Quality of Nikon lens? (Page 2): Thanks for all the comments - I am always learning something new. Thanks again...

EdgarCPoone

Thanks for all the comments - I am always learning something new.

Thanks again

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

No question, I am in the minority here but I personally wouldn't buy any of the Nikon "trinity lenses" for my DX camera. They are expensive and heavy and did I say expensive! The wide angle advantage is lost when you factor in the crop value. And if I wanted a 70-200 mm lens I would look at the f 4 version- lighter and much cheaper but still an excellent choice. You might look at a couple of primes to fill in wide and mid focal lengths- much better value while being a fraction of the weight of the big bazookas.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

SteveR wrote:

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.

I agree. Also, one lens can be technically sharper than another, but it usually comes down to speed and confidence in getting acceptably sharp pictures in different situations. How a particular lens behaves in your hands in your own cameras can matter more than lab test results.

Leitz Loc: Solms

EdgarCPoone wrote:

My question comes down to the quality, sharpness, and focus ability of my lenses.

Here's a novel idea. Go out and take pictures with each of your cameras and lenses, and see for yourself if they're adequate for your purpose.

Mike1017

Amen well said

MW

IMO: Any lens you buy today from a major company (Nikon, Olympus, Fuji etc) will be a good lens. Some are better but the only people who will notice are other photographers or commercial buyer. The average person will never know or care where your lens cost $150 or $1500

2Much Loc: WA

SusanFromVermont wrote:

...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...

Since the OP does travel photography, perhaps you should have mentioned the burro.

With respect to the trinity, I might "argue" a 24-70 f/2.8 is a lot of cargo to fill a gap in focal lengths with a DX camera. That's a narrow middle range easily covered with your feet and a fast prime in the 35 to 50mm range. If I'm going very far, which is usual, the 40mm DX macro is a useful and much more enjoyable companion.

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

EdgarCPoone wrote:

I should have asked for advice or opinions before ... (show quote)

I also have a N8008, a D5000, a D7000, and my favorite D7200. For lenses; An 18-200 VR ll 3.5 - 5.6, a 70-300 VR 4.5 - 5.6 are my main lenses, plus 50 1.4 and a 18 - 105 VR. All are Nikkors. My favorite is the excellent 18 - 200 VR ll which is on my D7200 all the time. My others rotate on my D7000.
Considering the 200 - 500 in the future.
Hope this helps.

Duane

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

One thing to note regarding Nikon Lens quality. Nikon makes two different lines of lenses; lower end "kit" lenses and professional quality lenses. The kit lenses tend to have many plastic parts and are slower lenses. Many do not have a uniform maximum f-stop from one end of the zoom range to the other. The professional lenses are identified by a gold ring near the front of the lens barrel. Most Nikon professional lenses in the wide angle to mid-telephoto range are minimum f2.8 lenses and on zoom lenses the maximum f-stop is uniform throughout the zoom range.

I shoot full frame and I, although I have a large lens selection, I use the f2.8 24-70mm and 70-200mm 95% of the time. I would also recommend the professional line 16-35mm F/4G AF-S NIKKOR ED VR-II super wide angle (107 degree angle of view) to round out your collection. Ditch everything else except your long telephotos and prime lenses.

jrh1354 Loc: Dayton, Ohio

EdgarCPoone wrote:

I should have asked for advice or opinions before ... (show quote)

Your 18-140 is ideal for a walk about lense. The glass is high quality and, yet, the lens is not that heavy. Since neither of your cameras is a full-frame body, you won't gain much by using FF lenses. Your 55-300 tele has VR - keep using it till your skill level requires a body upgrade to FF. I've got the D5300 and D7000. I've been shooting for over 50 years and still find these 2 bodies more than adequate for my needs. I have at least a dozen lenses - but most stay in their boxes.

Good luck in fighting off the GAS attacks.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

lamontcranston wrote:

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.

Ken writes like a Nikon fan but last year when I was debating upgrading my D7200 to D500 I emailed him. He wrote me back and said dump your Nikon and buy Canon. I forget which Canon. I was asking a sports related question. He also said Canon lenses cost less. Might all be true but shocked me. I bought the D500 and 200-500 lens.

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

jccash wrote:

Ken writes like a Nikon fan but last year when I was debating upgrading my D7200 to D500 I emailed him. He wrote me back and said dump your Nikon and buy Canon. I forget which Canon. I was asking a sports related question. He also said Canon lenses cost less. Might all be true but shocked me. I bought the D500 and 200-500 lens.

I have used the 200-500 going on my second year with the D500 using it every day in the wetlands of Florida, I used to use the Nikon 300 2.8 and the 200-400 4, I have found through use, that the 200-500 to be just as sharp as those two lenses. I am very pleased with the performance of that lens.

lamontcranston

jccash wrote:

Ken writes like a Nikon fan but last year when I was debating upgrading my D7200 to D500 I emailed him. He wrote me back and said dump your Nikon and buy Canon. I forget which Canon. I was asking a sports related question. He also said Canon lenses cost less. Might all be true but shocked me. I bought the D500 and 200-500 lens.

That's very interesting. After years of recommending everyone shoot JPEG and let the camera do the correcting, I've seen on a few websites that he has changed his mind and now recommends shooting RAW. I cannot find any article that confirms that. And I always thought Canon lenses were generally more expensive than Nikon lenses. So much to learn on the internet....and so little time.

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

lamontcranston wrote:

That's very interesting. After years of recommending everyone shoot JPEG and let the camera do the correcting, I've seen on a few websites that he has changed his mind and now recommends shooting RAW. I cannot find any article that confirms that. And I always thought Canon lenses were generally more expensive than Nikon lenses. So much to learn on the internet....and so little time.

Depends on the Canon lens, several of their professional lenses ARE more expensive than the same Nikon lens.

claytonsummers Loc: Orange County, CA

Kmgw9v wrote:

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

What do you think of the old AIS 50mm f1.4? I bought mine with my first SLR, an FE2. Currently, that same lens is my favorite on my D750. Apparently, Nikon still makes this lens. Amazing.