Should one expect more from a Nikon 18-55 kit lens?

See a few test pics from a Nikkor 18-55 GII ED kit lens compared to a Nikkor
55-200VR he
http://www.sonicdesign.se/digitalphoto/tests/
/per

On 2007-06-17 07:52:35 -0700, "per" said:

See a few test pics from a Nikkor 18-55 GII ED kit lens compared to a Nikkor
55-200VR he
http://www.sonicdesign.se/digitalphoto/tests/
/per

The 18-55 does all right for what it is -- a relatively inexpensive
lens. This lens was intended for the beginning DSLR user. It is light
weight. In fact, it probably performs a little better than what you
might expect for money. It is sharpest at around f/8.

The 55-200 is, OTOH, a much better lens than you would expect for the
price. Granted, the build quality is what you would expect, but it
performs quite well. It is not as good as Nikon's more expensive
lenses, but it is otherwise a pretty decent lens.

Neither lens has AF-S, which is too bad.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:04:23 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-06-17 07:52:35 -0700, "per" said:

See a few test pics from a Nikkor 18-55 GII ED kit lens compared to a Nikkor
55-200VR he
http://www.sonicdesign.se/digitalphoto/tests/
/per

The 18-55 does all right for what it is -- a relatively inexpensive
lens. This lens was intended for the beginning DSLR user. It is light
weight. In fact, it probably performs a little better than what you
might expect for money. It is sharpest at around f/8.

The 55-200 is, OTOH, a much better lens than you would expect for the
price. Granted, the build quality is what you would expect, but it
performs quite well. It is not as good as Nikon's more expensive
lenses, but it is otherwise a pretty decent lens.

Neither lens has AF-S, which is too bad.

The OP was using the lenses on a D40, so I assume they were both AF-S
lenses. If not he was using manual focus, which makes the test meaningless.

Pete

"C J Campbell" wrote:
Neither lens has AF-S, which is too bad.
Both lenses have "AF-S" written on them.
/per

per wrote:
See a few test pics from a Nikkor 18-55 GII ED kit lens compared to a Nikkor
55-200VR he
http://www.sonicdesign.se/digitalphoto/tests/
/per

It just shows what we all know: each OEM makes fine lenses for pros and
dedicated amateurs as well as cheap schlock that gives mediocre
performance at a cheap price for those who want to impress with the
label on their camera.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
per wrote:
See a few test pics from a Nikkor 18-55 GII ED kit lens compared to a
Nikkor 55-200VR he
http://www.sonicdesign.se/digitalphoto/tests/
/per

It just shows what we all know: each OEM makes fine lenses for pros and
dedicated amateurs as well as cheap schlock that gives mediocre
performance at a cheap price for those who want to impress with the
label on their camera.

Cheers,
Alan

I shows nothing of the sort - probably just an error in test technique.

frederick wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

per wrote:

See a few test pics from a Nikkor 18-55 GII ED kit lens compared to a
Nikkor 55-200VR he
http://www.sonicdesign.se/digitalphoto/tests/
/per


It just shows what we all know: each OEM makes fine lenses for pros
and dedicated amateurs as well as cheap schlock that gives mediocre
performance at a cheap price for those who want to impress with the
label on their camera.


I shows nothing of the sort - probably just an error in test technique.

ROFL. The facts, long known, are that the OEM's, including Nikon, put
out zooms like the 18-55 (previous 35mm FF class was the 28-80) to sell
en masse with the lower end SLR's/DSLR's.

aka "kit" lenses.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
frederick wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

per wrote:

See a few test pics from a Nikkor 18-55 GII ED kit lens compared to
a Nikkor 55-200VR he
http://www.sonicdesign.se/digitalphoto/tests/
/per


It just shows what we all know: each OEM makes fine lenses for pros
and dedicated amateurs as well as cheap schlock that gives mediocre
performance at a cheap price for those who want to impress with the
label on their camera.


I shows nothing of the sort - probably just an error in test technique.

ROFL. The facts, long known, are that the OEM's, including Nikon, put
out zooms like the 18-55 (previous 35mm FF class was the 28-80) to sell
en masse with the lower end SLR's/DSLR's.

aka "kit" lenses.

I don't know what happened with my post (my user error), which was
supposed to read "The OP's samples shows nothing of the sort...

Sure Nikon puts out some cheap kit lenses, but optical quality of those
lenses is pretty good for the price. Center frame MTF for the 18-55 is
excellent, and the OP's 1:1 samples were center frame where such
difference in sharpness is unexpected - except by user error.

The failure of the kit lenses and area for confusion for many users is
looking at center MTF figures alone - where at short focal length the
18-55 has outstanding center frame MTF - even better than the 17-55 or
17-35. But sharpness across the frame is relatively poor, and CA is
much higher than on the better Nikkors (but even so, still on a par with
some true schlock third party lenses that some other users swear by, and
better than cheap OEM offerings from other makers).

Anyway, there are good reasons not to consider the 18-55 apart from
optical quality. A rotating front element on a lens of focal length
range that is likely to be used with a CP or Grad ND filters is crazy,
but something many new dslr users won't be aware of until they have used
the lens for a while. Likewise the advantage of focus speed and AF
override with ring-motor AF-s, and even having a focus scale on the lens
are overlooked.

On 2007-06-17 08:55:28 -0700, Pete said:

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:04:23 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-06-17 07:52:35 -0700, "per" said:

See a few test pics from a Nikkor 18-55 GII ED kit lens compared to a Nikkor
55-200VR he
http://www.sonicdesign.se/digitalphoto/tests/
/per

The 18-55 does all right for what it is -- a relatively inexpensive
lens. This lens was intended for the beginning DSLR user. It is light
weight. In fact, it probably performs a little better than what you
might expect for money. It is sharpest at around f/8.

The 55-200 is, OTOH, a much better lens than you would expect for the
price. Granted, the build quality is what you would expect, but it
performs quite well. It is not as good as Nikon's more expensive
lenses, but it is otherwise a pretty decent lens.

Neither lens has AF-S, which is too bad.

The OP was using the lenses on a D40, so I assume they were both AF-S
lenses. If not he was using manual focus, which makes the test meaningless.

Pete

They are both AF-S lenses. However, I would not expect manual focus to
invalidate the test.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-06-17 09:11:39 -0700, "per" said:

"C J Campbell" wrote:
Neither lens has AF-S, which is too bad.
Both lenses have "AF-S" written on them.
/per

You are right. They are both AF-S lenses. However, they focus much more
slowly than other AF-S lenses. Call it weak AF-S.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor