as good as my other lenses but I didn't expect it to be.</p>

[sven keil]

<p>I do not agree with that the 18-55/3.5 is such bad. As owner of two of them (II-version, VR-version) my experience is that results are contrasty and sharp (tried with D70s, S5, D60). Of course it is not my 1st choice for low light, and it distorts somewhat, but is is well on par with my AiS 35mm/f2, and the hell of a lens for IR-work.<br>

Fortunately, I do not have a "worst" Nikkor to report about...if I had to sell one than perhaps the AiS 35mm/f2, as I usually use its bigger brother AiS 35mm/f14. But not because of it is bad, only of being redundant.</p>

[akira]

<p>The "venerable" 17-55/2.8.</p>

<p>I bought one new and it suffered from decentering and front focus. I sent it back to Nikon and Nikon couldn't shoot either problem. I returned it to the shop where I bought it and have never thought about purchasing it again.</p>

<p>I've had 18-70/3.5-4.5 and 18-55/3.5-5.6II. 18-70 showed the least CA and 18-55 was the sharpest. Both were far better and more reliable than my sample of 17-55.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=680881">Arash Hazeghi</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 04, 2009; 02:17 a.m.</p>

<p>24-85 f/3.5-5.6G, cheap plastic, very soft at all settings, the worst lens I have ever seen.<br>

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=17942">Ellis Vener</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" title="Hero" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Mar 04, 2009; 02:22 a.m.</p>

<p>28mm f/2.8 AI-S Nikkor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I own both and have no issues with either.<br /> My worst one had been a 50/1.4 AI. Purchased used, shot with it a few times, didn't like the results, forgot it in the closest, and eventually sold it when I did some "house cleaning".</p>

<p>The following ones aren't "worst case" scenarios - just lenses I regretted buying.<br>

35/2.8 AI - should have gotten a 28 instead<br>

85/2 AI - should have kept using the 105/2.5 AI instead<br>

Any 50mm lens - I just don't get much out of that particular focal length.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>i do a lot of research to avoid buying bad lenses...i commend you for doing the same.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Hmm..."Worst" in what way? </p>

<p>Unsharpest? klunkiest? ugliest? Stupidest? User-unfriendliest? Lightest and Plastickiest? Heavy and killing-me-est?</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>Good question, Mary, I have a 50 mm 1.8 series E that is far outperformed by my 50 mm 1.4 AI, but I use it a lot when shooting in dusty/wet/salty/you name them places. I paid 20 Euros for it and I don't even think of getting rid of. I don't even bought an UV filter, a "new used" 50 mm 1.8 series E will cost me less than a good UV filter.</p>

[jose_perez3]

<p>Mary,<br>

The question is non-specific. You can define "worst" any way you wish. The second question asks why the lens troubled you. i.e. The xxx Nikon zoom lens with a white painted body scared the birds away when I used it for bird photography (just a example- never happened to me). But something like this might be helpful to someone contemplating buying a white painted lens to shoot birds.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>decades ago i regretted buying the 70-300mm (1st generation) for my D70 over the 70-210 (non-D). i needed reach at that time with no money. jumped on it as a bargain. was able to do the job it was supposed to but with a struggle. not really a bad lens. i gave it to a good friend who was happy with it in his F100. i got paid so i got the 70-210mm AF-D.</p>

<p>the 18-55mm kit lens is a very good lens. even the 55-200mm VR i use for outdoor reception candids and posed shots on a second camera for weddings. i think not liking kit lenses is purely psychological..........although i must admit there are more terrible ones than good ones.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have bought some 30 different Nikon lenses over the years. Among the worst are the very first one I bought: a 43-86mm/f3.5 AI in 1977 and the 500mm/f8 mirror lens in 1987. I still own the 43-86 only because it was my first Nikkor and currently the only AI lens I have.</p>

<p>I am sure Nikon still makes a lot of lower-end consumer lenses that are not their best, but I have learned to investigate first before I buy now. Forums such as this one and reviews from Rorslett, Hogan, etc. are also very helpful for screening out bad lenses.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> I'm quite fond of the homely 18-55 I have. It's ultra-light, really sharp and well-behaved at f/6.3-9. Perfect lens for walking about ("Barnack-ing"). Its infamous plast-icky feel is no big deal to me. Now, if it only had a gigantic tulip shade...:-) </p>

<p>The days of knife-through butter ergonomics are history, except at Leica.</p>

<p> </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Not surprised at all the 18-200 VR haters out there...I have 2 examples of this lens and love it.</p>

<p>My all time worst Nikon lens would be it's (the 18-200's) baby brother - the 24-120 VR. It's the only Nikon lens I've got that I would part with in a heartbeat and not suffer from "Sellers Remorse" on.<br>

<br />Dave</p>

 

[wpahnelas]

<p>i second dave haas' comment about the 24-120 VR. at least the copy i had, it just never consistently produced images i was satisfied with. not bad, but not good, either. i finally gave it away.</p>

[alex_sokoloff2]

<p>I second the 35mm 2.8 AIS - that one was awful. I had four different manual focus Nikon wide angle primes, and found them to be pretty spotty, although the 20mm 2.8 AIS was pretty good. When I bought my Konica Hexar AF, I discovered the joys of having a truly good wideangle lens, and it's come through in picture after picture. I sort of lost interest in SLR wide angle lenses at that point. I wish there was a digital equivalent of the hexar - I'm very interested in the fast prime that Panasonic is supposed to announce in micro four thirds.</p>

[john_vo4]

<p>My worst was also the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR, but that's not to say it sucks; it's just not as good as the others. Stopped down, it gives pretty good results, and other from the plasticy build, the slow aperture, and the perceived softness, it's a good little lens.</p>

<p>That said, my 17-55mm f/2.8 is a world apart from it, but then again, so are the prices.</p>

[eli_fox]

<p>The 18-55 (non-VR) that came with my D40. I thought I liked this lens because it's so small and light, much more convenient to carry around than my 18-135. But it's much worse, IMO. I took it out last week and was not impressed at all. As of now I really only use my 18-135 and 50/1.8. I've been surprised at just how nicely the 18-135 renders colors!</p>