Best money can buy?

[ConanD]

I won't get too elaborate since I'm just an amateur, but I would very much like someone to show me a better lens for double what this cost. This thing is pretty amazing for the price (currently $247 on Amazon). For me, it comes down to optical quality. This takes seriously sharp and colorful pics. Those few times when I've managed to select the correct exposure, WB, etc, I'm so blown away. I can't even believe I took the shot -- they just look too good.

The drawback is that the lens is completely made of plastic. It "feels" very cheap (because it is). But at this price, you could just about call it a disposable lens. A disposable lens that takes images equal to lenses costing 4 times as much.

Here's a couple of examples (remember, I'm talking about IQ here, so ignore composition, subject and lighting choices)

 

[stevef1961]

they look pretty darn good! worth every cent. Under optimal conditions any Nikon will do a great job. Optimal conditions being light, best focal length for a particular lens, and best aperture setting to get the sharpest images.

--
www.flickr.com/photos/stevef1961

 

[colombiano]

Second shot was done at 200 mm with aperture F5. This is impossible with Nikkor 55-200.

Well, I had 55-200 VR also but after I aquired Nikkor 105 2,5 pre-Ai and 180mm 2.8 ED AI-S, I sold it, because it's no comparison. Both old primes at F4 are much sharper and contrasty than Nikkor 55-200 VR at F8-F11.

Nikkor 55-200 VR is an okay lens, but nothing special about it really... For its price, it's a good buy, though.

Regards,

 

[chris102]

The optics (color, flare, contrast, and of course sharpness) of Nikon's kit lenses are usually top-notch. Your pictures clearly demonstrate this - the kid in the snow rocks!

What most kit lenses lack are build, aperture and often the top of the line focusing mechanism. What this means, is that when used by careful amateurs, they will give optimum performance. When abused, either by rough handling, or sub-optimal lighting, they start to falter. In every other way though, kit lenses are the way to go for great pictures. Faster, sturdier lenses are big and heavy, so if you are careful with both the handling and exposure with your kitlens, your pictures will be every bit as good as if you spent 3 to 8 times as much on a "pro" lens.

And again, looking at these three pictures, I'd guess your pictures are.

I won't get too elaborate since I'm just an amateur, but I would very much like someone to show me a better lens for double what this cost. This thing is pretty amazing for the price (currently $247 on Amazon). For me, it comes down to optical quality. This takes seriously sharp and colorful pics. Those few times when I've managed to select the correct exposure, WB, etc, I'm so blown away. I can't even believe I took the shot -- they just look too good.

The drawback is that the lens is completely made of plastic. It "feels" very cheap (because it is). But at this price, you could just about call it a disposable lens. A disposable lens that takes images equal to lenses costing 4 times as much.

Here's a couple of examples (remember, I'm talking about IQ here, so ignore composition, subject and lighting choices)

--
http://101-365.com/

 

[scokill]

Second shot was done at 200 mm with aperture F5. This is impossible with Nikkor 55-200.

Well, I had 55-200 VR also but after I aquired Nikkor 105 2,5 pre-Ai and 180mm 2.8 ED AI-S, I sold it, because it's no comparison. Both old primes at F4 are much sharper and contrasty than Nikkor 55-200 VR at F8-F11.

Nikkor 55-200 VR is an okay lens, but nothing special about it really... For its price, it's a good buy, though.

Regards,

The snow shot was shot with 70-200 2.8...at least the exif indicates max aperture of 2.8.

 

[ConanD]

Second shot was done at 200 mm with aperture F5. This is impossible with Nikkor 55-200.

Well, I had 55-200 VR also but after I aquired Nikkor 105 2,5 pre-Ai and 180mm 2.8 ED AI-S, I sold it, because it's no comparison. Both old primes at F4 are much sharper and contrasty than Nikkor 55-200 VR at F8-F11.

Nikkor 55-200 VR is an okay lens, but nothing special about it really... For its price, it's a good buy, though.

Regards,

The snow shot was shot with 70-200 2.8...at least the exif indicates max aperture of 2.8.

I must have grabbed the wrong pic. You guys are right, of course. I could have sworn I used the 55-200, but clearly that's impossible. The other two are DEFINITELY the 55-200 because that was the only 200 mm lens I owned when I took those pictures.

 

[ConanD]

NOTE: The image of my daughter in the snow was NOT taken with the lens in question. It was taken with a Nikon AF 80-2000mm F2.8D (push-pull). There was no conscious attempt to mislead. My apologies.

Here's a couple of examples (remember, I'm talking about IQ here, so ignore composition, subject and lighting choices)

 

[paulski66]

[No message]

 

[stevef1961]

NOTE: The image of my daughter in the snow was NOT taken with the lens in question. It was taken with a Nikon AF 80-2000mm F2.8D (push-pull). There was no conscious attempt to mislead. My apologies.

Here's a couple of examples (remember, I'm talking about IQ here, so ignore composition, subject and lighting choices)

Kind of glad to hear that. As I looked at it I was thinking that it was clearly the best image of the three. That shows you that more $$$ lenses will generally lead to better quality images.

--
www.flickr.com/photos/stevef1961

 

[bhill643]

set it at f8 and leave it there - I had it a very nice lens for the $

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Money cannot buy photographic skill

As your photos show very good pictures can be obtained with equipment well below "top of the range".

 

[WIMorrison]

NOTE: The image of my daughter in the snow was NOT taken with the lens in question. It was taken with a Nikon AF 80-2000mm F2.8D (push-pull). There was no conscious attempt to mislead. My apologies.

Here's a couple of examples (remember, I'm talking about IQ here, so ignore composition, subject and lighting choices)

Now that is one hell of a super zoom !! I wonder what size the front element is for f2.8 at the length? Luckily you are at the short end where the quality seems to good

 

[ConanD]

Nikon AF 80-2000mm F2.8D (push-pull).

Now that is one hell of a super zoom !! I wonder what size the front element is for f2.8 at the length? Luckily you are at the short end where the quality seems to good