ryan_tan Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 <p>The 24mm PCE<br> Corners were soft even when I did not push the limits of shift. Bad chromatic aberrations.</p> <p>Ryan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l.dwight_horricks Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 <p>Never had a bad one...When I was shooting Nikon I only shot with manual focus Primes and the were all great especially the 180mm 2.8. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 <p>Concerning the 70-200 corner softness issues, I have posted very detailed images to show exactly what the problem is on FX: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl</a></p> <p>While it can be a serious problem for landscape photographers, the fact of the matter is that only small areas in the extreme corners are affected. For portrait, wedding, events, sports, news ... photography, those corners simply don't matter much. In particular, if you crop into typical 8x10 prints, those corners aren't even in the frame.</p> <p>In other words, whether that is an issue or not highly depends on your individual case. I for one am very happy using the 70-200 on my D700. But if you want corner sharpness at 200mm, this is definitely not the lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattporath Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 <p>I have drawer of broken Nikon gear that won't be fixed because of principle.<br /> 2 Nikon f-100's both broke last summer during the wedding season. They have been reduced to scrap. I had one fixed, the button that opens the film door broke. had that fixed, then the shutter broke next weekend! I still shoot with F-100's but I don't have the feeling that they are bulletproof like I used to. Always bring a few backup cameras!<br /> Nikon D70- stopped working. It would work for a few shots freeze up, and the start working, until it stopped forever. I got so mad at digital that day I threw it back in the bag and grabbed my Nikon F3 and put a 135-f/2 and shot amazing photos! I love that camera. I'm so lucky to have it and all the old lenses and mega flash (SB-17!). Glad I never sold them or it.<br /> Nikon sb-600. same with the D70, would work, then didn't. Which is unfortunate because I loved the fact that I could shoot off camera without buying any extra gear. I upgraded to a SB-800 which I should have gotten in the first place but I had been reading Ken Rockwell... Nikon wanted $175 to fix this flash. No way!<br /> The SB-800 was weird. Would stop working for some reason, and one time I noticed it looked like it was about to split apart! I looked more closely and found that it was missing the 4 screws that hold it together at the bottom of the flash! That was fixed for free.<br /> I can't believe anyone would dis the 70-200 2.8vr! That lens is supreme. Everything I get out of it is gold. I'm unbaised on this too, because I rent it!<br /> When I retired I'm going to have drawer filled with broken Nikon Gear. Maybe I'll build a sculpture.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_1172872 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 <p>The 28mm f2.8 Series E. You can imagine my disgust when I discovered that my sample was clearly inferior to the 28mm Minolta Celtic that I had been using. Several posters mentioned the first version of the 28mm Nikon AF lens. I have read in several places that Nikon recycled the optics from the E series for that lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverfox Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 <p>Seriously, why are so many of you not liking the 28mm 2.8 nikkor? Ive had no probs with this lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_symington1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 <p>Shun said:<br> "only small areas in the extreme corners are affected"<br> This is where we disagree - the area affected on a D3/D700 is a box approximately 400x400 pixels in each corner. If you were to crop it out - necessary in some shots where this rubbish performance is at its most obvious - you actually have to toss fully half of your image area! That is not a small problem in my book - particularly when so many other lenses get it right.<br> All the best,<br> James</p> <p><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Oq4J">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Oq4J</a><br> <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00O3GQ">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00O3GQ</a></p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_symington1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 <p>"I can't believe anyone would dis the 70-200 2.8vr!"<br> Matt, next time you rent one try the simple test I mentioned in my earlier post on an FX or a film body and let me know what you find please. I think you'll have little difficulty in seeing the problem.<br> Good luck,<br> James</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_1172872 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 <p>Martyn-<br> There are different versions of the 28mm Nikon. I believe the last [Ai-S] manual focus version had a floating element, and the 'D' version had a different optical design than the first AF version.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commtrd Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 <p>Never bought a bad lens from Nikon. Even the 18-200 I had was a good copy...no lens creep or anything other than wicked distortion on the wide end and being slow it still made some really good images.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave wyman Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>Keith wrote about the 18-200 that it has "wicked distortion on the wide end"</p> <p>It's true - but it doesn't always matter. </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuanxiao_li1 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 <p>The worst Nikon lens I purchased was 105mm F2.8 VR Nano<br> <img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00P/00PK7M-43194684.jpg" alt="" width="511" height="340" /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>Chuanxiao,</p> <p>Are you being fair? The lens looks like there is salt encrustation (the white stuff). Did you drop the lens in the ocean? Alternative could be beach sand. Either way - you can't blame Nikon if it's now dead. So, please let us know a little more.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg_s1 Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>The worst Nikon lens I bought new is the AF-S 17-55/2.8. Up close it's great but disappointing if focused on a distant object.<br> The worst Nikon lens I bought used is an AiS-Nikkor 35-135mm/3.5-4.5. This lens was really cheap (about 1/45 of the AF-S 17-55 :-)) and it's built-quality is great but it flares like hell.<br> That said I will mount it on the FM2 from time to time and enjoy the smooth zoom- and focusring.<br> georg</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 <p>Well, Chuanxiao, I had a problem with a 50mm Nikkor once. I dropped it from 4 feet up onto concrete and it broke! Poor build quality.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_wick Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 <p>I have to disagree about the 43-86 ai. While perhaps not one of the sharpest, I find it enormously useful, especially since it is quite flattering as a portrait lens. It balances nicely on an F3, is beautifully well made, and as a walking around lens is perfect.<br> I know the rap is that it is no good, but it is very good and very useful and I like it a lot. As with other lenses incorrectly reputed to be terrible (the Leitz Summarit 1.5 comes to mind) it has a charm that is not to be dismissed.<br> The nikkor I like the least is the 50mm 1.8 ai. Very sharp, but often harsh and unpleasing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 <p>I'm pretty sure there are two different 43-86 MF Nikkor lenses and I've seen results from both. The original was the lens that set the standard for zoom lens badness and made people hate zooms for at least 20 years, and the second fixed most of the worst problems but nobody wanted it because the first one ruined it for everybody. The second one is sharper and more flare resistant.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e_b7 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 <p><em></em> 75-240mm f/4.5-5.6D AF It's sharp stopped down from about 75-135. Pincushion distortion too high at 135mm or so. Autofocus is slow. For use on an automatic camera, a zoom that only produces good images at f8 to f11 is a pain. You really have to use aperture priority on some of these lenses, and don't zoom out too far. The lens is light, but you're better off with a prime.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardchen Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 <p>I have to say 50/1.8D. It's soft wide open. Got a better one 50/1.4D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hajo_g2 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 <p>As for <em>image quality</em>, I don't have a <em>worst</em> Nikkor. I am happy with all of them and have so far only been disappointed by third party lenses.<br> However, I do have <em>handling issues</em> with several Nikkor lenses, but these don't affect IQ:<br> 50 / 1.8 AFD - the aperture ring rattles like a Rubik's cube.<br />28-105 / 3.5-4.5 AFD (used from Ebay) - very stiff zoom ring.<br />35-70 / 2.8 AF - a real PITA when trying to engange the macro mode.<br> Perhaps surprisingly, my cheapest kit lenses 28-70 / 3.5-4.5 AFD and 80-200 / 4.5-5.6 AFD give me the least of troubles.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mansito_mansito Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 <del>Nikon Series E 28mm f/2.8s wideagle lens a peice od plastic crap. Even the mount was plastic shame on Nikon it looks like a toy. Even third party lenses are better. I do not know what they were thinking when they came out with Series E line.</del><p> <i>Troll. Banned from Nikon Forum.</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy_tate Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 <p>I've never really cared for the AF 70-300mm G. Very milky low contrast images, not very sharp and plastic mount. But I got mine for $35 and it at least gets me in close for the kids' soccer games, which don't have to be Sports Illusrated material. Other than that I don't use it. When I want to shoot with a zoom, I typically opt for the Nikkor 80-200mm f/4.5 Ai (rectangle back). </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_cantrell Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 <p>There have been several duds unworthy of the Nikon name, especially among the early zooms, but the 43-86 was the only one I've owned that was so awful, I couldn't use it. It was soft and had horrible distortion, a major disappointment because it seemed like a godsend in those early days of zooms.<br> Several have mentioned disliking their 18-55 VR kit lenses, but the one I have performs very well indeed and focuses close enough to be interesting when that's needed. I use the 18-105 instead for obvious reasons, but in its range, that little feather-light 18-55 is fine.<br> One other Nikkor comes to mind as a major disappointment, a 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor. It should be as sharp as anything I own, but the rear element has a visible imperfection in the middle of the glass that destroys images and gets worse as it is stopped down. It seems incredible that it got through, but I suppose Nikon QC has its ups and downs, even on the beautiful old metal lenses. I got it off eBay and the guy denied that there was any problem with his images, so I just let it go.<br> My even older 55mm f/3.5 is brilliant.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 <p>80-200 /f4.5-5.6D-AF Plastic mount.</p> <p>Not good.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_miller5 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 <p>The worst!<br> 24 F2 AIS, 28 F2.8 AIS (Crappy at far distances), AF70-300 F4-5.6 ED (First Version), AF24-50 F3.3 </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now