DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

I took these pics this morning with my D3100 using the kit lens 55-300. I can't get a really sharp picture with this lens, but I can get really sharp images with my prime lenses (28,50,105,500) on the same camera.

I realise that this lens is only an 'el cheapo'. I'm thinking of tossing it & buying a better (read more expensive) lense of roughly the same size, or maybe even bigger. My main interest is outdoors/nature/wildlife.

As an aside, I set a 'target' up at about 30 yds & shot at various zooms from 55 through to 300. I blew them all up to 150% & found a large variation in sharpness. Most were mediocre but 200 was a stand out-sharp as a tack.

What say ye? By the way, this lens is not much chop on my D7000 either.

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

"Kit Lens" might be a giveaway

I know that my 70-300 VR would seem sharp if you had never seen my 80-200 2.8 in action. Primes are even better of course

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Did you use A-F, manual eyepiece focus, or enlarged LCD manual focus (most accurate for comparing)?

picpiper Loc: California

As you confirmed through your experiments, zoom lenses are never going yield the same focus crispness as fixed lenses through the entire zoom range. The physics of optical lenses means all zoom lenses have a "sweet spot" where the focus is as good as it is going to get. In the 55-300 it is 200. Below or above that it is all compromise - the price you have to pay for the zooming is less sharpness outside of the sweet spot. You can put more money out for better glass and more corrective lenses inside the zoom, but they are all compromises.

You either carry around a half a dozen fixed lenses to maximize focus perfection or one or two zooms to get "good enough" perfection. :lol:

BTW - I think your pics are very good. (But I'm probably biased because I'm using the 55-300 too on my D5100. I find that just a touch of sharpening really helps when you're outside the sweet spot.)

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

The attached pics were all full auto. The 'back yard' test was all manual focus. My eyes are good & I normally take sharp pics-just seems to be this one lens. When I did the tests, I also used the primes on manual, just for comparison, & they were all sharp.

My other kit lens, 18-55 is not a world beater, but it's not too bad. I believe my 55-300 might be a dud.

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

I use my 70-300 kit lens with a D5100 only occasionally because of just that....anything past 250 or so is just not very sharp at all. Maybe use one of those lens bands to lock it down and go from there.

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

Thanks everybody. Maybe I can set it at its sweet spot (200),wrap it in duct tape & call it a 'prime'. Seriously though, it just reaffirms my need for better quality stuff. Apart from the two extremities of the focal length spectrum, it's almost impossible to buy primes these days.

I have ebayed & googled these Sigmas. Prices are in Aussie dollars. 150-500 f5-6.3 $850, 18-250 f3.5-6.3 $510, 120-400 f4.5-5.6 $835. If the 18-350 is any good, it sounds like a step up from my kit lens. I know Sigma is not the only lens. I just haven't checked any other brand out yet.

I have 5 primes which are all sharp. Basically I want to replace the kit lenses with something better. Advice please?

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

*deleteD*

washy Loc: Dorset UK

I have a Sigma 150-500 which for the money does give great shots, it is a bit heavy for a whole days hand held which it will do with its IS performance, i use a mono pod which makes life easier. Why not hire one for a day and try it. I can also suggest for wide angle the 10mm -200 mm Sigma that is tack sharp. I am not yet convinced about the 70-300 mm Sigma, I have one but still not sure wether it is good enough or not. Cannot help with your others.

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

Thanks Washy. I have a 500 prime,so a 150-500 might be a bit of an over kill. Just read a couple of reviews on a Nikon 18-300 & was very impressed. The sample pics were really sharp throughout most of the range. It's around a grand but it would cover the total range of both my kit lenses (18-55 & 55-300). I'll check out the little 10-200, too.

I might be too fussy but I am disappointed in the two kit lenses. It's not the camera because my 5 primes are all sharp in the same camera.

darren_searle Loc: Brisbane Australia

Nice pic of the Westward II, I grew up in Maclean and spent 8 yrs in the fishing industry on the Clarence...

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

Hi Darren. I didn't know she was called that. That place (opposite the servo) is my favourite fishing spot.

darren_searle Loc: Brisbane Australia

Was owned by Daddles Ford always had half the Magpies league team on board...

Crwiwy Loc: Devon UK

Reading many of these posts I can't help but wonder 'Could there be some snob value against 'Kit' lens?' After all - if you have a few thousand dollars spare pocket money then you may want to purchase the best lens you can and bask in the glory of having 'the best'. However, if you haven't got that sort of spare cash, or it means not taking the family on holiday, or getting deeply into debt - then it doesn't appear such a good idea and you have to ask yourself whether it is really worth it?

As has been mentioned several times by others - you shouldn't compare the sharpness of a zoom lens with a prime as the zoom has to be designed with compromises while the prime is designed to be optimum for that focal length. You must also consider that many superb shots have been taken with a zoom lens which would probably have been missed if the camera only had a prime lens on at that time and there was no time to change it.

Here is the summary from a review from Photo.net about a Canon 'Kit' lens;

'To me it seems like buying the Digital Rebel Kit which includes the 18-55 for $999 (vs. Body only at $899) seems like a no brainer. It's a great "walking around" lens with the same angular coverage as a 28-90 lens on a film camera. It's small, it's light, it's cheap and as long as you know it's limits, its a good performer. Of course there might be times when a 20-35 or a 50 or a 28-105 would yield a technically better image, but lenses are only useful if you carry them with you. A lightweight 18-55 on the camera is better than a bag full of larger, heavier "L" lenses left back in the car or at home!'

Flash Falasca Loc: Beverly Hills, Florida

you have a d3100 and a 500 PRIME LENS ?