Question about Nikon consumer grade zoom lenses.

[Vinny]

Did Nikon make better quality consumer zoom lenses than others that they made?

I have the 18-105 lens and it is just OK but I have read reviews that some others are very sharp; I've read that the 18-70, 28-80 and a few others are pretty good. Of course it just may be my lack of skill but I have used a tripod, manually focused and have stopped down the lens and my photos are not that sharp with this lens. I do have the 70-300 VR and am happy with the photos coming from it.

I realize that a Pro lens is a better lens and I plan on getting the Tokina 35mm (good reviews and photos on line seem very sharp) but I do like zooms. I'm thinking that if there is a better consumer grade lens then the 18-105 maybe I could "upgrade" with a used one for cheap until I get sufficient funds to get a much better quality lens.

Thanks!

 

[djacobox372]

With nikon consumer lenses you'll find that the shorter the zoom range the better the quality. An 18-55mm will outperform a 18-105mm, and an 18-105mm will be slightly better then a 18-200mm, etc.

However the difference is slight. If you want better glass I would opt for a inexpensive prime, or perhaps a 3rd party pro-level zoom like the tamron 17-50mm f2.8

 

[Vinny]

Thanks!

I plan on getting the Tokina 35mm prime since I've seen photos on the net and it is extremly sharp and it has macro capability.

OH to have a pocket full of money!

 

[Overread]

Vinny: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...f2-8-macro-lens-value-standard-35mm-lens.html
not masses of info in there at present, but at some point I'll give it a proper testing against the other macro lenses - for what its worth I'm pleased with it - though I'll hasten to add that I've no experience of other 30mm options on the market.

Macro wise I'd treat it as a flower/butterfly type macro lens - ie more for close up than pure 1:1 macro work. It's working distance isn't impossible to work with, but its no walkover and is certainly a good challenge to shoot and light for.

 

[Vinny]

Thanks for that!

I did read a few reviews and went onto flicker to see a bunch of photos. I am looking at it as a "normal" prime for my D90 with the macro as a bonus. I've read that the Nikon 35mm build quality is cheap and thought for a few bucks more I'd go for it. Since I'm not looking to be a pro I just want a lens that is better than what I have currently ... of course that's assuming my problem is the lens and not me!

 

[kundalini]

I've read that the Nikon 35mm build quality is cheap and ...!

Please link your sources.

 

[Overread]

I've heard some good things about the sigma 30mm as a regular lens option plus its a wider max aperture. It might suit you more if you're after the more regular use lens.

 

[KmH]

I've read that the Nikon 35mm build quality is cheap

What do you expect from a camera maker $200 prime lens. To keep the price that low some compromises have to be made.

Tokina compromises, and keeps their costs down, by having broader manufacturing tolerences, which means more performance variabiilty in each example of a specific lens.

The point is, there is no free liunch.

 

[mwcfarms]

Thanks for that!

I did read a few reviews and went onto flicker to see a bunch of photos. I am looking at it as a "normal" prime for my D90 with the macro as a bonus. I've read that the Nikon 35mm build quality is cheap and thought for a few bucks more I'd go for it. Since I'm not looking to be a pro I just want a lens that is better than what I have currently ... of course that's assuming my problem is the lens and not me!

I have a Nikon 35mm F2 and I think its a bit better built than the 1.8 but as for as cheap I still think your optics might be a bit better with Nikon. And if you ever decide to upgrade bodies to a FX you don't have to worry about the offbrand lenses not communicating with the camera. Just my two cents.

 

[Derrel]

The Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 AF-S G is a light $199 DX lens; it's a big seller for Nikon these days, and in fact is I believe, currently Nikon's number-one selling prime lens, which makes sense, since it's the lowest priced Nikkor prime lens except for the 50/1.8 AF-D, which has been on the market for roughly 23 years or so in one of two basic forms, AF and AF-D. Most people who handle the 35mm/1.8 AF-S G describe it as feeling "plastic", "toy-like", "flimsy",etc. I would describe it as "plastic-y". A LOT of modern lenses feel" plastic-y" to me. The 35mm f/2 AF-D is a lens I have owned for almost ten years now, and it is also a rather lightweight, simplified optical design, lacking CrC (Nikon's floating element Close Range Correction, a Nikon invention), and lacking one to two lens elements compared with better-corrected designs; the 35/2 AF-D is, honestly, only a so-so performer...it's just not really all that good, and it has the sloppy, loose type of feel of many of the earlier AF-D Nikkor designs. The Nikkor 35mm f/2 Ai-S is a rock-solid lens, with a high-quality helicoid focusing system, silky-smooth, has CrC, and has the best optics of any of the normal-speed Nikkors. The 35mm f/2 O.C. Nikkor is an interesting, outdated lens that has solid build, no CrC, and actually a nice degree of roundness in its out of focus area; the OLD 35/2 O.C.-Nikkor is probably the "prettiest imager" of any Nikkor 35mm lens. The 35mm f/1.4 pre-Ai and 35mm f/1.4 Ai are both heavy, fast 35mm lenses, build like TANKS, but suffering from pretty severe field curvature at close ranges, leading to a very sharp central image, and a fall-off in sharpness at the edges of the frame. There is a nutshell is 30 years' worth of Nikkor 35mm lens ownership experience from me; compared to any of the lenses that came before it, the 35mm 1.8 AF-S G Nikkor feels "plastic", and the build quality is very "modern", let's say, in the sense that modern = polycarbonate.

I think Tokina and Pentax BOTH have entered the 35mm macro lens field with almost identical design ideas; in fact, it would not surprise me if the two lenses are indeed the same,identical lens (Tokina and Pentax have shared designs before!). I bet the Tokina 35mm macro is a good performer at close distances.

 

[Overread]

I think Tokina and Pentax BOTH have entered the 35mm macro lens field with almost identical design ideas; in fact, it would not surprise me if the two lenses are indeed the same,identical lens (Tokina and Pentax have shared designs before!). I bet the Tokina 35mm macro is a good performer at close distances.

You're not the first to raise this point and yes I think from what I've found the lenses are pretty much the same - I think co-developed or something along those lines.

 

[Vinny]

Not expecting anything, just read that they are all plastic and feel cheap. I've read reviews of the Tokina 35mm and haven't found anyone really saying their crap and I'm not saying they don't make crap. Most claim the build quality of this lens is great and looking at photos taken from it, it does take sharp photos. The price difference between the Nikon and Tokina is $20 as of today and it is no longer a $199 lens.

As I said, I'm not looking to be a pro just want to take better photos. I certainly would love to have professional Nikon lenses but the truth is I don't need them and can't afford them.

Is it just possible another manufacturer made a better product than Nikon? I think it's possible. I saw photos here on the forum from the Tokina 11-16 and they looked pretty nice - different lens than I am looking at but it looks like a nice non Nikon lens.

If there's another option and it is as good or maybe better - why not try it?

I've read that the Nikon 35mm build quality is cheap

What do you expect from a camera maker $200 prime lens. To keep the price that low some compromises have to be made.

Tokina compromises, and keeps their costs down, by having broader manufacturing tolerences, which means more performance variabiilty in each example of a specific lens.

The point is, there is no free liunch.

 

[Derrel]

Tokina was formed by a bunch of Nikon engineers and employees who broke off from Nikon,and formed their own company, quite a few years ago. Tokina's color rendition is reasonably close to Nikon's neutral-to-coolish look--none of that jaundiced Sigma yellow look from Tokina lenses. Tokina has made a few VERY good lenses over the years, like their 90mm macro, which was sort of a cult classic. Apparently, their new 100mm f/2.8 AT-X macro is also an excellent macro lens. One of the things you might expect from a third party lens maker with origins in the Nikon design tradition is a sort of "heavy-duty" feeling to Tokina lenses. Tokina's engineers have traditionally used more aluminum, steel, and brass than some of the "other" 3rd party lens makers, which has given their lenses a somewhat heavier-duty look,feel,and heft compared with say, Tamron, which has prided itself on its use of what they call "industrial plastics" for lens barrels and many other key lens components. If you compare the Tamron 28-70 or 28-80 f/2.8 AT-X lens series models (there were four or five,and I owned two of them) with say the same-era Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 lenses, the Tokina lenses had an entirely different look and feel. More "rubber and metal", with big, knurly ribbing on the rubber fittings, and metal in most of the outer barrel, where Sigma had smoother rubber rings, and its own (patented?) unusual external barrel coating finish. If you compare the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X macro against the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di-series macro, you can see the two different company design and build philosophies. The takeaway though is that solid "feel" and "metal" do not necessarily equal better optical performance. NIkon's little 28-80 throwaway D-series zoom was actually a VERY good optical performer (I still have mine!), every bit the optical equal of $1500 lenses when stopped down to about f/10.

 

[Vinny]

Although I agree with you 100% the truth is I doubt I'll ever go to FX ... at least not in the forseeable future.

Thanks for that!

I did read a few reviews and went onto flicker to see a bunch of photos. I am looking at it as a "normal" prime for my D90 with the macro as a bonus. I've read that the Nikon 35mm build quality is cheap and thought for a few bucks more I'd go for it. Since I'm not looking to be a pro I just want a lens that is better than what I have currently ... of course that's assuming my problem is the lens and not me!

I have a Nikon 35mm F2 and I think its a bit better built than the 1.8 but as for as cheap I still think your optics might be a bit better with Nikon. And if you ever decide to upgrade bodies to a FX you don't have to worry about the offbrand lenses not communicating with the camera. Just my two cents.

 

[Vinny]

That was my original question ... is there a optically better older Nikon lens (or a few lenses) that I possibly can get used and cheap that will perform better than my 18-105. The Tokina 35mm turned into another discussion. What you said about the solid feel and metal I agree with 100% and I don't confuse optical performance with those two things. I have gone here: tokina 35mm f2.8 - Flickr: Search and looked at some of the photos along with going on Google to read other people's reviews. Of course reviews are other people's opinions.

Tokina was formed by a bunch of Nikon engineers and employees who broke off from Nikon,and formed their own company, quite a few years ago. Tokina's color rendition is reasonably close to Nikon's neutral-to-coolish look--none of that jaundiced Sigma yellow look from Tokina lenses. Tokina has made a few VERY good lenses over the years, like their 90mm macro, which was sort of a cult classic. Apparently, their new 100mm f/2.8 AT-X macro is also an excellent macro lens. One of the things you might expect from a third party lens maker with origins in the Nikon design tradition is a sort of "heavy-duty" feeling to Tokina lenses. Tokina's engineers have traditionally used more aluminum, steel, and brass than some of the "other" 3rd party lens makers, which has given their lenses a somewhat heavier-duty look,feel,and heft compared with say, Tamron, which has prided itself on its use of what they call "industrial plastics" for lens barrels and many other key lens components. If you compare the Tamron 28-70 or 28-80 f/2.8 AT-X lens series models (there were four or five,and I owned two of them) with say the same-era Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 lenses, the Tokina lenses had an entirely different look and feel. More "rubber and metal", with big, knurly ribbing on the rubber fittings, and metal in most of the outer barrel, where Sigma had smoother rubber rings, and its own (patented?) unusual external barrel coating finish. If you compare the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X macro against the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di-series macro, you can see the two different company design and build philosophies. The takeaway though is that solid "feel" and "metal" do not necessarily equal better optical performance. NIkon's little 28-80 throwaway D-series zoom was actually a VERY good optical performer (I still have mine!), every bit the optical equal of $1500 lenses when stopped down to about f/10.