Nikon 18-55 VR

[rootrider]

This I did not expect...
Nikkor updates 18-55 kit lens with VR: Digital Photography Review

Thom says: "There's been a slight change in the optical formula, so we'll have to wait to test it to see if it's as good as the first two versions of that lens. Note that the new version of the lens is a little bigger, 2.5 ounces heavier, and uses a different lens hood than the previous versions." Cost is $199.. and this will be our new low-end kit lens it seems. Available next month..



with two VR lenses under $200... it's nice to see Nikon pushing things on both the consumer and pro end right now. Now if we could just see a VR II lens in the 17-55 2.8 or so market, I'd be happy. I know most people don't need it, but shooting from a moving car makes VR a nice thing to have. Who knows.. I might just buy the new 18-55 for a cheap VR solution.

[rootrider]

just noticed... it seems the ED element is gone from this new VR lens? This worries me a bit

[cyclohexane]

The 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D Nikkor had no ED elements and has as much color aberrations as the 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR, which means it doesn't have any. Even though the lens doesn't say "ED" on it, it might not be a problem.

[Tom Swaman]

There seems to be a misconception among camera fanatics that more is better than less and good lenses must have zillions of coats of coatings, multiple fluorite elements, ultra super very low dispersion glass and millions of lens elements. This is almost exactly diametrically opposed to the truth.

In fact, the fewer the number of coats of coatinge the better.

In fact, the fewer the number of fluorite elements the better.

In fact, the fewer the number of lens elements, the better.

Finally, why use low dispersion glass if this is not required?

Some of the very best telephoto lenses ever made had two elements. No, this will normally not work with wide angle lenses due to the physical limitations of glass transmission and diffraction.

All of this more stuff just makes lenses harder to mount, harder to maintain, heavier, optically asymmetric in performanceon with respect to focal plane diameter, often more sensitive to flare, more critical with respect to manufacturing tolerances, and of course, more costly.

I prefer the KISS Principle,
Tom

[rootrider]

are you off your soapbox now?

It just seemed odd that the 18-55 would go from having an ED element to losing it then VR was added. I completely understand that an ED element isn't needed but one would think that removing one from an already low-quality and cheap lens wouldn't make it better, if you catch my drift.

I'm mostly interested in this lens for one reason.. it's a cheap normal zoom that has had acceptable optics so far.. and the addition of VR will give me the ability to shoot from a boat or a car at slower shutter speeds where smaller apertures are usually okay. So if I bought the lens I'd only use it for that reason.

I don't understand why people praise VR/IS/OS/whatever lenses with smaller maximum apertures myself, unless they're super cheap like the new 18-55 and the recent 55-200. Otherwise I'd much rather have an f/2.8 lens.. the shutter speed will be much the same as a typical f/3.5 - 5.6 consumer VR zoom. Granted you lose the larger DOF that VR affords you but you gain optical quality and overall flexibility. To me.. VR is something I'd rather have on top of an f/2.8 lens than a lens with smaller maximum apertures.

Maybe I'm really weird, but I just don't see the point of using VR in same way that it seems everyone else uses it.

[luisv001]

Not all lens designs need ED glass. In many cases the inherent design will resolve the CA problem.

Best thing is to see the reviews and some good lens tests.

[cyclohexane]

I don't understand why people praise VR/IS/OS/whatever lenses with smaller maximum apertures myself, unless they're super cheap like the new 18-55 and the recent 55-200

Size and weight.

The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR fits in the pockets of some of my coats and jackets, while the 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR and 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR are significantly larger. If I was traveling, I'd rather carry smaller lenses- especially if photography wasn't the primary purpose.

Of course, if you need f/2.8 and the associated shutter speed gains (or narrower DOF) then you'll still want the bigger guns. But VR without f/2.8 does have its appeal to some.

FYI, I use the 70-200 and 300 over the 70-300.

[MagicNikon]

I was shocked at how sharp the 55-200mm VR was, wide open. This new lens sounds like it will pair nicely for a very affordable quality duo. OTOH The build quality was awful and the AF was slooooooooow.