Nikon Lens rating

S

Sesame

Suspended / Banned
Messages
101
Name
Sesame
Edit My Images
No
Only Meeeeeee !!!

Hi folks,

Forgive me hassling you again in my journey into the DSLR arena
I wanted to ask your opinion regarding Nikon Lenses.

I've been told that the following Lenses are very good :

50mm 1.8D
16-85mm
18-200mm
&
better than the standard kit lens you get with a D90 or D7000 (18-105mm)

I have come across another site in my attempt to keep my sanity.
http://www.dxomark.com

Oddly enough when looking at lenses on here the 18-105mm kit lens scores really well - & I thought I couldn't get more confused....
Here we go, comparing D90 scores as there aren't any for the D7000 yet:

DxOMark Score = Lens

15 = Nikkor AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
12 = Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
9 = Nikkor AF-S DX VR Zoom nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF ED II
12 = Nikkor AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

15 = Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D
19 = Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D
16 = Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

How should I read this ? With a pinch of salt ?
Is there somewhere else I should be looking for Len reviews?

Please, your learned opinions.

Thanks in advance,

Sesame

p.s
Type of photography:
Sports, Portrait & Landscapes
 
Last edited:
ignore DXO, seriously. I honestly could not care less about what some bunch of number munchers say about a lens after sitting in their basement taking photos of brick walls or test charts all day, and this is my job.

Buy what lens is the best compromise for you between cost, convenience, focal length that you want, and max aperture, and go out and take photos.

In an ideal world, everyone would be shooting with a bag full of f1.4 primes all stopped down to f8 for optimum sharpness, but that'd be so so annoying that you'd just end up not taking any photos.

Really, just buy what focal length zoom range is most convenient for you (remember, as a hobbyist, if something is annoying to use, you will want to use it less - the 18-200mm is a good compromise between usability, size, weight, and performance for example, and the 50mm 1.8 is a very good but still very cheap lens that many people like for portraits), and what you can afford, and go out and take some photos :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks Dave,

What would you recommend for my interests : Sports, Portrait & Landscapes?

What's your opinion on Tamron & Sigma lenses?
&
What Nikon do you use?
 
Sesame said:
Thanks Dave,

What would you recommend for my interests : Sports, Portrait & Landscapes?

What's your opinion on Tamron & Sigma lenses?
&
What Nikon do you use?
Click to expand...

Depends on your budget really :) The 50mm 1.8 is a very popular lens for portraits as I said, purely because it is so good for something so cheap, giving you the nice low depth of field look, and ability to work well in low light. An 18-200mm lens would give you all the focal lengths that you need for everything from landscapes to some sports, but you would struggle with sports in low light.

Tamron and sigma both make some very good lenses, but also make some relative duds too.

I use 2 wide aperture 2.8 zoom lenses, 17-50mm (tamron! it's a great lens and I can't find any reason optically to move to nikon's 17-55) and 80-200mm, and 30mm and 50mm f1.4 prime lenses, lots of light, and two D300 cameras, but again - this pays the bills for me.
 
Last edited:
I owned the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G for almost a year and its a fantastic lens

image quality is excellent , I only sold it to help fund a new lens , if I could have afforded to I would have kept it
 
I too are trying to work out the best lens for my new D300.

Does anybody have any suggestions? I was thinking 18-200mm.
 
18-105 VR would be my pick of the 18-xxx lenses, very cheap but excellent image quality. Only grumbles would be the lack of a focus distance window and the plastic mount, but I guess that's where the savings lie.
 
Best value nikon lens is 18-70. Tamron 28-75 2.8 is very good too. Very high praise fir the 50mm afs.
 
I have the 16-85 on my D300s and it's a lovely all round walkabout lens. I used to own the 18-70 with my D40x, and I'm pleased with the few extra mm's at each end. The 16mm is just about good enough for some decent landscapes, and the 85mm is a pretty decent reach.

I also own the 50mm f1.8. Second hand, mint, off MPB for £75. You really can't go wrong for that sort of money. Just couldn't justify the huge extra outlay for the f1.4. Makes you think a lot more about your shots too, as you need to move further away or further in to compose your shots rather than just use the zoom.
 
Sesame, please go out and buy something soon - I mean that in the best possible way. There will definitely be several things over Christmas that will have you kicking yourself if you don't make your mind up before then, and have time to practise first!

As per the other thread - buy the one that gives you the best gut feel now, buy it second hand, and if you discover a little later that one of the others would have been better suited, you will lose little in cost terms by selling what you originally bought.

You will lose so much more not having a camera and lens in your hand!

I hope you take this positively, as that's exactly the spirit I mean it in!
 
You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow`s ear. Why do lens of the same zoom and focal length cost different prices. I recently bought the Nikon 55-300 and was disapointed with it, then a write up in a mag showed it to be not so hot. But it only cost less than £300, so there you have it. All the fiddling with auto focus will not improve it.
 
braddersmd said:
As per the other thread - buy the one that gives you the best gut feel now, buy it second hand, and if you discover a little later that one of the others would have been better suited, you will lose little in cost terms by selling what you originally bought.

You will lose so much more not having a camera and lens in your hand!
Click to expand...

Had Mark not already posted this, it would have been exactly what I was going to write.
Go to ebay buy some stuff, play with it, if you like it, keep it, if not, sell it on, simples :)

If you really get into it, chances are, you'll be wanting to get some faster lenses anyway.
 
braddersmd said:
If it's of any use to you Sesame, I will be buying a 16-85mm today - the deal at MPB looks very good - put your boots on, and jump right in!
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input Mark,
I can assure you it's always taken the right way, as it was intended.

Is this 16-85mm the one for £319 at MPB?
I'm hoping to get one new for £339. Worth the extra £20 for Brand New???
& a
Nikon 35mm f1.8 G AF-S DX Lens for £150.99

For my D90(?)

BTW Uncle Ken seems to think the 18-200mm is better than the 16-85 - any opinions?
 
Last edited:
Glad you took it in the right spirit!

Well, difficult for me to compare the two, as the 18-200 I have is waiting to be sent back to the seller in January, as it's faulty.

Have to say though that I am very very pleased with the results so for with the 16-85mm - it is an absolute belter - very little deviation in sharpness throughout the aperture range - and the length is not as short as you would imagine compared to the 200mm end of the other lens.

If you can get a brand new one for £339, then snap their hands off - otherwise, the one at MPB is a great deal - I paid £410 for mine today.

It works very well on a D90!

Cheers, Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top