camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In the first place, these are only test images of a recently bought used lens so nothing extraordinary here. The images were shot around my backyard or at a near by public park. It is not my intention to dispute what many reviewers have said about this lens. I can only speak of my experience on the first couple of times that I have used it. As I keep on using the lens perhaps I will discover all of the bad attitudes that have been said about it but in the more than 20 images I have shot so far using different focal lengths and apertures my first impressions are very satisfactory.

I know that many of you own or have used this lens. I have no way to tell how you feel about it but I was kind of skeptical before I bought it reasoning that if I did not like it I could sell it right away. My initial images are very pleasant to my eyes and some of what has been said about the lens I have not been able to notice or reproduce.

This is the VR I lens, not the new one with VR II. The new lens has a switch for creeping. My copy has no creeping. Chromatic aberrations and flare are supposed to be bad with my lens. So far I have not seen that. At 135mm at any aperture the copy I have is supposed to be horrific in resolution. I did not experience that either even wide open. 200mm is supposed to yield very soft images, not my copy. Distortions at 18mm are called hard to correct but my lens should be a very good copy because or they are corrected in camera or it is very easily done with software and I am no expert when it comes to correcting perspective. The corners are supposed to be very soft but in these images that does not seem to bother me. Optically the general consensus is that both lens are identical.

In short, I cannot speak for others except on my own behalf and to my eyes the lens performs very nicely for an all purpose lens and all zooms with such a range of focal lengths are going to have compromises. If you are interested in a lens such as this I recommend that you rent one before buying it. Put it through its paces and then you can make a final decision.

The first image shot at 18mm at f18. According to all laws of optics at this opening softening must be evident due to refraction. I did not correct perspective.
The second image was shot to show flare and chromatic aberrations. If my old eyes do not betray me I see none.
The third image was shot at 200mm wide open. The lens is supposed to be very soft at 200mm but the original is superb in quality.
The fourth image was shot wide open at 135mm. It is said to be the worst setting for this lens. The original looks great.
The last image was shot at 70mm wide open.

I used RAW and JPEG files for these images in the sRGB color space at ISO 200 or 400. All images edited in Capture NX2 (RAW images only) and Photoshop using basic levels, contrast, color correction and mild sharpening.
I used my D7000 and it is said that the higher the pixel count of the camera the worse the results. I am not a pixel peeper but for a general all purpose lens such as this I am very satisfied with the results.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

JPL

They all look good to me also. Maybe your photographic skills are better than those of some of the critics to this lens.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Looks like a great lens

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

Looks to be a very good lens to me William.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Always look at the Internet reviews of lenses with a grain of salt. I never go beyond 13x19 with my enlargements and I guarantee this lens should do very well from my experience using other files.
JPL I am no better than those reviewers, among them Tom Hogan but I look at the original images at 50% crop and examine the center and corners of the image and if I like what I see I am satisfied.
It is as I said an all purpose lens and as such it has compromises but I am very happy with it and fits my needs to perfection and to me that is what really matters.

Geegee Loc: Peterborough, Ont.

I have had the VR II version of this lens for four years and I have similar results. It is a great walk-about lens. What I also like is that I don't have to lug around and change lenses as often.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Nice captures!
I have the newer VR ll, which I love. It is on my D7200 all the time. If I need a longer telephoto, that is on my D7000.
No need to change lenses.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I loved my VR 1 and when I gave it to my son, I got the newer version - which I also loved. It's not perfect, but it does provide, as your images show, really good sharpness, and with the lens profiles in DXO, ACR/LR, or PT/Lens - you can easily deal with most of what is bad with this lens - CA, Coma, LoCa, Complex distortion, vignetting. As is the case with most tele zooms, it is weakest at it's maximum zoom, but it is not bad. It is quite excellent from 18mm to around 120mm, though.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

First-class images all! Bravo!

Bill_de Loc: US

I have a couple of lenses, including the one the OP is referring to, that I thought were great until I read the reviews in the photo magazines. Then I found out that they were crap.

I did solve the problem by getting rid of them. Not the lenses. I got rid of the magazines.

--

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Interesting comments from you all.
About 4 years ago, when I bought my first mirrorless camera, an Olympus EPL-1, I felt the need of buying a prime wide angle. I gave the Zuiko 17mm f2.8 a long look and began to do some research in the Internet just to have an idea of the quality. I did not read a single review that was favorable to this lens. I hesitated buying the lens.
Several weeks later I find a gentleman selling the lens and to my surprise he sent the lens to me and asked me to try it and in case I was happy with it he wanted $80 for it. The lens was brand new. I did try the lens and I thought it was a good investment. Today it is one of my favorite mirrorless lenses.
Bill you brought me a big laugh! I wish I knew how reviewers look at the lenses they test. Do you remember the first Nikon 24-120? An awfully bad lens, right? It was almost impossible to find someone pleased by the photographs made with that lens. I found it excellent in quality and even made good money with it shooting weddings.
I recommend anyone as I already said looking to buy a lens with a dubious reputation to rent it and test it. It is the only way to know if indeed the lens performs to one's satisfaction.
Ralph thank you for you comments on my mundane photography.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

Me TOO! (The magazines)

Duane

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Today there seems to be an obsession with sharpness and we see often in the forums questions like which one is sharper lens A or lens B?
Modern technologies are available to all lens manufacturers. A cheaper lens perhaps does not have the tolerances of a professional one but I have not seen a lens that did not perform to perfection when the operator did its part. Good technique is good technique, regardless of the lens being used.
If you are going to shoot to enlarge to mural sizes this is not the lens for you. Just keep in mind that it is an all purpose lens and that its zoom range is possible due to optical compromises. Those compromises are very acceptable to me and the lens is very usable and capable of very good results.
If you need a professional zoom this is not the lens for you.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

Very good images. I do not own that lens, but my son-in-law does and it is the only one he uses on his D40. In my opinion that is the most versatile lens that Nikon manufactures, and every Nikonian that uses crop sensor bodies should own one.