What is the worst Nikon lens you ever purchased?

[tri-x1]

<p>I have to agree on the 43-86 zoom, although some of the later ones were a lot better.</p>

[eric_mudama1]

<p>I think that "worst" should be qualified with value. Bagging on a $90 kit lens because it's inferior to a $1500 piece of glass seems silly.<br>

Comments about being disappointed by some of the 2.8 or faster stuff are very interesting reading...</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>28mm f2.8 AI. Nikon has made some very good lenses. Why do they sell lenses like these under the same name. It engenders mistrust.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>2.8/70-200 vr</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Funny I read the list and am surprised at some of the lenses mentioned. I think the 18-70 is superb for what it is as is any version of the 18-55. (Please consider price point) I will put on the list my copy of the 24-120 VR. A few reputable folks say it's ok but mine was a dog. Sorry but i never got one impressively sharp photo from that lens. Maybe we keep selling each other that same unit.</p>

[mwr]

<p>The 18-55 and 55-200 I got with a D60 about a year ago. One of the lenses was soft on the left side and the other was soft on the right side. I returned the whole thing and got a Canon XSi.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>The just discontinued PC Micro Nikkor manual 85 F2.8. Because it was so soft, I sent it back to Nikon who advised that the lens was within tolerance and returned it. I tried again but still soft. Part of the problem may be that this is a big lens and is dependent on the stability on the camera body connected to a tripod. In comparison, my Nikon 24-70 F2.8 is asolutely outstanding shooting the same subject. I just don't have perspective control.</p>

[rich_p]

<p>Nikon 28mm f2.8 AF<br>

Not sharp at all.</p>

[berg_na]

<p>The only Nikon lens I regret getting was the original 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens. It suffers from strong distortion and poor sharpness. I was so glad when I was able to sell it...</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have had the opposite experience with some of the lenses mentioned. I use the 35/2.8 AI (2nd version, same as AIS model) when I shoot with an FE and I took the 85/2 AI with me to FL in January. I get good results from both of them. My favorite 35 Nikkor is the f/2.8 K model and I also like the 35/2 Nikkor O. I find it easier to use the 35/2.8 AI on the FE than to flip up the AI tab and meter in stop down mode with the 35/2 Nikkor O. I don't have 28/2.8 AIS but I am surprised ot hear that some people don't like it. It often sells for more than a 28/2 and has CRC. Any time you use a wide angle lens at infinity you really need to know that its infinity focus is correct. If a lens focuses past infinity you can always back off a little bt if it doesn't quite reach infinity then even shooting at f/8 or f/11 will not give you its best sharpness for distant subjects.</p>

[bmm]

<p>I've been happy with all the lenses I've paid money for thankfully.<br>

But I inherited from a friend a couple of older consumer zooms. One was pretty good for a 'slowie' and I use it reasonably often - the 70-210 push-pull variable aperture zoom, which I thikn sits between my 18-200 and my primes for sharpness.<br>

But its wider twin was a total dog. I think it was 35-105 (but I can't tell you definitively as it was dropped into the trash can some time ago); anyway it was the wider of the consumer zoom pair that came with the old Nikon F401.<br>

Of course this post comes with the caveat that I am basing my opinion on the one lens and that sample variation is prevalent especially in the consumer end of Nikon's lens range. So I'm prepared to accept that it may not be that model which is crap overall but just that the copy I was gifted was a particularly bad one.</p>

[adam zyto]

<p>Worst Nikon lens? That's easy - the 18-200vr. Slow to focus, loose, not sharp. Sold it after a year...what a relief! </p>

[andrew_gale]

<p>70-300G. It sucked. It was slow, it had slow AF, it was terribly made, it had poor image quality, it was hard to focus by hand (it has a HUGE zoom ring and a miniscule focus ring.)</p>

 

[john_michelis]

i own 6 nikkors and some are better than others and some are good at somethings and not so good at others.....the 35mm-70mm AF3.3 is

crap and so was its ais version.....no real complaints about the 50mm (have the AFD and the Ai-s), the 85mm 1.8 AFD is probably the

sharpest ......i had the 20mm AFD which was good with the F5 and D70s but turned into a lemon on the d200....my biggest grip at the

moment is that the 28mm F2.8 Ais is hopeless for landscape... although it is sharp for anything near its starts to blur for the vistas....i shoot

mainly film and would be thankfull for any info in regards to a sharp wideangle MF.....

[gurbally_seth]

<p>I bought a D300, but got it replaced with D700 within two weeks. But it has a lot noisier shutter than D300...why? Why does D700 make so much more noise than D300?</p>

 

[gurbally_seth]

<p>I bought a D300, but got it replaced with D700 within two weeks. But it has a lot noisier shutter than D300...why? Why does D700 make so much more noise than D300?</p>

 

[aman1]

<p>What an interesting discussion! Very enlightening! ;-)</p>

[Ian Rance]

<p>Concerning the complaints about the 28mm f2.8 lenses at infinity, I have found that the 28mm f3.5 lenses are very good for distant subjects. I have and use both - where the subject matter dictates which one I pick.</p>

<p>Ian</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>The two big disappointments I've had of the many Nikon lenses I got through:<br>

1. 70-200mm VR - great on DX, bad on FX (for what I photograph). It's awfulness at producing sharp corners was a very big and expensive surprise.<br>

2. 18-200mm DX - I'd heard mixed reports but being liberal-minded I thought that I could live with it's shortcomings. I couldn't.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>35-135 3.5 -4.5 AI-S a little soft and low on contrast.</p>

<p>200 f4 micro...loved the lens, soft wide open, 52mm matched 4 other Nikkors I carried at the time, precise focusing difficult with quick turn barrel.</p>

<p>35 f2 loved the sharpness, then one day I found all photos taken with it ruined as apeture stuck wide open. Up to that point I never heard of the oil on the blades problem. Out of warranty and Nikon would not fix. Stuck with it literally and figuratively.</p>

[beac]

<p>Love this thread, hopefully Nikon is reading...<br>

Have to agree with the 24-120 AF D (non VR) haters. Although we are few, we are proud. <br>

I have one and can't stomach taking it out of my bag anymore. It's IQ was really poor before my dog knocked it over on my tripod and I had to send it to Nikon to fix. I should not have wasted the cash.<br>

On the bright side, since I bought a D700, my 50mm f/1.4 stays on the camera all the time now.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>24mm F2.0 AIS Nikkor. Lots of $, high expectations, poor performance. And, while 24mm may be ideal for the wide end of a zoom, it is a poor choice for a walk-around lens. A happy day when I dumped that thing even at a substantial loss.</p>

[john_lai3]

<p>Some of the complains here.. Bad samples? </p>

 

[luca_stramare2]

<p>In my case, the only one I believe has some design flaws is the 70-300 ED, which tends to misalign, but maybe because I do a lot of air travel (vibrations). The 300 2.8 was perfect but it was not my lens (too big and too heavy), the plastic 35-80 maybe was a bargain for the price but lacked the feeling with the small focusing ring. All the others were perfect lenses that maybe got some abuse during transportation or were not properly checked before shipment. Once fixed, they gave me years of fantastic performance and some I still use today.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>A lot of criticism of the 18-70, but I liked mine, it was a good match for the D70 and image quality quite ok with a bit of softness and lack of contrast at the long end. Sure a 55 macro was sharper, but that didn't have zoom either. Sold it when I got a D300, the added resolution started to show the weaknesses of the lens and it had been in use frequently for a couple of years.</p>