Nikon Lens Guide

[soydios]

Nikon Lens Guide

Note from the author: In this guide, I will attempt to cover most of the popular Nikkor lenses, and explain some terminology specific to the Nikon F-mount SLR system. First, some disclaimers: (1) I do not have hands-on experience with all the lenses that I will discuss. If I have hands-on experience, it will be placed under ?Hands-On Impressions?. (2) I will not be discussing third-party lenses at this time, only Nikkor, Zoom-Nikkor, and Micro-Nikkor models. If you are considering purchasing a lens, post a thread about it in this forum, so we can advise you on the best option for that focal range and price point. All prices are in US Dollars for a new lens from B&H Photo/Video, unless otherwise noted. If anybody feels that I should include another lens, let me know.


Glossary of Terms
Here I will define some of the common acronyms and letters that you will find in Nikon model names.

DX
All of Nikon?s Digital SLRs use an imaging sensor that is smaller than 35mm film*. The size is approximately equal to the APS-C film size, but Nikon calls it ?DX format?. The angle of view in DX format is 1.5 times that of full-frame 35mm film. For example, if you use the popular 50mm focal length on a DX body, it provides the same angle of view as a 75mm lens would on a 35mm full-frame body (50x1.5=75). This ?1.5x crop factor? applies to all lenses of all focal lengths when mounted to a DX-format body.
An advantage of the DX format is that it only uses the center part of the image circle, which is where the highest quality image is projected by older 35mm lenses. A lens designed for the DX format, as designated by the acronym ?DX? in its model name, can be smaller and lighter than a full-frame lens of the same focal length.
* The Nikon D3 uses an imaging sensor that is the same size as 35mm film, and thus has a 1.0 crop factor.

FX
FX is Nikon?s name for a digital sensor that is the same size as 35mm film: 36mm wide by 24mm tall. It is featured in Nikon?s latest professional camera, the D3. Nikon is widely expected to release more FX cameras to better compete against the Canon 1D and 5D lines, relegating DX to the sub-$2000 market.

AF-S
AF-S lenses have the autofocus motor inside the lens, as opposed to conventional AF lenses which use the in-body autofocusing motor present in most Nikon DSLRs.** This allows for quieter autofocusing. There are two types of AF-S lenses, which Nikon unfortunately does not differentiate between. I will call them ?full AF-S? and ?kit AF-S?. Full AF-S is usually found on Nikon?s more expensive lenses, such as the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR, and allows for faster focusing, and instant manual override by grabbing the focus ring on the lens at any time. Kit AF-S is usually found on Nikon?s kit lenses, such as the AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX. Kit AF-S requires you to flip a switch from Automatic to Manual focusing, and focuses at the same speed as the in-camera autofocus motor.
** The Nikon D40, D40x, and D60 models do not have an autofocus motor built in to the camera body, and thus will only autofocus with AF-S lenses. Autoexposure is still supported on all AF and AF-S lenses, however. All Nikon autofocusing cameras will indicate when correct manual focus is achieved, and the new D60 includes a focus direction assist indicator.

VR
VR stands for Vibration Reduction, which is Nikon?s anti-shake system. It works by moving an element in the lens, allowing it to be tuned for use with a specific lens and stabilizing the viewfinder image for easier composition and more accurate focusing. In practice it is extremely effective, allowing you to take a photograph at 3-4 stops slower shutter speed than normally required for a clear shot. For example, using the popular 1/focal length method of determining the minimum shutter speed, you could only handhold a 200mm lens on a DX body (300mm equivalent focal length) at 1/300th of a second. But with Vibration Reduction turned on, you could handhold at a 1/40s shutter speed, eight times slower. With good handholding technique plus anti-shake, you could even take a photo at a 1/20s shutter speed. Also, when taking a panning photograph, Nikon VR will automatically turn off the anti-shake on the panning axis.
A first word of warning: Vibration Reduction, or anti-shake from any manufacturer, will not freeze subject motion. A slow shutter speed at a sports match will result in blurs moving across a sharp playing field.
A second word of warning: you will be able to hear the VR system working when it is activated, and hear or feel a click on small lenses or clunk on the large ones when the VR system locks down. Do not remove a VR lens from the camera without first turning the camera off, which locks down the VR system. If you incorrectly remove the lens from the camera before the VR system locks down, you will have a loose VR element shaking around inside your lens! (this is bad)
A third word of warning: if you are using a VR lens or any anti-shake system from any manufacturer on a tripod, turn the anti-shake system off. Leaving it on may actually result in a blurry photograph, as the anti-shake system will correct for vibrations as if it were being hand-held. Exotic supertelephoto VR lenses from Nikon (or Canon IS) may include a Tripod Mode, however.

D-type
D-type lenses are simply AF lenses with an added ?CPU? chip. This chip transmits focusing distance information to the body, which enables ?3D Matrix Metering.? In practice, this only matters when taking a flash photo. D-type lenses have an aperture ring on the lens that must be locked at the smallest aperture to enable aperture control from the body. D-type lenses will interface with the light meter (with some small modifications required for pre-AI cameras) on any Nikon F-mount SLR ever made, going back to 1959. All D-type lenses include AI and AI-s couplings, and pilot holes to install the meter coupling prong to interface with pre-AI bodies such as the original Nikon F.

G-type
G-type lenses are simply D-type lenses without the aperture ring and associated AI/AI-s couplings. Theses lenses dropped the incredible backwards compatibility of the D-type in favor of smaller size and cheaper cost.

ED
All wavelengths of light do not bend the same amount when they pass through a lens, creating chromatic aberrations. This can be seen as colored fringes at high-contrast edges in photographs taken with older lenses. ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass is a different type of glass that produces smaller chromatic aberrations. An interesting fact with ED lenses is that they can focus past infinity, because the ED glass deforms more with temperature than regular optical glass.

IF
IF stands for Internal Focusing, which means that the front of the lens neither extends nor rotates during focusing. It also allows for closer apparent focusing distances. IF works by moving around internal lens elements to accomplish the focusing movement, but this does result in a technically shorter effective focal length at extremely close focusing distances, though it usually does not matter in practical use.

CRC
CRC stands for Close Range Correction, which keeps the image to sharp in the corners at close focusing distances. This is important for macro lenses and close-focusing wideangle lenses. Nikon accomplishes this by moving the front and rear elements different distances during focusing, and some other optical wizardry.

PC
PC stands for Perspective Control, which is a specialty type of lens that tilts to adjust apparent perspective. This allows you to have the depth of field move diagonally through an image, or take a picture of a building from street level without geometric distortion (no converging lines). These lenses are obviously very expensive, and are called ?tilt-shift?.

SIC & N
SIC stands for Superior Integrated Coating, and N stands for Nano Crystal Coat. They are simply coatings applied to the glass to reduce reflections and increase saturation and contrast. Almost every glass element in every lens from every manufacturer in the last twenty years has these coatings. Do not base your purchase decision on one lens having better advertised coatings than another, because they are all excellent. Other optical design elements have a far greater effect on image quality.


Recommended Lens Outfits
Note from the Author: These are my personal recommendations for the most common lens pairs for your camera bag: the standard zoom covering moderate wideangle to short telephoto, and the telephoto zoom covering short to medium or long telephoto. For specific comments on each lens and many more, please see the next post in this thread. Once you have experimented with several different types of photography and found which types you do most, like best, or want to explore, please start a new thread for us to help you decide on future lenses.

Standard Zoom: AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX (VR) $120 ($190)
Telephoto Zoom: AF-S 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6G DX (VR) $170 ($230)
As I will hint at in my comments on each of these lenses, they are just made to go together. Each lens is small, lightweight, and cheap enough that used copies of the non-VR versions won?t break the bank. My first two lenses were the 18-55mm and 55-200mm, both non-VR, and I took a lot of photos with them that are still favorites of mine. If you are considering buying both the 18-55mm VR and the 55-200mm VR, I would recommend buying the 18-200mm VR instead, because it is only slightly more expensive yet covers the complete focal range from moderate wideangle to medium telephoto with the same image quality as these two lenses, but in a single lens that you never have to remove from your camera.

Standard Zoom: AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX (VR) $120 ($190) or AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G DX $350 or AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G DX $330 or AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR $690
Telephoto Zoom: AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR $480
While the focal length from 55mm to 70mm is not one that you will miss very often, it can be comforting to have it anyway. Plus the 18-70mm and 18-135mm are huge steps up above the 18-55mm in build quality and autofocus speed. The 16-85mm VR takes the cake though, with VR, full AF-S, and extra wideangle. The 70-300mm VR is a capable telephoto complement as well.

Super Zoom: AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR $680
The 18-200mm VR is, in my humble opinion, the ultimate kit lens. It covers the most common focal lengths (135 format equivalent) from moderate wideangle (28mm) to medium telephoto (300mm), and does so with Vibration Reduction, decently small size and weight, and image and build quality on par with or better than the other variable-aperture kit lenses. Best of all, it does this at a reasonable price compared to the rest of the Nikkor DX lineup.

Standard Zoom: AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G $1200 or AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G $1700
Telephoto Zoom: AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR $1600
This is the go-to kit for almost all photojournalists. The standard zoom doesn?t quite afford the creative capabilities of a wideangle, and the telephoto zoom doesn?t get you as close as the exotic supertelephoto primes. Nevertheless, the standard photojournalist loadout is one body with the standard f/2.8 zoom, and the other body with the telephoto f/2.8 zoom (or for you Canon folks, the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM to save weight). This is a very versatile combination, allowing photojournalists to quickly capture whatever photographic opportunities might arise, studio photographers to work quickly, and indoor sports photogs to quickly transition from wideangle to telephoto.


Update History
Updated May 16, 2008: Added Recommended Lens Combinations.

 

[soydios]

Kit Zoom Lenses
These lenses are the cheapest in the lineup, but also provide the best value for your money. These models are cheap because they (1) have smaller apertures and thus require less glass to make, (2) are made with plastic lens barrels, though this allows them to be very lightweight, and (3) are not manufactured to the extremely tight tolerances of professional lenses, resulting in poorer image quality, usually evidenced in the corners by light falloff, distortion, and reduced sharpness. But in the center of the image at smaller apertures, these lenses often equal the image quality of professional lenses ten or twenty times their price.

AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX $120
This is a kit AF-S lens, and is most often bundled with a D40, D40x, D50, or D60. It is made almost entirely of plastic, but is remarkably small and light. Contrast, saturation, and sharpness are surprisingly good for a kit lens. Vignetting and distortion are noticeable, though that is typical of this price bracket.
Hands-On Impressions: I received this lens in my D50 kit. This lens may be made of plastic, but it will not fall apart on you. An advantage of plastic bodies is that they will bounce when dropped, instead of denting. Distortion is only noticeable at the extremes of the focal range, and is nonexistent at 24mm. I sold this and my 55-200mm lens to buy an 18-200mm lens, but not before I had taken thousands of great pictures with it. Autofocus is silent but neither slow nor quick.

AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR $190
This is virtually the same as the regular 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, but with Vibration Reduction added. VR is still helpful at these shorter focal lengths, but provides the biggest improvement in telephoto lenses. If you?re running out of room in your budget, go for VR in a longer lens.

AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G DX $330
This is a full AF-S lens, and is most often bundled with a D80, D200, or D300. It has a metal lens mount, but is otherwise made of plastic. I classify this as a kit lens because it falls between the 18-55mm and 18-70mm in terms of image and build quality, and like kit AF-S lenses does not allow you to view focusing distance.

AF-S 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6G DX $170
This is a kit AF-S lens, and is the telephoto sibling of the 18-55mm. The plastic build quality and associated light weight are the same. Like the 18-55mm, contrast, saturation, and sharpness are surprisingly good for a lens this cheap, but vignetting is noticeable, while distortion is only slightly apparent.
Hands-On Impressions: I received this lens in my D50 kit with the 18-55mm. This lens and the 18-55mm were obviously designed to be in the same camera bag: the build quality, image quality, size, and weight are all identical. Vignetting is only really noticeable at wide-open apertures when taking pictures of the sky, for example. Like the 18-55mm, autofocus is silent but neither slow nor quick.

AF-S 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6G DX VR $230
Again, this lens is virtually the same as the regular 55-200mm f/4.0-5.6 lens, but Vibration Reduction is exceptionally useful at these longer focal lengths.


Midrange Zoom Lenses
I classify midrange zoom lenses as having a metal lens mount, full AF-S for faster focusing and instant manual override, and the focusing distance displayed on the lens. They focus faster and have better build and optical quality than kit lenses, though they are larger, heavier, and more expensive.

AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G DX $350
This is a full AF-S lens, and was most often bundled with the now-discontinued D70 or D70s, but is still available for purchase separately. It is a great step up in build quality from the 18-55mm, with a metal lens mount, focusing distance window, and a larger maximum aperture at the telephoto end of the range.
Hands-On Impressions: I only used this lens for one night, and even then only wide-open. Wide-open contrast and sharpness were disappointing compared to the 18-55mm that I compared it to.

AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR $680
This is a full AF-S lens, and is most often bundled with the D200 or D300, but is also available for purchase separately. It has the same build quality as the 18-70mm, but obviously has a whopping 11.1x zoom range, from moderate wideangle to long telephoto (27-300mm equivalent). Some samples get soft beyond 100mm, and almost all samples have a problem with zoom creep. Because there is so much weighty glass in this lens (16 elements in 12 groups), the zoom barrel will retract or extend when pointed up or down, respectively.
DPReview.com has an excellent summary of all the pros and cons of this lens in their lens review.
Hands-On Impressions: This lens is immensely useful. The optical quality is not perfect anywhere, but this lens is good enough at everything to stay on my camera for 99% of my everyday photos. Autofocus is quick, and my copy is sharp throughout its range in the center of the image. Finally, on the topic of lens creep, it?s only a problem if you point the lens up or down when on a tripod, or if you dangle the camera around your neck.

AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR $690
This is a full AF-S lens, and was introduced at PMA 2008. The spec sheet says that it should perform about the same as the 18-200mm VR. This lens is the DX equivalent of the popular 24-120mm focal length for full-frame cameras.

AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6G $130
I would pass on this lens in favor of the AF-S VR 70-300mm. AF-S and VR are worth paying for at this long focal length, IMO. But if you must, this is one of the cheapest ways to reach out to 300mm.

AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR $480
This is a full AF-S lens, and is also designed for use on full-frame cameras. The Vibration Reduction is genuinely useful. This is a perfect companion lens to an 18-55mm or 18-70mm kit lens. Don?t worry about the gap between 55mm and 70mm; you won?t miss it because there isn?t much creative use for that focal range.
Review by Tom Hogan

AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR $1400
This lens should be a perfect solution for backpacking wildlife photographers: able to zoom from short to extreme telephoto with Vibration Reduction. As long as you?re shooting in broad daylight, the slower aperture wouldn?t be a problem. The key failing of this lens is that it uses the in-camera autofocus motor, which is slow moving all the large elements through the long focus travel at these telephoto focal lengths. An AF-S update of this lens would be very popular and has been on many people?s wish lists for some time, but Nikon still has not done so.
Review by Tom Hogan


Professional Zoom Lenses
These lenses are some of the best pieces of glass ever made, and are targeted at the professional photographer. They all have large constant apertures throughout their zoom range, use extremely fast implementations of full AF-S focusing, are built like tanks, and as a general rule provide exceptional image quality in all respects. They are expensive, big, and heavy; not exactly something you would bring for day-to-day shots at the amusement park.
Throughout its history, Nikon had the ?three kings?: wide zoom, standard zoom, and telephoto zoom. Twenty years ago, they were the AF 20-35mm f/2.8D, AF 35-70mm f/2.8D, and AF 80-200mm f/2.8D. Ten years ago, they were the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D, AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8D, and AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8D. Today, they are the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G, AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G, and AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G. These ?three kings? are in almost every professional photographer?s bag.

AF-S 12-24mm f/4.0G DX $900
When Nikon originally released Digital SLRs with DX-format sensors, there was no way to go wide-angle with them. This lens was Nikon?s answer. Image quality is good at the wide end, and further improves as you zoom in. However, people buy this lens to use it at 12mm. There are many third-party offerings from Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina in this focal range as well. The Nikkor is slightly better than all of them, but at double the price.
Review by Tom Hogan

AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G $1600
This lens is the widest ever zoom lens for a full-frame camera. Image quality is superb for such a wide-angle lens, and is even better than previous Nikkor prime lenses in this focal range. The front element is curved, however, so filters are not an option with this lens to many landscape photographers? chagrin.

AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G DX $1200
This lens is the DX-format equivalent of the AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8D. It serves its purpose as a DX-format standard zoom lens well, but strangely Nikon has not released an update with VR to compete against the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.
Review by Tom Hogan

AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8D (EBay: $800-$1000)
This is the older standard zoom lens for full-frame cameras. This lens was replaced by the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G, but is still a quality optic.
Hands-On Impressions: This lens is short and fat. It?s almost difficult to get your hand around it.

AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G $1700
This is the new standard professional zoom lens for full-frame cameras. It adds 4mm of wide-angle coverage, but the image quality in that 24-28mm isn?t as stellar as the 28-70mm range. Strangely Nikon did not release it with Vibration Reduction to one-up the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM.

AF 80-200mm f/2.8D (EBay: $500) - $900
If you want a quality f/2.8 telephoto zoom but the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR is out of your budget, I would strongly suggest a version of this lens. There are two versions: the older push-pull which controls zoom and focus with the same ring, and the newer two-ring which has separate rings for zoom and focus. These are AF lenses, so the focus is not as fast as the AF-S models, but the image and build quality is still superb.
Hands-On Impressions: I own a push-pull AF 80-200mm f/2.8, and as soon as I picked up and looked through the lens, I realized that it was capable of taking better photos than I was as a photographer; that?s the effect that it had on me as my first professional-grade Nikkor optic. The autofocus, however, is slow, and there?s no getting around that. The well-placed focus limiters help, but the AF-S lenses are vastly preferable for sports photography. You can make do with this lens for outdoor sports, but AF-S is practically a requirement inside a gymnasium with a telephoto lens.

AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR $1600
This lens is the current incarnation of the professional medium telephoto Zoom-Nikkor lens. Autofocus is leaps and bounds faster than the AF 80-200mm f/2.8 lenses, courtesy of AF-S, and it includes Vibration Reduction. In summary, this lens is superb.
DPReview.com reviewed this lens several years after its introduction, and found that it essentially behaves like a sort of extended-DX lens. It produces superb image quality on a DX-sized (1.5x crop, aka APS-C format) sensor, but disappointing corner performance on full-frame 35mm film and FX format digital sensors. This superb DX-format-only performance yet lack of the DX moniker among the alphabet soup title acronyms leads me to believe that Nikon may have been considering an APS-H format 1.3x-crop sensor. This still makes little sense to me, however, because there are still film SLRs in use today that would suffer from the corner performance issues highlighted by DPReview. In light of this poor corner performance, the lack of a quick update to Nano-Crystal-Coat and VR-II makes sense because a redesigned version with better corner performance is now necessary with the introduction of the FX-format D3.
Hands-On Impressions: This lens is the real deal. It?s built like a tank: heavy, but because there is a lot of metal and glass. I have seen dents and gouges from abuse in the metal focusing ring, yet the manual focusing feel was still smooth. Autofocus is blazing fast, which is a requirement for indoor sports photography. If you can afford this lens, it is absolutely worth the money. Even if Nikon were to release a new model with Nano Crystal Coat and VRII tomorrow, this lens would still be worth buying brand-new today.

AF-S 200-400mm f/4.0G VR $5100
This lens is the long telephoto zoom counterpart to the ?three kings.? You all should get the point by now if you?ve read the rest of this guide: autofocus is fast, build quality is solid metal and glass, vibration reduction can really help at long focal lengths, image quality is top-notch, etc.


Prime Lenses
Prime lenses have the advantage of being smaller and lighter than their zoom counterparts but with faster (larger) apertures that let in more light, and generally have better image quality as well. Nikon has been making prime lenses for the F-mount since 1959, almost all of which have the correct geometry to mount on and take pictures with all of Nikon?s 35mm film, DX-format digital, or FX-format digital SLR bodies.

AF 50mm f/1.8D $100 & AF 50mm f/1.4D $280
The ?Nifty Fifty? was the so-called ?Normal? lens on full-frame 35mm film cameras, because it mimicked the perspective (size ratio of objects at different distances) of the human eye. On DX-format DSLRs, it provides the full-frame-equivalent angle of view as a 75mm short-telephoto lens, which is a popular choice for portrait photography. The f/1.8D model, nicknamed the ?plastic fantastic?, costs a mere $100, yet provides exceptional image quality, even wide-open. The f/1.4 is three times more expensive, which buys you metal construction, 2/3 of a stop more light-gathering ability and shallower depth of field, but the same image quality.
Hands-On Impressions: This lens belongs in every photographer?s bag. On FX cameras it?s a normal lens, and on DX cameras it?s a portrait/candids lens. Autofocus is fast, with only 3 full turns of the AF screw from infinity to 6 feet.

AF 35mm f/2.0D $320
This lens provides the equivalent angle of view as a 50mm lens on full-frame cameras. This lens is the ?Normal? lens for DX-format DSLRs.
Hands-On Impressions: This lens is useful, though not a requirement. Image quality is tack-sharp in the center wide-open. Autofocus is fast, with 3 full turns of the AF screw going from infinity to less than 6 feet. Beware of grease on the aperture blades, though. I got mine for cheap off eBay, but upon receiving the item discovered that it had this common problem. The repair is less than $100 at Keh.com, so if you can?t get it for less than $250 on eBay, just buy it brand-new with a Nikon USA warranty.

AF 85mm f/1.8D $400 & AF 85mm f/1.4D $1000
This lens is really supposed to be used on a full-frame camera as a portrait lens. On DX-format DSLRs it?s too much focal length for portraits, but not enough for real telephoto use, IMO.

AF 180mm f/2.8D (EBay: $300) - $750
This lens is a cheap way to get an f/2.8 telephoto prime. Personally, I would investigate an AF 80-200mm f/2.8D for only a little more coin.

AF-S 300mm f/4.0D $1100
This lens is a moderately-priced way to get out to 300mm at a decent aperture (f/4) with the speed of AF-S focusing. It?s obviously smaller and lighter than the AF-S 300mm f/2.8D, and thus is more preferable if you shoot exclusively outdoor daytime sports.
Review by Tom Hogan


Macro Lenses
Nikon calls their macro lenses "Micro-Nikkor". Macro lenses are designed to focus to extremely close distances. Most dedicated macro lenses are capable of 1:1 magnification, which means that the subject is replicated at life-size at the imaging sensor or film. Likewise a lens capable of 1:2 magnification can project an image at a maximum of half life size.
Note about Apertures: Just as the aperture size in most lenses decreases as you zoom in, so does the aperture size decrease as you focus to the extremely close distances with a macro lens. Remember, macro lenses are usually best used at smaller apertures for added depth of field to counteract the compressed depth of field that results from focusing so close.
Note about Focusing Distance: In the technical specifications of a lens the term ?focusing distance? refers to the distance from one focal plane to the other, which in our case is the distance between the subject and the film plane or imaging sensor. An important consideration when choosing which focal length of macro lens to use is the working distance, which is the distance from the front of the lens to the subject, and is calculated as the focusing distance minus the size of the lens and minus the depth of the mirror box. A shorter focal length macro lens has a very small working distance at maximum magnification, which may end up blocking your light source(s) and spooking your subject if it?s alive. For this reason, longer focal length macro lenses are preferred, especially for macro photography of insects and poisonous creatures, but the shorter focal length lenses are smaller, lighter, and cheaper.

AF 60mm f/2.8D $400
This lens was the 60mm macro workhorse for the longest time (introduced in 1993), because it just plain worked. Sharpness across the frame is good, and light falloff wide open is surprisingly low. If even lighting across the frame is important to you, and you must have the short-by-macro-standards 60mm focal length, then this lens is for you.

AF-S 60mm f/2.8G $550
This lens replaced the AF 60mm f/2.8D in 2008, sacrificing the excellently low light falloff of the prior lens for excellent corner-to-corner sharpness. If sharpness across the frame is important to you, and you must have the short-by-macro-standards 60mm focal length, then this lens is for you.
I disagree with a lot of things that Ken Rockwell says, but he actually did a pretty good comparison between the AF and AF-S 60mm f/2.8 Micro lenses.

AF-S 105mm f/2.8G VR $750
105mm is the midrange in the Micro-Nikkor lineup, and a good all-around focal length to have. This lens provides superb image quality.
Balancing price and performance, this is the overall macro lens that I would purchase, because it uses AF-S, is the medium-length 105mm working distance, and includes VR.
Review by Tom Hogan

AF 200mm f/4D $1350
This is the top-of-the-line in the Micro-Nikkor lens lineup: a long working distance and superb image quality from corner-to-corner.


Exotic Prime Lenses
These prime lenses are what really set Nikon (and Canon) apart from competitors like Pentax, Sony, and Olympus. All of them have extremely fast autofocusing, the best build quality available, and stellar image quality wide-open.

AF 10.5mm f/2.8G $600
This is the way to go fisheye on DX-format bodies. Despite not being an AF-S lens, the build quality is still up to par with the rest of the pro lenses.
Hands-On Impressions: Fisheye lenses are strange. I tried using this lens for a while, but just could not get myself to compose creatively with it. Try before you buy, as fisheyes may or may not be for you (more power to you if they are).

AF-S 200mm f/2.0G VR $4000
I have nothing to say about this lens other than that it must be a dream to shoot with, and I want one.

AF-S 300mm f/2.8D, AF-S 300mm f/2.8G VR $4500
The AF-S 300mm f/2.8 is an extremely popular focal length. Any longer and you need a monopod for extended use, but it?s just long enough to get you in tight to the action. The front elements from here on up are starting to get very big, and the lens hoods are made of carbon-fiber.
Hands-On Impressions: Oh wow, and I thought the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR was good. Autofocus on this lens is unbelievably fast; infinity to closest focusing distance and back to infinity takes about half a second. Focus limiters make it telepathic. This lens seems designed for sports, either indoor or outdoor.

AF-S 400mm f/2.8D, AF-S 400mm f/2.8G VR $8500
The AF-S 400mm f/2.8 is as long a telephoto as you can get before moving to a slower aperture. This lens and longer focal lengths are meant to be used with monopods or tripods.
Hands-On Impressions: This focal length is really only useful for outdoor field sports and wildlife. The focal length is so long that you get tunnel vision, and the lens is too heavy to hand-hold for more than a few shots. Focusing is slightly slower than the AF-S 300mm f/2.8 because it needs to be even more accurate, but is still on par with the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR. Put a 2x teleconverter on this lens, mount it to a DX-format camera, and you?ve got a telescope.

AF-S 500mm f/4.0D, AF-S 500mm f/4.0G VR $7900
AF-S 600mm f/4.0D, AF-S 600mm f/4.0G VR $9500
These lenses are really too long to use on DX-format cameras, though I suppose they?ll come back into use with the release of the FX-format D3. After all, how else are you going to reach out to home plate from the outfield wall at a baseball game shooting full-frame? I pity wildlife photographers using these lenses, as they must handle like boat anchors.


Third-Party Lenses
Third-party lenses are made by companies such as Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and Quantaray for various camera lens mounts. They often do not have the image or build quality to match up with the first-party lenses, but nonetheless are a viable alternative when lower cost or a different focal length is needed.

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $450
Ever the popular lens on these boards, it's a viable alternative to the AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G DX.
Review by Tom Hogan

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 $550
A surprisingly good alternative to the AF-S 12-24mm f/4.0G DX.
Review by Ken Rockwell


Update History
Updated May 16, 2008: Added Macro Lenses. Added Third-Party Lenses. Added links to external reviews. Added discussion of 70-200VR on FX format.

 

[andylawcc]

omg, information overload! ;p


very useful information, many many thanks soydios!!!!

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I still wish I could sticky

 

[dug777]

Awesome mate :beer:

I've used the 80-200mm f2.8 on my D80 and found the AF plenty fast however (brand new non push-pull one). The optics & build quality just blew my mind.

I think you've rather sold my beloved 18-135mm short however, it's an awesome walkaround with huge 7.5x zoom, the SWM IF is extremely fast & silent, it's incredibly sharp, and it's incredible value for money.

 

[jpeyton]

Great list; much appreciated! Maybe we can slowly add some good third-party options to the list too?

I always thought the 18-135mm was a step above the 18-70mm, no?

 

[troytime]

yeah the 18-135 is a champ

 

[ElFenix]

correction: the D40/x/60 will autofocus with AF-I lenses as well

i was wondering whether nikon had something similar to canon's micro USM bs :disgust:

 

[tdawg]

Nice post, Soydios! A lot of good information for those new to or unfamiliar with the Nikon lens lineup. Only thing missing is the fact that there is an 80-200 AF-S in the wild that is a less expensive alternative to the 70-200 AF-S VR. (~$1000)

 

[makraw]

Great Post Soydios!
I think it would be great if it was possible to provide similar info on nikon mount lenses provided by other manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, etc). Third party lenses have sometimes very tempting prices but their image quality and lenses built is often very problematic. So information on cheaper alternatives would be extremely useful.

 

[Anubis]

You should add in macros specifically the 105 2.8 VR and the 200 f/4
The 200 f4 is widely regarded as one of the sharpest and all around best macro lenses ever made by anyone

 

[dug777]

The 105 2.8 VR is supposed to be utterly superb too.

 

[Fardringle]

How does the AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR lens compare to the Sigma 18-200 OS for the Canon Rebels?

Also, are there any AF-S primes in the "normal" range? I don't see any on the list.




This isn't intended to be a derailing, but if you want to know why I ask, here's the explanation:

When I manage to convince my wife (and the budget) that it's time to upgrade to an SLR from my Fuji S6000, I'd like to keep the initial cost as close to (or under) $1000 as possible so I've been considering the D40/D60 or the XTi and a wide zoom for my general use lens. I use the 300mm long end of the zoom on my Fuji almost as much as I use the 28mm wide angle so I'd like to keep that option easily available. I'll also want a decently fast prime lense for portrait and indoor low light use. The "nifty-fifty" would be perfect for this but it's not listed as AF-S so it wouldn't have auto focus on the D40/D60.

I know that the XTi and the Sigma lens would meet my needs and the budget but I just don't like the feel of the XTi body so if i can find a similar setup with a Nikon body I'd prefer to go that route. I'm not particularly opposed to the Sony, Pentax, or Olympus options, but the biggest reason for me to upgrade is for better low light capabilities and from what I have seen in online reviews, the "budget" bodies from those three really aren't significantly better than my Fuji in that category.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Fardringle
How does the AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR lens compare to the Sigma 18-200 OS for the Canon Rebels?

Also, are there any AF-S primes in the "normal" range? I don't see any on the list.




This isn't intended to be a derailing, but if you want to know why I ask, here's the explanation:

When I manage to convince my wife (and the budget) that it's time to upgrade to an SLR from my Fuji S6000, I'd like to keep the initial cost as close to (or under) $1000 as possible so I've been considering the D40/D60 or the XTi and a wide zoom for my general use lens. I use the 300mm long end of the zoom on my Fuji almost as much as I use the 28mm wide angle so I'd like to keep that option easily available. I'll also want a decently fast prime lense for portrait and indoor low light use. The "nifty-fifty" would be perfect for this but it's not listed as AF-S so it wouldn't have auto focus on the D40/D60.

I know that the XTi and the Sigma lens would meet my needs and the budget but I just don't like the feel of the XTi body so if i can find a similar setup with a Nikon body I'd prefer to go that route. I'm not particularly opposed to the Sony, Pentax, or Olympus options, but the biggest reason for me to upgrade is for better low light capabilities and from what I have seen in online reviews, the "budget" bodies from those three really aren't significantly better than my Fuji in that category.

Firstly I don't think this is the thread for this discussion.

Secondly, while I'm not familiar with the Fuji S6000, the low light performance from any D40/60 or XTi should be quite a bit better. The Dpreview review suggests it's good compared to other tiny-CCD cameras in that class, which is still a far cry from a quality APS-C sensor:

The high ISO output might not worry the SLR manufacturers (the sheer scale of the difference in sensor sizes puts paid to that), but it is better than most competitors by a fairly wide margin.

The D40 uses the D80 sensor which is already very solid in low light, and the D60 uses it too, but with tricked up processing which should improve the low light performance even more.

There are no AF-S primes below 105mm (and a short google/forum search would have told you that, again I don't think this thread is the place for this discussion ).

Can I suggest you consider a used D70/D70s/D50 body if you really want primes? I've seen some great deals on used D70 and D70s bodies recently.

 

[KeithP]

Great post soydios. Thanks for all the work!

-KeithP

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: dug777
There are no AF-S primes below 105mm (and a short google/forum search would have told you that, again I don't think this thread is the place for this discussion ).

Actually, there is one: The Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM. It's pretty new and it took me an extra bit of Googling to find it, but it exists. Here's a link to its page on the Sigma website.

Also, there are several new prime lenses from Nikon in the works for the AF-S mount. Here is that link.

 

[Fardringle]

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: dug777
There are no AF-S primes below 105mm (and a short google/forum search would have told you that, again I don't think this thread is the place for this discussion ).

Actually, there is one: The Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM. It's pretty new and it took me an extra bit of Googling to find it, but it exists. Here's a link to its page on the Sigma website.

Also, there are several new prime lenses from Nikon in the works for the AF-S mount. Here is that link.

Thanks, Xanis. I did search but didn't find anything definite. Dug777 is right, though. I shoudl have asked in a different thread and I apologize for that. Just pretend I wasn't here.

 

[destrekor]

So I'm looking for a wide angle lens for full-frame use (specifically: film SLR), with potential to use on a digital nikon body if I were to ever upgrade, but I don't care to at the moment. I enjoy film.
I'm looking at an 18-35 Nikon F3.5-4.5D IF-ED lens, which is for full frame, and Ken Rockwell seems to state it's damned good for the price, with the only fault being distortion (with less distortion on film then the D3, oddly enough), producing a slight wave in lines at the top and bottom of the frame, so obviously I might not want to use it for formal architecture photography, which is a slight bummer since I do enjoy formal photography, and love architecture photography with wide angles, but I also like off-angle shots of said architecture, that disoriented look, so that could help reduce the appearance of that.

But the F3.5 kind of bothers me, as I would love to have a faster lens, as I love extremely shallow depth of field at times, but maybe I should also look into a fast 50mm prime (I believe my 28-80mm Tamron can hit F3.5 or so at the widest, and I crave more for any kind of close up shot, say, a portrait of some kind).

But, for $200 starting bid, and $300 buy it now, and supposedly excellent condition lens (eBay)... I'm tempted. I look at amazing photos that are obviously wide angle, and I feel like my 28 doesn't do my photographic interests justice... again, formal... but primarily landscape, so here the fast lens isn't a big deal, but would love to have the option for whenever I look to take formal shots or just experiment, something akin to surrealism.

Any ideas? And yes, I'm cheap, and understand if I get serious into photography later in my years, I'll be purchasing much better lenses. But those lenses are definitely out of my reach and I think I can compromise a bit. Besides, my photographic intentions are actually pointless to really pursue in a serious/expensive manner with a film slr... I need to look to medium format or 4x5 if I want to actually produce quality landscapes for large prints. But a film slr is a cheaper and better way to learn and get introduced to it.

+

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: destrekor
So I'm looking for a wide angle lens for full-frame use (specifically: film SLR), with potential to use on a digital nikon body if I were to ever upgrade, but I don't care to at the moment. I enjoy film.
I'm looking at an 18-35 Nikon F3.5-4.5D IF-ED lens, which is for full frame, and Ken Rockwell seems to state it's damned good for the price, with the only fault being distortion (with less distortion on film then the D3, oddly enough), producing a slight wave in lines at the top and bottom of the frame, so obviously I might not want to use it for formal architecture photography, which is a slight bummer since I do enjoy formal photography, and love architecture photography with wide angles, but I also like off-angle shots of said architecture, that disoriented look, so that could help reduce the appearance of that.

But the F3.5 kind of bothers me, as I would love to have a faster lens, as I love extremely shallow depth of field at times, but maybe I should also look into a fast 50mm prime (I believe my 28-80mm Tamron can hit F3.5 or so at the widest, and I crave more for any kind of close up shot, say, a portrait of some kind).

But, for $200 starting bid, and $300 buy it now, and supposedly excellent condition lens (eBay)... I'm tempted. I look at amazing photos that are obviously wide angle, and I feel like my 28 doesn't do my photographic interests justice... again, formal... but primarily landscape, so here the fast lens isn't a big deal, but would love to have the option for whenever I look to take formal shots or just experiment, something akin to surrealism.

Any ideas? And yes, I'm cheap, and understand if I get serious into photography later in my years, I'll be purchasing much better lenses. But those lenses are definitely out of my reach and I think I can compromise a bit. Besides, my photographic intentions are actually pointless to really pursue in a serious/expensive manner with a film slr... I need to look to medium format or 4x5 if I want to actually produce quality landscapes for large prints. But a film slr is a cheaper and better way to learn and get introduced to it.

+

I have lurid dreams about the 14-24mm F2.8 Nikkor So much so that I think I'll invest come the next paycheck

What are third party wide-angles like for 35mm Nikons?

Otherwise as you say, it's the 18-35mm or bust for you

 

[soydios]

just an FYI dug, the cure for Nikon Acquisition Syndrome is to take your existing gear and use it.

EDIT: not that you don't already!

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: soydios
just an FYI dug, the cure for Nikon Acquisition Syndrome is to take your existing gear and use it.

EDIT: You are of course correct

At least with my current lens I'm not overly worried about damaging it, so I take it places I'd be very cautious about taking a $2k+ AUD lens...

 

[bcterps]

Looks like this thread got unstickied?

EDIT - Looks like it's been fixed

 

[soydios]

Updates on May 16, 2008

Post #1:
Added Recommended Lens Combinations.

Post #2:
Added Macro Lenses. Added Third-Party Lenses. Added links to external reviews. Added discussion of 70-200VR on FX format.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm thinking of starting a new thread to discuss third-party lenses on multiple mount systems, instead of adding several hundred more words to the already long guide in this thread.

 

[pennylane]

Thanks for the thread soydios.

Speaking in hypotheticals, is the 70-200VR too much lens for a D50? I guess in terms of quality of lens compared to body, but specifically just in terms of size/weight. What body is big enough to handle something like a 70-200VR, or a 400mm prime? Would a D80 be okay? Would I need at least a D300? (again, hypothetically speaking )

 

[soydios]

I have actually mounted both a 70-200VR and a 400/2.8 to my D50. The 70-200VR was a little front-heavy, but it was still very manageable. I'd say a D200/300 is about the right size for the 70-200VR.
The 400/2.8 is exclusively for use on a monopod. So let me rephrase what I said above: I've mounted my D50 to a 400/2.8. Because the 400/2.8 is always on a support system, it doesn't really matter what body is behind it. But it does seem a little extreme to use a D50 and 400/2.8 on a regular basis. A D2/3 is more at home on such a lens.