Topic: Help Buying the Best Nikon Lens (Read 11205 times)

Snook · « **on:** February 28, 2009, 09:08:04 am »

Hello good ole forum guys..:+}
I have a really good friend that wants to buy the best Nikon glass possible.He wanted me to help him but I know Nothing about Nikon at all, As I shoot medium format and Canon.
My frirnd shoots a lot of everything but specially likes golf as he is one of the best golfers here in south america, so he is looking for a long lens.
These are the lens he is looking at.
I would appreciate any suggestions or comments PLEASE.
Here is what he is currently looking at. Price is really no problem at all for him, But agian he is a Prosumer, shooting for himself but wants the Best of the Best.
Thank you very much..
Snook
His current list.

Nikon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus

Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G AF-S ED-IF VR , price around 4,999.00 at B&H. Is that lens worth it?

Thanks again

HE needs/wants
A good spectacular wider angle lens and something on the Long end. prefferrably a zoom tele but if not a stellar 300mm and maybe extension rings?

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #1 on:** February 28, 2009, 10:10:52 am »

Quote from: Snook

Nikon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

This lens is considered to be one of the best trans-standard zooms around.

Quote from: Snook

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus

This lens is great on APS bodies, but is challenged quite a bit wide open on FX bodies. It has been rumored for quite some time to be replaced soon.

Quote from: Snook

Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G AF-S ED-IF VR , price around 4,999.00 at B&H. Is that lens worth it?

This lens is considered to be best in class whatever the brand.

As far as wide goes, the 14-24 f2.8 is also widely considered to be the best wide zoom around whatever the brand.

Cheers,
Bernard

Snook · « **Reply #2 on:** February 28, 2009, 10:36:57 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier

This lens is considered to be one of the best trans-standard zooms around.

This lens is great on APS bodies, but is challenged quite a bit wide open on FX bodies. It has been rumored for quite some time to be replaced soon.

This lens is considered to be best in class whatever the brand.

As far as wide goes, the 14-24 f2.8 is also widely considered to be the best wide lens around whatever the brand.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, Thank you very much. I respect your opinion very much.

What would you think would cover him across the board again money not really being the biggest issue.

Also is there any special fixed lens on the wider end that are recommendable?
He had ask me about a fixed lens on the wider side but fast.

Again I really appreciate any suggestions or experience with Nikon.
Thanks

Snook

Lisa Nikodym · « **Reply #3 on:** February 28, 2009, 11:06:02 am »

Bjorn Rorslett's web site has excellent reviews of many Nikon lenses. I recommend you check it out (look for the "Lenses" link in the upper left):

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Lisa

Dustbak · « **Reply #4 on:** February 28, 2009, 12:53:49 pm »

On the wider side there currently is no prime lens ( I assume you mean fixed focal length) that beats the 14-24. The soon to be released Zeiss 21mm for Nikon (ZF21) might be as good or even slightly better but has many drawbacks compared to the 14-24 (unless of course you are somewhat freakish and like MF lenses or the way the Zeiss's draw, like me).

Personally I would skip the 70-200 (I sold mine because I didn't even really like it on my APS sized body). A real diamond is also the 200/2.0, a friend of mine has one and is making me green with envy

rethmeier · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2009, 03:53:55 pm »

I've changed from Canon to Sinar and now to a Nikon D3x.
It's an awesome camera.
My lens line up:
Nikkor 14-24 zoom (awesome)
Nikkor 24 PC-e
Zeiss ZF 35/2
Nikkor 45 PC-e
Zeiss ZF 85/1.4
Nikkor 85 PC-e
Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro

One day the Nikkor 2/200

Apart from the CA with the 45 PC-e,I'm happy as Larry.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #6 on:** February 28, 2009, 07:06:51 pm »

Quote from: Snook

What would you think would cover him across the board again money not really being the biggest issue.

Also is there any special fixed lens on the wider end that are recommendable?
He had ask me about a fixed lens on the wider side but fast.

Hum... fast wide is a weakness of Nikon's current line up compared to Canon... the only AF lens that is currently close is the 35mm f2.0, but it is not very fast nor very wide. It is also an aging design that is great around f8.0, but a bit weak wide open. They still produce the - apparently excellent - 35 mm f1.4 but that is an MF lens.

There is also a 28mm f1.4 that is not produced anymore and that got pretty decent reviews. It is very expensive second hand though, it can be found pretty easily in Tokyo at around 4500 US$.

New fast primes have been rumoured for some time, but nothing has shown up so far.

Cheers,
Bernard

Dan Wells · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2009, 07:27:20 pm »

With the low noise of modern digital bodies, the 14-24 (I don't own it, but it's high on my list - I'm trying to rent one for a trip to Zion National Park in a couple of weeks) might very well be considered a fast lens - check whether he needs to go faster than f2.8. I have the 24-70, and it's a wonderful lens - no reservations at all - sharp from corner to corner.. All the big tele primes (300 f2.8 and longer) are reputed to be superb (this is true of both Nikon and Canon), while the zooms are more mixed. I have been avoiding buying a longer lens while waiting to see if Nikon updates either the 70-200 or the 80-400 (or both). I don't know if your friend has a full frame (D3, D3x, D700) or a crop (everything else) body - the 70-200 in particular is both a much better performer on a crop body and also a more meaningful telephoto (200 on a full-frame body is not all that long for many applications). I'm hoping for a revised 80-400, because its combination of length and (relatively) light weight is appealing.

-Dan

dseelig · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2009, 10:23:04 pm »

One exception I owned the 35 f1.4 nikon lens I thought it was a very mediocre lens back in the film days. David

Gemmtech · « **Reply #9 on:** March 02, 2009, 02:31:32 pm »

Quote from: Dan Wells

With the low noise of modern digital bodies, the 14-24 (I don't own it, but it's high on my list - I'm trying to rent one for a trip to Zion National Park in a couple of weeks) might very well be considered a fast lens - check whether he needs to go faster than f2.8. I have the 24-70, and it's a wonderful lens - no reservations at all - sharp from corner to corner.. All the big tele primes (300 f2.8 and longer) are reputed to be superb (this is true of both Nikon and Canon), while the zooms are more mixed. I have been avoiding buying a longer lens while waiting to see if Nikon updates either the 70-200 or the 80-400 (or both). I don't know if your friend has a full frame (D3, D3x, D700) or a crop (everything else) body - the 70-200 in particular is both a much better performer on a crop body and also a more meaningful telephoto (200 on a full-frame body is not all that long for many applications). I'm hoping for a revised 80-400, because its combination of length and (relatively) light weight is appealing.

-Dan

I have to say that ever since the DPReview of the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 I have been reading more and more statements like this, it's great on a DX but not so good on the FX; I own both and can tell you that it works equally great on both, it is an extremely sharp lens and you wont have any regrets. I use both a D300 and D700 with a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and am adding the 200-400. How well do these lenses perform on a D3X? I don't know, I haven't used one yet. I'll post some images from my D300 & D700 and you can judge for yourself, but I can tell it it's a fantastic lens, actually all three of them are.

nikf · « **Reply #10 on:** March 02, 2009, 06:17:25 pm »

Quote from: Gemmtech

I have to say that ever since the DPReview of the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 I have been reading more and more statements like this, it's great on a DX but not so good on the FX; I own both and can tell you that it works equally great on both, it is an extremely sharp lens and you wont have any regrets. I use both a D300 and D700 with a 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and am adding the 200-400. How well do these lenses perform on a D3X? I don't know, I haven't used one yet. I'll post some images from my D300 & D700 and you can judge for yourself, but I can tell it it's a fantastic lens, actually all three of them are.

I have encountered the unsharp corners, the distortions and the stark vignetting, years before the DPreview test, on the Kodak SLRn. For certain work it's simply horrible. The VR70-200 is a de facto DX lens, just try it on a FX body. I have D3, D2x, D90 and got the 70-200 when it was released. For safety I compared it to another brand new 70-200 from some time ago: same problems. The lens is great on DX format Nikons - it's one of my standard lenses with these cameras but a no-no on the D3.
So we have two contradicting opinions about the VR70-200 here. Maybe it has to do with the subjects and print sizes. If you do a lot of portrait work with the VR70-200 you may get away with it's problems in a blurred background? I do conceptional art photography and print quite large and cannot stand lens problems like the mentioned ones from the 70-200.

Graham Welland · « **Reply #11 on:** March 02, 2009, 07:42:00 pm »

Quote from: nikf

The lens is great on DX format Nikons - it's one of my standard lenses with these cameras but a no-no on the D3.

I think that's going a bit far. Sure it has it's challenges with FX (I shoot with it on D700/D3X, D2X & D3 before that) but it really depends on what you are shooting and whether the same level of razor sharpness this lens renders over the vast majority of the image area is expected and necessary in the extreme corners. I don't run into the vignette issue but that's probably because I'll often be adding it in post-production anyway, plus NX takes care of it for me.

Things get trickier with the D3X. I've gone back to T/S & manual focus primes.

Gemmtech · « **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2009, 08:26:26 pm »

Is it possible that you quite simply got a bad lens? I shoot a lot of everything, from architecture, portrait, sports, wildlife, landscapes from airplanes etc. and I have to say that I just have fantastic results with both the D300 and the D700; though I will admit that it mainly stays on my D300 because of the extra length. I'm actually going to be doing some testing within the next 2 weeks shooting identical subjects with both cameras just to see, but I haven't experienced what I've read at some websites.

Go to this review http://bayimages.net/tech/reviews/nikon-70-200.html and look at how soft the corners are and his what I consider a major vignetting problem 200mm F2.8, even after NX correction it's still there, though to a much lesser degree. When I first read the DPReview I damn near didn't buy this lens and then I read some more and decided BHPhoto has a good return policy so I took the leap. I immediately started shooting every sky that I good from 70mm-200mm F2.8 and up and just didn't have these types of problems. I'll agree the corners aren't 100% perfect, but I don't usually use that part of the image anyhow.

I just don't know, it would be nice to hear from a nice large sampling of people.

nikf · « **Reply #13 on:** March 02, 2009, 10:06:59 pm »

Quote from: gwelland

I think that's going a bit far. Sure it has it's challenges with FX (I shoot with it on D700/D3X, D2X & D3 before that) but it really depends on what you are shooting and whether the same level of razor sharpness this lens renders over the vast majority of the image area is expected and necessary in the extreme corners.

Sure, it depends on what you're shooting. And yes, I want sharp corners because I'm a perfectionist, try to frame accurate and crop rarely. Lenses like e.g. the VR200/2, AF-S 60mm deliver this quality, even the old AF-S 28-70 is quite good on the D3.

nikf · « **Reply #14 on:** March 02, 2009, 10:11:46 pm »

Quote from: Gemmtech

Is it possible that you quite simply got a bad lens?

As I mentioned ... I compared my 70-200 lens to another, brand new lens ... I found this one even a bit more worse. I'm not bashing this lens, I shot a lot with it and like it's other qualities
but I view it as a DX format zoom and enjoy it for that purpose. For me it's useless on FX format except of some snapshots maybe ...

Ray · « **Reply #15 on:** March 02, 2009, 10:25:41 pm »

In my view, it's always sensible to choose a camera system by looking first at the quality and type of available lenses that are likely to suit your purposes. There are, of course, other considerations, but I would put the quality of available lenses at the top of the list.

When I switched from Minolta to Canon several years ago, before Canon produced its first DSLR, it was the Canon lenses that were the attraction.

There was a bit of indecision between Nikon and Canon because, at that time, Nikon had already produced their first DSLR, the 3mp D1. There were just rumours that Canon were developing a DSLR, so I wasn't 100% certain that Canon was the right choice in the long term.

However, the fact that Canon already had a few good lenses with image stabilisation (the main attraction for me), and 3 tilt & shift lenses as opposed to Nikon's one shift lens with no tilt, was sufficient reason for me to choose Canon in preference to Nikon.

As I recall, Nikon had not introduced their VR system at that time (or maybe they were just beginning to).

For some photographers, and I'm one of them, image stabilisation is a great boon. Most of my photography is done outside of studio conditions and without a tripod. Getting a sufficiently fast shutter speed for the conditions is often a major difficulty. No matter how sharp a lens may be, if the shutter speed is too slow to freeze camera shake, then what's the point?

I have a D700 and 14-24 Nikkor lens. I bought the camera for the lens, not the lens for the camera. I'd like to buy another Nikkor lens to make the D700 a more flexible tool, but I can't see anything in their range that interests me, that is better than the Canon glass I already own. The next lens I buy will probably be the Canon 70-200/F4 IS. Both quality and weight are considerations for me.
The Nikkor 24-70/2.8 would be useful for me, but not as useful as the Canon 24-105 IS on the 5D. Whilst it's probably true that the Nikkor is a slightly sharper lens than the Canon 24-105, it's not necessarily sharper at 70mm and 1/50th sec, hand-held.

Gemmtech · « **Reply #16 on:** March 02, 2009, 11:40:12 pm »

Quote from: nikf

Sure, it depends on what you're shooting. And yes, I want sharp corners because I'm a perfectionist, try to frame accurate and crop rarely. Lenses like e.g. the VR200/2, AF-S 60mm deliver this quality, even the old AF-S 28-70 is quite good on the D3.

I know all about being a perfectionist, besides my father I doubt there's a person on the planet who compares with me; think "Sleeping With The Enemy"

"As I mentioned ... I compared my 70-200 lens to another, brand new lens ... I found this one even a bit more worse. I'm not bashing this lens, I shot a lot with it and like it's other qualities
but I view it as a DX format zoom and enjoy it for that purpose. For me it's useless on FX format except of some snapshots maybe ..."

Aren't you saying here that it's possible you got a bad lens? You used two 70-200 lenses and one you state is "a bit more worse" subjective statement for sure, but doesn't that mean you got at the very least one bad lens? Is it possible both were defective? When I first purchased my Canon 10D, I got a defective one and sent it back, received the 2nd and it was worse than the first, received a 3rd one and it was fine. If you are like me and use the 70-200 it mostly on the DX format then that probably means you are shooting mostly long focal lengths? Do you have any of same issues just minor in comparison? If you don't mind posting a couple shots from an FX and DX I would be interested to see. I've read that on the Antarctica trip some 25% of all Canon 5D MII died, so 25% of the people are probably complaining somewhat and the other 75% are singing the praises. If you go to the website that I posted would you say your vignetting is just as bad, better or worse? What about the soft corners? I've seen some defective 7 speed trannys in Mercedes Benz vehicles and I've seen them go 100,000+ miles without a problem, they shift to perfection! Mercedes bought back my brand new $80,000.00 Benz because it had a defective tranny, tried 3 times to fix it, got the 2nd one and it is "perfect". I'm always curious about other people's experience with the identical equipment that I have. I have a couple close friends who are photographers and they do state that the 70-200 is a "little" soft in the corners when coupled with the FX but don't have a problem with the vignetting. I'm curious to see how the 200-400 will perform.

Dan Wells · « **Reply #17 on:** March 03, 2009, 12:38:25 am »

Even regardless of the performance of the 70-200 on FX, I don't think it's long enough for my needs - 200mm isn't a lot on a FX body. I love the range of the 80-400, and am only mildly bothered by the speed (make it any faster, and it becomes a much bigger, heavier and more expensive lens - see the Nikkor 200-400 for an example). It wouldn't be all that hard to make a version of this lens with better optical performance (given Nikon's recent work with aspheric elements, etc...), AF-S and VRII that would be a very appealing tele choice, especially on FX.

-Dan

tetsuo77 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 03, 2009, 07:37:58 am »

HE needs/wants
A good spectacular wider angle lens and something on the Long end. prefferrably a zoom tele but if not a stellar 300mm and maybe extension rings?

You don´t say which format he is shooting, and that makes the things a little bit more complicated. And the fact that he doesn´t have a good portrait lens does look strange for a golfer, in my opinion.

So far, in my experience, the best ultrawide lens for Nikon was designed by Pentax, in its Tokina incarnation. But still is not going to get you as close as you want [he already has a ultrawide]. The next thing is then, go for the Tokina 10-17 fisheye and get it defished on PP.

He can get hold of the old FA* 600 for 35mm, if he finds one, gets the adapter ring, and his camera allows him to confirm focus and read the exposure. But beware that it is a heck of a monster, and it is very difficult to get one.

As for the gap I was mentioning, the Cosina Nokton 58 is a SPECTACULAR manual focusing portrait lens, very fast and capable. Alas, the all new Sigma 50 is very promising as well.

Author Topic: Help Buying the Best Nikon Lens (Read 11205 times)

Snook

Snook