Best Nikon Lenses

gramps

gramps

Messages
45,355
Name
'Gramps'
Edit My Images
No
My favourite lens is the 70-200 VRll which has a brilliant IQ, followed by the 24-70 - other than the long primes, what other Nikon lenses have the IQ to match these two?
 
14-24 (the third of the Holy Trinity)
16-35 VR (newer, and in many ways better version of above)
 
specialman said:
17-55 is great - make a great partner with my 70-200.

10.5mm is razor too :)
Click to expand...

I got the 17-55 too and its brilliant. The only downside is the VR :( In a lower light I have to be very steady to get the best sharpness.
BTW..Any idea when is Nikon going to replace them?
My other lens is the tokina 11-16 f2.8. Coupled with d7k. I cant wait to get my 70-200 vr2 ;)
 
105 F2 DC - stunning lens, with incredible resolution, even wide open. It does take a bit of getting used to, and you do need to fine tune it to YOUR camera body, but once dialled in, it is a killer.

For the wide zoom, I still use my 17-35 that I bought when the F5 was a new release! It has ot be 15 years old and still produces stunning pictures on my D3, to an extent that I would not swap the compact and light nature of it for the new 16-35, I was tempted until I saw the new lens and that was the end of that, I never even put it onmy bayonet - it is just twice as bulky and that was the decision made. The 17-35 is so neat, it doesn't get left out. The 16-35 is as big as the 24-70, so didn't even make it into the bag in the first place. I have no doubt it produces the goods, but in the real world of out there, it is hideously bulky. The same goes for the 14-24 - they can keep that one as well!

I have looked at getting a 35 f1.4, but while I have the money burning a hole in my wallet, it too is just too bg, and I already have a 35mm within the confines of the 24-70, so carrying another, even with its faster aperture, hasn't swung me over - not yet. It might, but I would rather spend the money on going on a trip!
 
pinco000 said:
I got the 17-55 too and its brilliant. The only downside is the VR :( In a lower light I have to be very steady to get the best sharpness.
BTW..Any idea when is Nikon going to replace them?
My other lens is the tokina 11-16 f2.8. Coupled with d7k. I cant wait to get my 70-200 vr2 ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not massively bothered about VR on short(er) lenses but I suppose in some circumstances it'll help, although with mega-high ISOs on most DSLRs these days I don't suppose the lack of VR poses too many problems for some...

I have the Mk1 70-200 and it's amazing; the 80-200mm AF-D was optically as good but I just love the AF and the VR on the 70-200.

Lensflare - oh yeah, the DC is one I like the look of. And the 17-35.... amazing. Borrowed one off a mate once and didn't want to give it back... :)
 
Last edited:
I wasn't particularly impressed with the 17-55 or the 24-70 I owned briefly, but my 80-200 is wonderful of all the zooms I've owned.

My favourite lens, however, is my cheapest prime - the 35mm f/1.8G. It's just amazing for the money.
 
Dean is the only person I've ever heard of that couldn't be satisfied with any Nikon lens.
 
85mm f1.4g, 200mm f2, 500mm f4 all have stonking image quality
 
awp said:
Dean is the only person I've ever heard of that couldn't be satisfied with any Nikon lens.
Click to expand...

That is frankly stupid. Did you read my post at all?
 
50/1.8D, 17-55/2.8, 85/1.8D, 85/1.4D, 105/2.8, 180/2.8 ... none of these have ever disappointed me with regard to their IQ or the way they render an image.

The 17-55 has to be one of the quickest focusing lenses I have, shame it is a DX, still it lives on my D300.

The 180/2.8 whilst an old lens, and not the sharpest wide open, renders a lovely image.
 
Using the 17-55/f2,8 and 35/f1.8 here on a D7000. Can't fault either. The new 50/f1,8 will probably join them in my camera bag shortly.
 
The23rdman said:
That is frankly stupid. Did you read my post at all?
Click to expand...

I've read lots of your posts where you complain about one Nikon lens after another.
 
awp said:
I've read lots of your posts where you complain about one Nikon lens after another.
Click to expand...

But not the above post, apparently.
 
guys , i know this is not probably a post that belongs here, but do u have any idea when will nikon update the 17-55 f2.8? WE WANT VR like Canon does and some Nano coating : P
 
The23rdman said:
I wasn't particularly impressed with the 17-55 or the 24-70 I owned briefly, but my 80-200 is wonderful of all the zooms I've owned.

My favourite lens, however, is my cheapest prime - the 35mm f/1.8G. It's just amazing for the money.
Click to expand...

Did you buy a 17-55mm in the end then???

I've used most Nikon lenses up to 200mm and owned alot of them at one time or another, the 17-55mm is an awesome lens, the focus speed is it's best asset in my opinion.

I really don't understand why you're struggling with the Nikon line up mate, it's not a knock in any way shape or form...but they're every bit as good as L glass from Canon, if not better on some examples.

I'll second your fondness for the 35mm 1.8, brilliant little lens, blew me away when I bought it, it has no right to be that good!
 
Mahoneyd187 said:
Did you buy a 17-55mm in the end then???

I've used most Nikon lenses up to 200mm and owned alot of them at one time or another, the 17-55mm is an awesome lens, the focus speed is it's best asset in my opinion.

I really don't understand why you're struggling with the Nikon line up mate, it's not a knock in any way shape or form...but they're every bit as good as L glass from Canon, if not better on some examples.

I'll second your fondness for the 35mm 1.8, brilliant little lens, blew me away when I bought it, it has no right to be that good!
Click to expand...

I'm not struggling anymore cos I've stopped buying midrange zooms. It was that range I was never happy with so have invested in primes instead. I may still try a 17-55, but I just think they're overpriced for the performance compared to a couple of primes.

I do, as stated, love my 80-200 though. :)
 
I only own the 18-55 kit zoom and the 35mm f1.8. Haven't used the kit zoom since buying the 35mm.
 
I love my 80-200mm also, and my 50mm f1.8D always delights. My best lens is the 300mm AF-S. This focuses down to less than 5 ft, and is an effective 450mm on the D7000. Great macro lens.

My disappointments are the 24mm f2.8 and the 35mm f2. Bought these when I thought primes were bound to be better than zooms (not always true). Ah well, yah lives and learns.

All the best.
 
35/1.8 - amazing value will soon get another.
50/1.8 - once again unbeatable value and miles better than the canon equivalent.
70-300vr - great on both full frame and croppers and good value.

On my wish list are lenses I've tried and would love to own,
16-35 when I go full frame.
85/1.4 tried it and loved the results
 
Lensflare said:
105 F2 DC - stunning lens, with incredible resolution, even wide open. It does take a bit of getting used to, and you do need to fine tune it to YOUR camera body, but once dialled in, it is a killer.
Click to expand...

This is something that I'm hearing time and time again and is putting me off buying it, although I really do want it..... I only have two zooms and although I think the 24-70 is possibly the best all rounder I've ever used and as sharp as anything else out there, I do prefer the 80-200. Having said that, I'm considering swapping the 80-200 for the 135 :thinking:

Anyway, my new 35 1.4 is now giving my 85 1.4 D a run for the title of best lens.

Have I answered the question??
 
Thinking of buying the 50mm 1.8D to compliment the D90 i am buying. Some say the 35mm is better others say the bokeh on the 35mm is not as good as the 50mm.
 
cam1986 said:
Thinking of buying the 50mm 1.8D to compliment the D90 i am buying. Some say the 35mm is better others say the bokeh on the 35mm is not as good as the 50mm.
Click to expand...

There is very little in the bokeh to sway the argument either way.

The only major difference between them is the focal length.

Buy the 35mm if you take a lot of indoor portrait and 50mm if mostly outdoor.

The 35mm is the better lens, build quality and metal mount etc and a bargain for the price but value for money the 50mm is very very good.
 
dan_yorkshire said:
There is very little in the bokeh to sway the argument either way.

The only major difference between them is the focal length.

Buy the 35mm if you take a lot of indoor portrait and 50mm if mostly outdoor.

The 35mm is the better lens, build quality and metal mount etc and a bargain for the price but value for money the 50mm is very very good.
Click to expand...

Spot on about the focal length.

However the 50/1.8D is a fairly robust lens, which also has a metal mount, build and optical quality is similar, both are good value, the only thing that would edge my decision either way would be which focal length I needed.
 
17-55 F2.8.....excellent lens
35mm F2 (old manual focus jobby) optically superb
50mm F1.4 (old manual focus jobby) optically superb
50mm F1.8, dunno why I bought it, never use it,but cheap enough.
85 F1.8, superb on FX and DX
70-200 VR2 nothing needs saying about the quality of this lens
28-70 F2.8..........Not too sure on this one yet, 17-55 is sharper. Need it for DX low light no flash situations at times.
35-70 F2.8 cracking little mid range zoom.
180 F2.8. Sharp, sharper than a sharp thing
300 F4, The best Nikon lens I own.

Looking at that lot, i need to sell some stuff..........:thinking:
 
All depends on what you shoot, doesn't it? You can't use 14-24mm to shoot bird in flight, and you can't use 400mm f2.8 to shoot interior of a stately home. Horses for courses. The question is far too vague. But makes for an entertaining afternoon banter :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top