Kit lens sweet spot

[Goldcoin79]

Hi, I have a Nikon D5100 with the 18-55 mm kit lens and also bought the 55-200 mm vr lens as well. My question is what apeture is the sweet spot on the lenses as I have tried searching around for the answer but it varies depending on what you read.

your input will be appreciated.

 

[480sparky]

I never rely on anyone else's judgement or testament. I test my lenses myself.... to my standards.

 

[Ballistics]

Hi, I have a Nikon D5100 with the 18-55 mm kit lens and also bought the 55-200 mm vr lens as well. My question is what apeture is the sweet spot on the lenses as I have tried searching around for the answer but it varies depending on what you read.

your input will be appreciated.

The kit lens is pretty good all over stopped down. The 55-200mm is horrid @ 200mm but backing it up it becomes a decent lens. You're going to see that stopping it down is going to yield good results, but the sweet spot is going to matter to only you like sparky said. It could be @ f/8, f/11 f/12 etc

 

[Rafterman]

The 55-200mm is horrid @ 200mm

According to whom?

 

[Ballistics]

The 55-200mm is horrid @ 200mm

According to whom?

Many many owners, including myself.

 

[manaheim]

Go here:

Nikon / Nikkor (APS-C) Lens Tests

A good rule of thumb, however, is to go about 1/3 of the way into the lenses focal range and stop down 2-3 levels.

And Rafterman- every lens is going to be at its worst at both extremes and 10-20% or so in from those extremes. The more of a range on a lens the worse it will generally be at the outer ends... obviously the more expensive the lens, the less this is likely a problem, but the kit lenses can have some serious issues.

 

[bc_steve]

When I used the 18-55 I got the best results at f/8 - f/11.

 

[Rafterman]

And Rafterman- every lens is going to be at its worst at both extremes and 10-20% or so in from those extremes. The more of a range on a lens the worse it will generally be at the outer ends... obviously the more expensive the lens, the less this is likely a problem, but the kit lenses can have some serious issues.

I get that, and I agree, but to use the word "horrid" to describe that particular lens is a bit extreme.

The 55-200mm is horrid @ 200mm

According to whom?

Many many owners, including myself.

Can you show me a poor shot taken with the lens at 200mm that was purely its own fault and not attributed to the camera or photographer?

 

[Ballistics]

And Rafterman- every lens is going to be at its worst at both extremes and 10-20% or so in from those extremes. The more of a range on a lens the worse it will generally be at the outer ends... obviously the more expensive the lens, the less this is likely a problem, but the kit lenses can have some serious issues.

I get that, and I agree, but to use the word "horrid" to describe that particular lens is a bit extreme.

According to whom?

Many many owners, including myself.

Can you show me a poor shot taken with the lens at 200mm that was purely its own fault and not attributed to the camera or photographer?

Let me see if I can find one. Haven't shot with it in over a year.

 

[Ballistics]

I just have this one at 100mm, not horrible here... but you can see the beginning of the CA and the slight lack of micro contrast. This was @ f/7 1/250 with VR on.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

don't take the 55-200 PAST 180 or so mm!!!

 

[TheLost]

If you don't want to just follow the 'F/8 and be there' crowed... or maybe you don't want to believe everything the interwebs say..

Why not just test it your self... it will cost you $30 for a program like 'FocusTune' that will show you exactly what aperture and focal length your lenses/camera are sharpest at.

Just a thought...

 

[TheLost]

The 55-200mm is horrid @ 200mm

According to whom?

Many many owners, including myself.

The 55-200mm VR Nikon lens isn't a bad lens... but it is a plastic lens that costs $135. if you compare it to Nikons 70-200 f/2.8 you will will notice the difference.

However, If you never compare it to higher end lenses and its getting the job done for you... its a bargain and a great lens!

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I agree with all who said test your own. But I also believe experience of others is practicaly to apply. Its no secret how the common lens performs and where it performs best. Sure i said mine was soft 180mm and up. And maybe the next one will work great at 187mm and up. But overall its no secret its soft, cheaply made, but a great bargain for what it is

 

[Derrel]

I looked at their Imatest results here on the 55-200, the NON-VR model...Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6 G ED DX - Review / Test Report - Analysis

I thought at the shorter end of the range, the lens looked remarkably consistent across the aperture range in terms of sharpness. It did show a fall-off in resolution at 200mm. As far as chromatic aberration, this little lens is REMARKABLY good. MUCH LESS chromatic aberration than many much more expensive lenses. Fall-off was its weakest area, I think. The lens appears to have been tested on a fairly low-resolution DX body...something made in 2006 or earlier. But the D5100 does not have such high pixel density that diffraction will rob sharpness at even as small and aperture as f/11. My estimate is that the "sweet spot" of the lens is from 55mm to about 175mm focal length, and at somewhere from f/8 to f/11, when shot on a D5100.

Of course, one always needs to keep in mind...stopping down to aperture like f/11 can cause shutter speeds to drop to a range where camera shake, or subject motion blur might cause WORSE "pictures"; same with the wide-open f/4.8 aperture...if the subject or scene demands a fast shutter speed, using the lens at f/4.8 is going to be the best choice if it means being able to get a shutter speed of say 1/800 second when shooting a stock car race from high up in the stands, or when shooting from a moving tour bus,etc.