Nikon Lenses

[D Fuller]

One of my favorite subjects here. Nikon has made a lot of truly wonderful lenses over the years. Here are some of my favorites:

The Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AIS is one of the most beautiful lenses ever made for a still camera. It fosuses reasonably close, and has roll-your-eyes-back-in-your-head-and-sigh beautiful bokeh. Buttery doesn't begin to describe it. Very kind to faces. But Nikkors generally are. They render skin beautifully.

The new 85mm 1.4G Nikkor is in many ways even better. Sharper wide open. More even field ellumination, equally nice bokeh, i think, but not as kind to faces close up. It's a bit more perfectly sharp, and the imperfections of the older design are kind to skin.

The Nikon 28mm f/1.4 D is a remarkable lens. Sharp at 1.4 and throughout its range.

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS is excellent. I think it's better than a Superspeed wide open (but not perfect) and sharp as a tack by f/2.0

The Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 Noct is sharp at f/1.2-f/4.0, then looses its magic. It's really a special-purpose lens for shooting wide open, but it does that quite well indeed.

The Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AIS (the Gauss design, not the pre-1972 Sonnar type Is remarkable on a digital sensor. Sharp throughout its range, beautiful color. Beautiful bokeh.

The Nikkor 135mm f/2.0 AIS is an odd one. I like it a lot. But it's not ultra-sharp at close range. It does, however deliver a very pleasing image.

The Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 AIS is a very good lens, but I don't use it much anymore. The 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom has taken its place for me.

The Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 is one of those lenses that will make you invent ways to use it. It is not so good beyond about f/5.6, but who cares? This is the first lens I actually fell in love with. (but I have been unfaithful since... ;-)

The Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 AIS is a solid performer. A copy in good condition is about the equal of the Red Pro 300mm, but can be found for much less money.

The new Nikkor G-series 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.4 are maybe the best yet from Nikon. But they are AF lenses, with the very-short-throw manual focussing that may be a problem for cine work.

In Zooms, there are three that I love:

The Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 DX is very sharp, and has some of the most beautiful focus fall-off of any zoom I know. It's excellent on an Epic, but it does vignette a bit in 5K at 17mm. If you are shooting for a 16x9 frame, the vignette is not a problem.

The 14-24 AF-S Nikkor might just be the sharpest short zoom made by anyone. It's remarkable. But you can't put a filter on it, so choose your matte box carefully.

The Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR is another excellent zoom. Version 1 is not sharp in the corners on FF 35mm, but seems fine on my Epic at 5K. Version II is reputed to be sharp everywhere. (Duclos is making a rehouse of this lens in PL.)

OK, you can see I'm a fan of Nikon glass. But it makes really nice pictures.

 

[D Fuller]

The 105/2.5 is apparently one of the few Nikon lenses that have the same reputation as Leicas. I have one but I have not yet used it (I haven't converted it to AI).

If you have a non-AI version, it may not be all you hope for. This lens was re-worked in 1972 or 1973 to a Gauss design, and I believe all of these were AI-S. It is this one that is just f*&^ing brilliant.

If you want an f/1.2 50mm, there are three to choose from: 50mm, 55mm and 58mm. One is supposedly crap, one is supposedly excellent. I can't remember which. But f/1.4 is so unnecessary. The 50/1.8 has a good reputation. I have one (and old Series E) but it's not sharp at all - either a bad sample or someone dropped it.

The 50mm f/1.2 is excellent. The 55mm not so much. The 58mm is even better wide open, but is a specialty lens for using wide open and gets softer after about f/4.0 or so. The 50mm f/1.4 AIS is a very good lens. So is the G version. Very sharp, even. Not sure what you're talking about here. (I have no experience with the f/1.8 lens.)

For wide-angle lenses, particularly zooms, forget Nikon or Canon for the most part (unless you don't mind stopping down). For an example of how soft a Canon zoom can be, even in the centre of frame, see the 16-35/2.8 L II wide-open at 21mm compared to the Zeiss 21mm/2.8 prime on the same camera:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/21mm-comparison.htm

This review is junk. Rockwell is not comparing lenses at all, he is comparing camera systems. He used a 21MP Canon 5D Mark II, a 12MP Nikon D3 and an 18MP LEICA M9 and blew all the images up to the Canon's size for the comparison. He says he did that because he was limiting the "test" to under-$7,000 cameras. Nikon's 25MP D3X costs $8,000. (Oddly, the cost of the Leica plus lens is more that the D3x plus lens would be. But that's for Kent Rockwell to explain.)

If you look at other reviews of the Nikkor 14-24mm zoom, you'l find that it is universally respected, and that many conssider it to be the sharpest wide zoom made for a still camera. (The other sources you cite bear this out.)

Two other standout zooms by Nikon are the 17-55mm DX and the 70-200mm AF-S-VR.

 

[Beau Kahler]

I have the 24-70 2.8 70-200 2.8 and i just bought the 14-24 2.8 all amazing, super sharp lenses, cant go wrong with this spectrum, also the 50 1.8 and i am looking into getting the new 24 1.4

 

[Marq Lee]

I concur with peter's suggestion on the 85mm...SUPERB!!!

Curious, are you looking for glass for your Scarlet?

M

 

[Todd C. Deveau]

I've got the 10-24mm f3.5-4.5G (a DX/APS-C lens) , 24-70mm f2.8G, 70-200mm f2.8 VRIIG, 105mm f2.8G VR, the 24mm f1.4G, and the 50mm f1.8D. Mainly G lenses, the difference between the newer "G" lenses and the older "D" lenses being the G lenses lack an aperture ring and you're not going to get the most out of them with a dumb mount.

The 10-24 is great for an APS-C lens. Doesn't have the build quality of the 14-24 but it's also less than half the price. No clue how well it would cover the MX sensor, but I imagine with the increased crop factor at <4-5k it would cover ok??

The 24-70 is great. It's a pretty standard go to for my still works. Not a big fan of the "tromboning" that happens when you zoom, but this is an issue with the Canon 24-70mm as well.

The 70-200 VRII is superb. I generally shoot this wide open and it never ceases to impress. It's heavy though. Someone already mentioned this, but Duclos is working on a rehoused PL mount version of this lens. I doubt he'd take the time if it wasn't everything it was cracked up to be.

The 105 is also awesome. It's a macro, but incredibly sharp and very useful for non-macro work. Also built like a tank.

The 24 1.4 is pretty phenomenal. I've produced some reaaaaaaally sharp images even at f1.4 with this one. IMHO it's pretty contrasty and really makes colors pop. You have to be careful with it wide open as it can definitely exhibit some chromatic aberration at f1.4 in the highlights. Not the case all the time, but when CA is evident, it usually goes away when you stop down to f2.0 or so. There's also some light falloff in the corners wide open which might bother some, but it doesn't bother me. AF can also be tricky wide open, you really have to pay attention. Like the other lenses of this caliber, it's built like a tank and pretty heavy.

The 50 f1.8 is amazing for what it is. Small, light, sharp, etc. Not perfect at f1.8 but you get what you pay for. I saw another thread where someone used this on a Scarlet so for light run and gun work it could be great.

I haven't used them, but other lenses I hear about have been mentioned here. The 28mm f1.4 is pretty legendary (hence why used copies still cost >$2k). The 14-24 is all its cracked up to be (when I pick up a D800 or D4 I'll be trading in the 10-24 towards this). The 85mm f1.4G gets great marks and supposedly improves upon the 85mm f1.4D in every aspect, the only problem being its been on perpetual backorder so it's not the easiest lens to get a hold of. The 200mm f2 (VRI or VRII) is also supposedly incredible. The 300mm f2.8 VRII also gets really good marks.

 

[Lee Saxon]

If you win the Mega Millions or knock over a bank, the holy grail of non-distortion wide angle primes is the famous 13mm F/5.6

More than the expense is even being able to find one.

I've tried several times to get Jim to admit he has one, without success. I'd bet on it, though.

 

[Tim Morten]

For zooms, 17-35, 70-200, and 24-70 are all great value for the money, but breathing is non-trivial. Haven't shot with the 14-24, but I've heard good things.

For primes, I much prefer the ZF range to the Nikkors in the same focal lengths, but Nikon makes so many lenses there are surely some good choices out there.