I bought a 18-140 DX lens so I could give my 18-105 along with an old D80 to my son-in-law to learn photography.
The 18-140 was $600 (not cheap by my standards) and came WITHOUT a lens hood or a lens pouch. Now this was not a big deal to me as I had extras in my "parts bin"--but it seems VERY CHEAP for Nikon not to include these.
I do not recall ever buying a Nikon lens that did not have these items included.
At least the camera mount is metal instead of plastic!
My AFS 18-55mm VR kit lens came with a hood. However it was not mentioned as being included on the D3200/18-55mm kit box even though the front and the cheap clear rear lens caps were listed. I bought the kit in May 2012 from Best Buy. It has a NikonUSA warranty card.
>I don't think I've ever seen a kit 18-xx lens that came with >hood or pouch. The 16-85, however, does. > >As a note of interest, the 18-55 doesn't even come with an >LF-1/LF-4 rear cap, coming instead with a cheap translucent >plastic piece to protect it during shipping.
Most 18-55 mm lens come as a Kit with the camera. The come with the D3000, 3100, 3200 and other. Usual the Whole kit comes with Camera and Lens in a Box along with a the camera strap. And the clear Plastic rear cap strictly for shipping purposes only.
Supposedly they assume when you swap lens, that you put the cap from the one substituting for the 18-55, on the 18-55. My 3000 (which I have since sold), and both my 3200's - Don't ask why I have two. Came with a a cheap clear rear lens protector.
I have to agree. It's pretty cheap to make you pay separatly for a $11.50 lens on a $600 lens and how much could those lens pouches cost. BTW I did get a lens hood and pouch with my 18-135mm and 55-200mm VR. Both cost much less than $600 at the time.
Try replacing the hood on a 400/f2.8 AFS... it must be made of unobtainium or something. $490! Yes it's an expensive lens, and yes the hood is physically larger than most, but c'mon. They're just charging $490 because they can.
On the 18-140, I can imagine why they don't include hoods and pouches. Very few people, in my experience, use those pouches. All of the ones I know of are sitting in closets. It's frankly a waste of effort. The only ones I use are the tiny ones that come with TCs and the 10.5 fisheye. Now arguably the problem isn't that they aren't used, but perhaps because they're not very useful - rather than removing them arguably they should make better ones.
The hoods I can imagine too. I'm totally blown away at how many hoods I see reversed on lenses while they're being used. And not just on 18-55 non-VRs. I see this on 70-200/f2.8's, 24-70/f2.8's, even 85/f1.4's. People who should know better. Lots and LOTS of the 18-xx's have their hoods reversed, seemingly permanently. Those hoods are pretty good, and I don't think that it's a similar situation to the pouches. I can easily imagine why Nikon may have decided not to bother with the hoods on the 18-140. Especially if they can charge ridiculous margins for the ones that will get used.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
I like the pouches, as I think they are useful for keeping dust off the lenses when stored (My equipment cabinet isn't sealed). If I happen to have a situation when I am transporting the lines in a way that doesn't have some protection, they, at least, will preventing scratching when 2 lenses are together.
The pouch or the case also come in handy when loaning the lens to a friend.
It's nice to hear of another lens with a hood in the rarefied air of the Sigmonster. The hood (metal with a thumbscrew) is $530. Since the size is about that of a coffee can, I think I know what I might try if I ever need a replacement.
I guess the value of hoods is demonstrated by the persistent question: "Should I use the lens hood?" Of course the answer is: "No, Nikon just includes one so they can charge you more."
I agree that Nikon has cheapen out a bit. I purchased the D7100 kit with the 18-140mm lens and didn’t receive the lens pouch or hood in the kit, and did feel cheated a little bit. Bought separately they cost an additional $32 though I’m sure there are aftermarket ones that would be a little less expensive. All the other Nikon lenses and camera kits that we’ve purchase have included both the lens pouch and hood. These very simple accessories cannot cost Nikon very much to produce especially since the recommended hood is used on at least two of their other lenses and I’m guessing the right size pouch is already being made too. As Nikon must be watching every penny, nickel, or dime, I’d guess we'll see this happening on any or all of the consumer grade lenses.
Every lens I bought came at least with a lens pouch and a hood except for some of the AF-D's. However, I always purchase the case from Lowepro or Pearstone. I do not think that Nikon is getting cheap, though. We just had a price increase without calling it so. It is like the food we buy. They sell us less quantity for the "same" price.
One thing I really like about Sigma is that every lens I got from them came with a very nice lens case. The 24 1.4G, a $2,000 lens, came with a pouch and not a case. However, after spending that kind of money for a lens, $20 or so dollars for a case is insignificant. It is like buying a Ferrari and complaining it did nome with a tool kit. However, I agree that all lenses should come with at least a hood and a pouch.
Nikonians is our Safe Port and Home in the World Wide Web - Participate as a Full Family Member.
Leica Q - Fujifilm X-T2 (~ October) - Nikon D5500 (IR) - Nikon D750 Member since 2007 - Previous User Name: Ramesses (2035 posts) A combined total of 2735+ posts and counting. "Photography is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gonna get." Forrest Gump - The Photo Reviewer.
While it makes no sense to Us, in reality the vast majority that buy kit lenses like the 18-140mm and the 18-55mm will never use a lens hood even if it was provided. Since most buyers never add a second lens to their kit, even if a lens pouch or case was provided it would never get used. Even though the additional cost for including the accessories is relatively small, when you multiply the additional cost by the number of units it adds up to serious money. In addition keeping the kit price as low as possible maximizes potential sales and profits. So every penny counts.
Sat 30-Nov-13 10:35 AM | edited Sat 30-Nov-13 10:35 AM by briantilley
>Is it even possible to make a 18-140mm hood that works?
Hoods for zoom lenses - particularly for those with greater focal length range - are going to be a compromise, as they have to be usable at the wide end without causing vignetting. They will still be better than no hood, though
Some lenses, like the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor, get around this by having the hood attach to the outer, fixed, part of the lens barrel and an inner barrel which extends inside the hood when zooming towards 24mm.
>Is it even possible to make a 18-140mm hood that works? > >Wide enough at 18mm is going to be too wide at virtually all >other focal lengths. No? > >I guess one of those flexible hoods that can be extended?
My 18-135mm came with a hood and pouch. I've always used the lens hood as it helps to protect the front element of lens. I think the protection hood provides is important to me.
Sun 01-Dec-13 01:54 PM | edited Mon 02-Dec-13 11:44 PM by pjonesCET
No definitely not while shooting. I always turn them around when shooting. Though I took a shot a week or so ago The hood made no difference and I got a bad case of flare with my 10-24 lens. The shot is acceptable for the purpose I was using it for but could have been a lot better.