Leinik Loc: Rochester NY

First let me address your last statement:
The reason for a 18-55 in plastic is that it is cheaply and in-mass-produced and 18 to 55 mm for an APS-c (27 to 78 mm in full-frame equivalent) is that it book-shelves the usual previous default lens, the 50 mm for film cameras, not that it is such a phenomenal lens.
Now it is meant as an entry-level lens (not just in terms of lenses but also camera : you'll never see a D-single digit Nikon camera sold with a 18-55 mm or equivalent, which means all it needs to be is as good or a little better than the previous lens they had (that, in fact, sets the bar).
Let us address other issues:
The Ken Rockwell review dates back to the D40 a 6 Mp camera launched in 2006.\ where he specifically mentions it is an all plastic lens which may explain why you went through 3 versions of it. Personally I I still use an all-metal 35 mm summicron that I bought used in 1985. I doubt he is using one right now.
I have used Nikons since the 1970s, the only two Nikon 18-55 mm I used was my father's and a friend's, and although it is a decent lens, especially considering its price, it never convinced me to get one for myself by comparison to the other Nikon lenses I already had. [there, for the personal experience chapter and its scope]
I have never had the impetus or need to replace any of my Nikon lens (metal-built) with any iteration of themselves. If you have gone through 3 18-55 mm lenses... there must be a reason for it. For that price you could have bought a better-built lens (more metallic structure and wider max. aperture) which you would have had no need to replace. [and two Canon 18-55 mm you must be a masochist [joke].
I have seen scores of these lenses through my workshops and have never been astounded by their performances and results compared to others brand lenses.
Bottom line it is an affordable lens with decent optics meant for beginners and not real regular use: plastic-built which means it is not going to last (and not meant to, just think in terms of the alignment of the lenses through intensive use or travel (vibrations)).

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

Note that when I purchased my first DSLR in 2007, a Sony A100, it came with two kit lens, an 18-70mm and a 75-300mm. While both of them were what people call 'plastic lens', their performance, in terms of the image quality was excellent. I supplemented them with a Tamron 10-24mm wide-angle lens, albeit, another 'plastic lens' but again, excellent performance.

Now when I bought my first mirrorless camera in 2013, I started with a Sony NEX-3, ostensibly for my wife, that came with a 16-50mm kit lens, but unlike the previous kit lens that came with the DSLR, this is a 'metal lens', very durable and smooth, and optically quite fine. When I finally decided to go fully mirrorless myself, I opted for a Sony a6000 in 2016, which came with two kit lens, another 16-50mm and a 55-210mm, another 'metal lens'. I soon added a Sony 10-18mm wide-angle, again mostly 'metal'.

My last upgrade, in 2020, was to a Sony a6500, which I purchased on Ebay and which came with an 18-135mm lens. Now this is a 'plastic lens' but I find that it makes for a very good standard lens and except when I need to use a wide-angle or a long telephoto, like my old T-mount 400mm f:6.3 Tele-Astranar, it's now my go-to lens 100% of the time.

Note that I also have a 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Artisans lens which is now part of my macro-kit, build around the old Sony a6000 body. Now this is an all metal lens, which for it's size, is the heaviest lens that I have. Now I've not used it all that much, but it appears to be very well built, smooth focusing and with very sharp optics.

A comment about that Sony 18-135mm lens; it appears, based on some recent Sony adverts for their new a6700 mirrorless camera, that it has become their new kit lens, replacing what were usually two lens in the past.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I have three 18-55s not because any of them failed. The first came with a D40 kit, the second (with VR) came with a D5100 kit and the third and its D50 was tossed in with some other equipment I bought. I will say the 18-55s have better optical quality than Nikon’s 18-70, a heavier, more substantial “kit” lens with far more glass used.

As for being durable, the 18-55s are a tough little lens. I’ve hauled camera equipment on a motorcycle coast to coast and Canada to Mexico over the decades. Wrapping everything separately in your clothes is the safest way to haul stuff, but it still has ways of wiggling around until it comes in contact with something hard. My old SLR dangled by the neck strap on one side because an internal screw that held the strap mount unscrewed itself. I wasn’t going to take it to a repair shop so I put up with it that way. I’ve had filters unscrew themselves from the lens, I’ve had the threaded ring that holds the front element in place unscrew itself, leaving the lens laying there by itself. Paint will wear off metal camera bodies as will the plastic outer finish on plastic lenses. I even had film cameras turn themselves on while riding in the saddle bag. And riding in a black plastic saddlebag in 110 temps in full sun probably doesn’t help. I normally don’t take my “good” lenses but instead the lightweight mostly plastic ones. That way is something bad happens, it’s not a great loss. The interesting thing is that I’ve never once had any of the cheap plastic lenses unscrew, come apart or anything. It was always the good old dependable metal lenses that did the stupid stuff.

I don’t mistreat my equipment, but my cheap lenses get used on construction jobs and are exposed to extremes of temperatures, bouncing around in heavy equipment and are used with dirty soiled hands. And not once has the D40 or its 18-55 ever failed to do what it was supposed to do. I can say that the “cheap plastic” DSLR cameras and lenses will take abuse that left the old metal SLRs needing fixing. I will admit that needing to change lenses in mini dust storms can be problematic.

I’m certainly no expert when it comes to equipment, but I suspect my camera equipment has been exposed to more severe conditions than yours has. And I’ve learned that if you want dependability when serious damage is a possibility, go for the “cheap plastic” DSLRs and lenses.

Leinik Loc: Rochester NY

Have you personally owned and used an 18-70 on top of your three 18-55 MM?? Sounds strange especially for one collecting 18-55s and being happy with them. ;o)
As for severe conditions you have strictly no idea of where I have been and what I have photographed so you are going on a total limb here. Why? Why do you need to prove anything beyond facts??
I have mostly used metal-built primes, especially when I travel.Only used zooms for hot photojournalism gigs when I did not know what space I would have and in what crowd I would be (or at sea, on a rough ocean, in deserts because of dust and sand when the wind was too strong, or doing mountaineering in the French Alps and Pyrenees) rather than carry two cameras. Situations when I did not want to have to change lenses). The only APS-C I have owned was a D200 (2 years) which I bequeathed to my son as soon as the first Nikon full-frame came out so that I could fully make use of my film lenses. I never had a single problems with any of my lenses even with the two I accidentally dropped (one of them, like you, was because of a strap problem on my F4s: it went down on the street with a 105 mm on, and that's a heavy load. The lens-shade was scratched and slightly bent but the lens was and is still ok). So if the 18-55 is fine with you stay with it, the ones I used (3 different generations) did not quite convince me compared to my other lenses and I would have had little use of them on my full-frames anyway.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

In my experience, there were at least a couple of iterations of the Nikkor 18-70mm zoom. My first one I bought new in 2006 with my first digital camera. It was awful. Loose fit, poor, totally unsharp images just generally a nightmare. The second came with an IR converted D90 that I bought used a couple of years ago. It's also clearly a low-cost lens, but is built and functions much better that the first one. Unfortunately, I don't still have that original lens to enable a side-by-side comparison to see exactly what the differences might be.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I have an 18-70 I got as part of a Craigslist buy. The 17-55 2.8 was what I was after but the 18-70 was thrown in like an orphan. Two extremes there, one heavy, good construction and good image quality and one lighter (but not as light as the 18-55), yes loose construction and definitely lower image quality.

Leinik I bet you about pooped when you dropped your rig. I know I would have. My previous “construction” cameras were Honeywell Pentax 35mm. Great prime lenses, good feel and over 15 years or less the shutter would intermittently fail on one and the other started leaking light. In 17 years of using the D40 and 18-55, nothing has ever failed or quit working, camera or lens. And I know I’ve shot far more images with the D40. Extra shots cost nothing, not so when I was shooting film.

I agree that inexpensive lenses require cutting corners and only so much cost cutting can be done before the glass quality starts getting cut. As for Nikon, the 18-55 is definitely cheaper built than the 18-70, but other than a little more reach, the cheapo wins the race for me. I’ve often wondered how the loose 18-70 would hold up in dirty conditions. Not well I suspect.

pkipnis

True enough if your 500mm f8 is a mirror lens. These optics don't have a diagram, just one focal stop rating. While Excellent in outdoor settings. They are light and compact.
My Sony branded 500mm f8 is about 90mmX118 mm And 685 g. Quite small and with a razor sharp auto focus. The downside? This lens is about $1000!!! I know Sony needs to make a profit but used Minolta or 3rd party lenses can be had for under $250. I know, before I found the killeelr deal on the Sony lens ($400), I used a Samyang manual focus 500mmf8 cat lens. Sharp and compact.

radiojohn

"Minolta MC 50mm f1.4. I have read reviews that this may be the sharpest 50mm lens ever made."

I believe it was Modern or Popular photography who said it was the sharpest lens they had ever tested. [at that time]

That was about the time when Kodak was making specially designed plastic lenses for disposable 35mm cameras that "approached" the performance of "some" 50mm lenses!

As I have often thought, some things become really good right before they become obsolete!

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

I think I still have one of those Minolta MC 50mm f1.4 lens, as well as it's 58mm f1.4 cousin.

Leinik Loc: Rochester NY

The norm at the time was 40 lp/mm now with the resolution of digital sensor it has moved to 60 lp/mm and above. Any of decent lenses designed after 2000 should outperform (and does) any of the older lenses, be it only in term of coating. Older lenses are now said to have "character" instead of optical flaws [a current word added to this new generation of photographers' vocabulary ;o) ]

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

So you’re saying that when people tell me that I have character, they really mean I’m old and obsolete? I thought it seemed too good to be true!

Leinik Loc: Rochester NY

;o)

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

Hard work spotlights the character of people:
-- some turn up their sleeves
-- some turn up their noses
-- some don't turn up at all............ (Sam Ewing)