EdgarCPoone

I should have asked for advice or opinions before acquiring some of my current lens but after the fact am asking for your views, opinions or suggestions. I have had Nikon equipment since an early film 8008. Tried some other brands and still use Nikon as my go to equipment. I do some domestic and international travel so my subjects range from individual people to distance landscapes. I have a D5300 and a D7200 with the kit lens Nikon DX VR AF-S Nikkor 18-140mm 3.5-5.6 G ED. These seem to work well for most situations. In case I wanted to get out a little further I also have a Nikon DX VR II AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 4-5.6 II ED, and a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm VR 4.5-5.6 G ED and when I really want to touch someone a Nikon VR AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm 5.6 E ED. My question comes down to the quality, sharpness, and focus ability of my lenses. I have heard various comments on the board about some ‘glass’ being good or some not so good. Are there any suggestion about possibly swapping out some of my current lens for something that would be considered better glass (sharper image, faster focusing or bigger aperture etc)? Thanks for any suggestions.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Welcome to our forum!

How about the new Tamron 100-400mm? Or a 150-600mm? When you narrow down your choices, look for reviews and comparisons online. There's no sense paying more for a lens that doesn't suit you.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

First, do you still have any of your older lenses? A lot of those will work on the newer digital cameras, but have to look at compatibility [on Nikon's website] to know if they will need to be used only in manual focus.

You have a lot of lenses that are redundant - they cover the same focal lengths. What you need to consider is what focal lengths work best for the types of photography you prefer. Sounds like you are a generalist for the most part! As for quality, Nikon lenses are all decent, but the highest quality ones are weather-sealed, have a wider available aperture, and [if available] VR. They are more expensive, but if you can handle the cost, that is where you should put your money.

If you want sharp images, get good glass [I prefer f/2.8 or wider]. For zooms it is also usually better to have a short focal length range, although there have been advances that have made those "all-in-one" types of zoom lenses better than they used to be. There are a lot of different opinions on what would be the best choices for lenses. I can give you my opinion as an example.

When doing portraits, a lot of people suggest a focal length of around 85mm, and others prefer something shorter. For portraits, if you have a favorite focal length to use, a prime lens with a low f/number would be a good choice. However, if you want more versatility, a lens like the 24-70mm f/2.8 [FX] is a wonderful lens [one of Nikon's "classic trio"]. It is an FX lens, but it can be used on a DX camera as long as you are aware of the effect of the crop factor. It can take just about any kind of image unless you need a wider angle or more magnification.

You own the 200-500mm f/5.6 [FX] which is a fine lens, and is great for when you need more reach [once again the crop factor works in your favor on the long end].

To fill in the gap between the 24-70mm and the 200-500mm a good lens would be the 70-200mm f/2.8 [FX], another member of Nikon's "classic trio" and is very highly recommended.

That would leave the wide end of the focal length range to fill. You have the 18-140mm [DX], which covers the wide end, as well as some of the extended focal lengths. I am not familiar with this lens, so cannot speak to its sharpness throughout its focal length range. But following the general rule that shorter is better, you could consider the 16-35mm f/4 [FX] or the 14-24mm f/2.8 [FX], another of Nikon's "classic trio".

You have undoubtedly noticed my recommendations are all FX lenses. Together, they cover all the focal lengths you will need without redundancy. Some would argue about whether that makes a good choice for a DX camera. My first DSLR was a Nikon D7000 [DX], and I started with "kit" [DX] lenses. Wanting better glass, I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 [older model without VR] and used it for about a year on that camera until I bought the D810 last fall. I loved it on the D7000, and love it even more on the D810! My other lenses are also FX, and a few more are on my wish list! Still have the D7000 as a backup camera, but sold the DX lenses. Buying FX lenses provided better glass, and when I decided to get a FF camera did not have to buy all new lenses! The primary caveat to these lenses is that they tend to be heavier than other choices. It is up to you whether weight is an issue.

Hope this helps!
Susan

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I own the Nikkor 200-500 and for the money it's a darn nice lens. Sure, there are better but they also cost a boat load more. I've compared it to my Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and I like the Nikkor a wee bit better. I've also used the matching 1.4 teleconverter's on both lenses and in my opinion, the Nikkor is the winner. I also have the Sigma 150-600 Sport in Canon EF mount and except for its colossal weight, I feel the Sport is better than both, both optically and build quality. But again, for $1300 the Nikkor is a great lens.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Unless you got a lemon, your 200-500mm should be a good lens. Test it yourself and see if you're satisfied with the sharpness at various focal lengths and apertures. What about you? Are YOU happy with the sharpness of your other lenses? When you come to the point that you're dissatisfied with a lens, that's the time to move up.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

There are Nikon lenses; and, there are Nikon lenses. Generally, one gets quality when one is willing to pay for it.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Agreed. After purchasing either the 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8 prime lens (I would suggest full frame), I would recommend purchasing the 24-70mm f2.8 lens as the first foray into a quality zoom lens. Another possibility would be the 85mm f1.8 prime. None of the prime lenses will break the bank, but are also very fast. The zoom is perhaps Nikon's best zoom. The non-VR version is available for a very reasonable price due to the release of the VR version. Many of us do not feel that VR is needed in such a short lens.

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

Keep the 20-500. Then buy the Holy trinity. The 2.8-14-24. The 2.8-24-70 and the 2.8-70-200. All these will do you just fime unless you wand to but a specialty lens. Happy shooting. One last thing the Holy trinity are not cheap.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

Susan, this is very detailed and comprehensive response. Hope it provides the guidance being sought.

Hammer Loc: London UK

I have been told that you have to match the lens resolving power to the quality of the sensor. In other words there is no point in putting exceptional glass on a sensor that cant handle it . I am no expert and this may be just sales talk . I did see a video on DigitalRevs web site that showed an experiment with a sensor and two quality of lens . This implied that all modern sensors are good and its mainly the that matters. Just something to consider .

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

I home a few lenses including for Nikon 200 to 500 and the Tamron 18 to 400. The 200 to 500 is a fantastic lens very sharp for the money. The 18-400 is kind of a go out to the themepark for shooting different scenario.

The first it was from my 200 to 500 the second images from my Tamron 18-500.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The only lens you have that I am not familiar with is the 55-300. You refer to your travels and you mentioned that portraits and landscapes are your favorite subjects. Let me just discuss the possibilities within those two choices.
For portraits, if you are not interested in bokeh any of your lenses will do a good job except for the 200-500 which is heavy and was not designed for portrait photography. If bokeh is important then you have to learn how to use the lenses you have to obtain the best bokeh when doing head and shoulder portraits or go for a lens like the Nikon 85mm f1.8 (old or new version) which is excellent.
If you ask my opinion, your 18-140 should be your walk around lens. The 55-200 has been reasonably good optically but till recently the AF has not been something to write home about. I do not know how the new generation of this lens behave.
By the way, I do not know what made you buy the 55-200 and 55-300. My choice would have been the very good 70-300 VR. Between the 18-140 and the 70-300 VR you have a lot of real state that you can cover with those two lenses.

lamontcranston

I always enjoy reading Ken Rockwell's reviews on NIKON products for the enjoyment factor. He loves anything NIKON. Never seen a bad review from him. So if I am contemplating buying a new NIKON lens, I read his review, and then run out and buy it. Never been disappointed...so far.

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

Welcome to the Hog Edgar, enjoy.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

SHARPNESS has more to do with the photographer than the lens. My Nikon 200-500, IMHO, preforms as well as my Nikon 300 2.8 or my 200-400 4.