Nikon's 6 worst lenses: corroborate or undermine. Post yours.

[Kent]

The 45mm f2.8P is a Tessar lens. It should be very good.

I have always wondered why KR doesn't like this lens.
And the 24-120 also is not too bad. Pretty useful, really, and cheap.

 

[NIKON KIU]

Example here: https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=nikkor 43-86

All I see is that beautiful Nikkor glow!

OK, OK...
I once had a 28-200 AFD that wasn't really good at the longer end, but what do you expect from a 28-200?

Kiu

 

[Huss]

All I see is that beautiful Nikkor glow!

Hey, I guess I have a Lomo lens that also has that beautiful Nikkor glow!

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Everyone here probably already knows the site, but I depend on Bjørn Rørslett for evals of Nikkor optics.

 

[flavio81]

I always find KR to be good for cold hard facts, his opinion I leave behind. Every lens and every camera he uses, is the BEST MOST SUPERB AMAZING WONDERFUL

Agree!!

Some of my better photos came from that supposedly crappy 35 80..

I also had the Nikkor AF 35-80/4.0-5.6 and found it a very good performer(!) sharp, contrasty and low on distortion. Plus compact and light.

My preferences were for FD 85 1.8, FD 135 2.5, and R 90 2 and 2.8 lenses, and not in that order.

An established classic, and the predecessor Canon R 135/2.5 is even better! I paid lots of cash for mine and gave away the FD version!

 

[flavio81]

I agree with the sentiment - the 43-86 was not very good - and another 'lemon" was the 58mm f1.4! .

Perhaps not good at wide open sharpness, but on image quality, particularly the quality of the out of focus highlights, it is the best Nikon normal lens i own. The best. I love it so much i will probably own it till I die.

 

[Brooklynguy]

I have one. It's not bad at all as a walkaround lens as long as you don't use the 105mm part. 28mm is not too bad. It's not quite as sharp as a good prime lens but it's just me who can see the difference.

I bought my first 28-105mm copy off fleabuy in rough condition, with a small front scratch and rough/dry zoom and focus action. Still, it's sharp and focuses quickly and accurately. I then bought another copy (in mint condition) to replace my first beat up one, but I found it softer and not as quick or accurate in focusing. I sold it and kept the really worn first copy, which I still use with my D700, etc. Seems like there is a bit of sample variation, expected for a kit lens.

 

[Brooklynguy]

I've read this a lot. I don't doubt you. But I really like mine. ...
Maybe I'm not as demanding as some. Maybe I have a decent version of it. I don't know.

I like my 35mm AFD copy too. Good enough center sharpness wide open. Many mention soft corners wide open, but I shoot mostly people/street/reportage style so edge sharpness is not a priority. I guess it depends on one's style and needs.

Every time I consider jumping to the newest f/1.4 or f/1.8 version, I note the increased size, weight and costs, and the improved corner image quality (real but marginal for me) and step away from the ledge.

 

[fergus]

I've had great results with my 300/4.5. Very useful both in photography and photomacrography as a tube lens with a microscope (infinity) objective in front of it.

The only time I've seen colour fringing was with a 2x converter and even then only with subjects against a distant/clear background (e.g. blue sky).