They are the expensive ones :)

Another way to look at this is to think of lenses not by "quality" but by functionality. Nikon recently redesigned the way they display their lens line up online (at least for Nikon USA). Now they're organized by use: Sports, Landscape, People, etc. It's not perfect but it's vast improvement over the old scrolling list for someone who comes to the site not knowing quite what they want. Coming from someone who advises companies on how to improve their online user experiences I think this is a good start.
I'd suggest taking a look at your images, figure out what you shoot most frequently, and try to find a category that matches your area of interest. It will make that huge list of 78 lenses (and counting) much easier to navigate.

Thanks for all the help and keep it coming! I am still a bit confused trying to figure out Nikon's lens lineup. I have a D5100 and currently have the kit 18-55mm, the 55-300mm, and the 35mm 1.8G prime lens. I am not shopping for any lens in particular, but wanted to know how I could better understand Nikon's lens lineup.

Thanks for the help!

It seems none recommend it ever, but the 17-55 F2.8 really is a great lens. It is a pro (gold ring) lens and it performs like the pro lenses should. That being said I suppose I wouldn't recommend it if in the long run you plan to go FX, but for a D3200 it would rock. I am assuming it is on Donald's list because it is DX lens and it would obviously not be listed for the FX D800. However it will be rocking on my D400 if it ever gets released ;)

Like others have said. The aperture, price and gold ring are the distinguishing factors really. That said there are some good non-pro lenses. I kept my 35 F1.8 even though I don't use it all that much just because it is a great lens for cheap, but now I might just be rambling since it was a question of distinguishing what the best lenses are.

Lastly for the lens reviews. I would be kind of choosey of what you believe from reviews and where you are getting your information from. I would try the lenses if you can. I think depending on where you look lenses can be overrate and underrated depending on the audience that is doing the reviews.

How deep are your pockets?

adamz said:
taking only the pure IQ there's not as much difference between the lenses in the current nikon lineup as one might think of. if You know Your equipment You'll be able to take extremely technically correct snaps even from the cheapest lenses, the thing is that in order to get max from the cheap lenses You need to stopped it down to f8, also the overall speed ain't gonna be that good.

other thing are the gold rant lenses in nikon lineup, they are created towards professional use (please keep in mind that I didn't say they are created for professionals). the "professional" touch in those lenses equals tougher resistance towards elements including better weather sealing, metal instead of plastic bayonet also faster f-stop.

Hi all,

+1

@roombarobot "Assuming" that you are looking at a D3200 (and you reference it in your post), Adamz is spot on. Most of the Nikon lenses will produce good to excellent results.

The kind of results you _want_ and the _way_ you want to work may not be exactly what you expect or desire.

I think the D3200 doesn't have an internal motor for all lenses, which won't matter if your lenses have motors for auto focusing, but something you ought to know about.

As TTJ mentioned, zoom lenses _can_ change their maximum f-stop as they change their focal length. That can be a drag; it also changes some of the automatic functions of shutter/aperture, etc., of the camera in usage. Constant f-stop throughout the focal length of a given zoom lenses generally means that it is a more expensive lens. Wider apertures mean something, too.

That's why prime lenses with larger apertures are sought by professionals and enthusiasts alike. Bokeh, or the _quality_ of the out of focus background and/or foreground delineating the subject is something that large apertures in the f1.8/f1.4 range give so well. That bokeh comes from the aperture, generally, wider is better, and undeniably, you start from the widest setting and go from there. If you start at f5.6, you don't have far to go.

The review you pointed to in DCPreview refers to the 18-55mm stock lens. I don't think the lens is that bad, for what it is, a very, very inexpensive lens that makes nice photos.

My best,

Mike

Gabbb said:
When compared wide open the differences are very obvious. With that said, the 50 1.4G is one of the least sharp g lenses nikon has ever made, so obviously a no go on the d3200, if maximized sharpness is the goal.

Gabbb I'm starting to wonder if you have ever had a "good" lens. It seems like you get a bunch of duds. ;) We all should be careful not to make overreaching absolutes of lenses that we have used. Any sample variations and even D vs G lenses I don't find the different "obvious" at all. Bokeh on the 50 1.8 D vs G on lights for sure but nothing on sharpness.

My copy of the 50mm 1.4 G is sharp wide open and just gets better to tack sharp @ 2.8, just like almost every 1.4 & 1.8 lenses other than maybe Leica. Anyone I have spoke to who like me, bought that lens a couple of years after it was first released, has said nothing but good comments about the lens.

@shawnino - 85mm 1.8 D is what I have, and I do see it having more CAs and a bit less sharp wide open then the new G. On the D800 in jpegs, the CAs are auto-magically removed. Raw, they are not as evident but fixable. Add some sharpening in post, they that is the same between the two. That is the difference I have been looking at. I'm sad about that actually, as I waned a reason to upgrade. (:

shawnino said:
Pulling together the list Donald found and Adam's thoughts, I have the D-version of the 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses. I have tested the new G-versions. My skill level isn't high enough to coax out meaningful differences between the D and G versions. By meaningful I mean enough difference to splash out the extra $200 for the 50mm or the extra $500 for the 85mm. For others, it may well be worth it because they are better photographers than I am. But I find the D-glass, which isn't on the list, serves me extremely well for what I'm able to accomplish.

When compared wide open the differences are very obvious. With that said, the 50 1.4G is one of the least sharp g lenses nikon has ever made, so obviously a no go on the d3200, if maximized sharpness is the goal.

Pulling together the list Donald found and Adam's thoughts, I have the D-version of the 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses. I have tested the new G-versions. My skill level isn't high enough to coax out meaningful differences between the D and G versions. By meaningful I mean enough difference to splash out the extra $200 for the 50mm or the extra $500 for the 85mm. For others, it may well be worth it because they are better photographers than I am. But I find the D-glass, which isn't on the list, serves me extremely well for what I'm able to accomplish.

It will be interesting to see the DXOMark scores for the new 85mm f/1.8G. While not of the rugged construction of the "pro" f/1.4G, the initial results from early tests suggest it may out resolve the f/1.4 at some large (f/1.8 - f/2.8) settings. I am unable to find these but do remember seeing these prior to purchase of the f/1.8, which I really love. Of course, it also is the same as my 40+ year old 85 f/1.8 from the '60's although weighs about one-third as much.

And, about what Adam said...the person behind the camera is about 98% of the sharpness, as almost all the current lenses will be quite sharp if properly used. (Something I guess I can do maybe 25% of the time)

Nikon published this list of "good" lenses to use with the high resolution D800 and D800e. One can assume Nikon is saying that these particular lenses would produce the sharpest results on any high resolution sensor, the D3200 included.

With cameras like the D800E, which are suited to visually
complex subjects, it is important to get as much sharpness
from the lens as possible. Contrast at the periphery of the image
can generally be increased by choosing an aperture two
or three stops from the maximum, although results will vary
from lens to lens. Below are some of the lenses you can use
for enhanced sharpness:
AF-S NIKKOR 14–24 mm f/2.8G ED
AF-S NIKKOR 24–70 mm f/2.8G ED
AF-S NIKKOR 70–200 mm f/2.8G ED VR II
AF-S NIKKOR 16–35 mm f/4G ED VR
AF-S NIKKOR 24–120 mm f/4G ED VR
AF-S NIKKOR 200–400 mm f/4G ED VR II
AF-S NIKKOR 24 mm f/1.4G ED
AF-S NIKKOR 35 mm f/1.4G
AF-S NIKKOR 85 mm f/1.4G
AF-S NIKKOR 200 mm f/2G ED VR II
AF-S NIKKOR 300 mm f/2.8G ED VR II
AF-S NIKKOR 400 mm f/2.8G ED VR
AF-S NIKKOR 500 mm f/4G ED VR
AF-S NIKKOR 600 mm f/4G ED VR
AF-S Micro NIKKOR 60 mm f/2.8G ED
AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105 mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Also, one can look at the DxOMark scores of lenses to see which measure the highest.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php

one more thing, please remember that it really doesn't matter what equipment You have. photography first and of all is about You and Your skills.

taking only the pure IQ there's not as much difference between the lenses in the current nikon lineup as one might think of. if You know Your equipment You'll be able to take extremely technically correct snaps even from the cheapest lenses, the thing is that in order to get max from the cheap lenses You need to stopped it down to f8, also the overall speed ain't gonna be that good.

other thing are the gold rant lenses in nikon lineup, they are created towards professional use (please keep in mind that I didn't say they are created for professionals). the "professional" touch in those lenses equals tougher resistance towards elements including better weather sealing, metal instead of plastic bayonet also faster f-stop.

golf007sd said:
If you are asking which line of Nikon lenses are identified as "pro" look for those lenses that have a gold ring around them. However, there are many Nikon lenses that do not have a "gold ring" yet produce outstanding results. i.e. 35 1.8G for DX, 50 1.4G, 85 1,8G...etc..etc.

Cheers...

+1 - Also the ones with the gasket but that seems to be changing with cheaper one's starting to get them.

Rule of thumbs with Nikon gear (and really other brands as well.)
-1.4s are better than 1.8s (Build/and a bit better in wide open optical quality- mainly just build.)
-2.8s & 4.0 are better than variable zooms. (Build/much better in wide open optical quality.)
-Lenses that "collapse & extend into the body" tend to have more issues with internal dust and less "robust" than ones that do not.

The more expensive, the better they really are. There are very good reasons why the 55-200mm VR is $250 and the 70-200VR is $2,000.

Nikon really doesn't do what Canon does in regards have various levels (cheap, good, better, best) of glass. Mostly Nikon just goes from cheap to best with a few in-between.

There are a few outliers but this usually holds true:
If it's $1,400+ it's the best.
500-1400 in-between
<500 Lower

None are optically bad that were released in the last 5-6 years.

roombarobot said:
How do I know which are good, better, best Nikon lenses?

If you are asking which line of Nikon lenses are identified as "pro" look for those lenses that have a gold ring around them. However, there are many Nikon lenses that do not have a "gold ring" yet produce outstanding results. i.e. 35 1.8G for DX, 50 1.4G, 85 1,8G...etc..etc.

Cheers...

roombarobot said:
How do I know which are good, better, best Nikon lenses?
So how would I know?

In zooms, the Holy Trinity (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) has deserved its praise.
And the long G series prime teles are all good. 105 VR is a very good macro.

The best wideangle I have ever found is the 24mm f/1.4G (the 35mm 1.4G is equal in quality, but I would pass the 85mm 1.4G in favor of the 85mm 1.8G or the Sigma 85mm 1.4 - both are sharper @ f/2.0)

As long as you avoid the superzooms, you should be fine. Read the review sites on the net.

You are in luck as there are a couple of lens threads around at the moment,take a look (do a search for 'Favourite Lens').

The good news, with Nikon's current range, I don't think there are any "bad" lens

As a general rule, prime lens are sharper than zoom lens

Zoom lens that that do NOT change their f number ( f2.8 or f4 ) tend to be better opitcally, than zoom lens that do ( f 3.5 - f5.6)

As a general rule, as in most of life , the more you pay the higher the quality

Most , if not all of Nikon's best lens have a Super Integrated Coating

There really is not a clear answer for that. There are definite different grades of lenses. Most of the high end lenses are designed for FX as are the L series for Canon. There are a few things to really consider when determining good lenses. What are you planning to use it for? What are your expectations of the lenses? How much do you plan on spending? What lenses is the camera body you currently have compatible with? Are you planning on moving up to a FX body in the future?

I personally went through a similar view on lenses a while back. I have a D7000 and while it is an excellent camera I out grew it with what I wanted to do in the realm of photography. With the D7000 I had the compatibility of pretty much every lens Nikon and third parties had shipped that were AI or AI converted or better. I ended up updating to a D800 because of the FX aspect of the camera and being able to use a lot of the old glass that I had been collecting as it had been intended. Now this is just how it ended up working out for me.

Now there is a lot of excellent DX lenses out there and a lot of the "Is the glass you have good enough for the sensor you have?" comes from people not understanding how optics work. Short of a lens having major problems the optics on it should cause any problems for any sensor/film you have behind it. What I use to support this idea is I have been shooting a lens that was heavily fungus covered lens that I had purchased knowing it had this issue. According to a lot of the web shooting with this lens that I rebuilt and cleaned every image should be crap. The reality of it is that short of a sensor/film being really messed up (scratched, cracked, damaged) there won't be much to cause issue. The reason behind this is the whole law of averages that is basically how photography works. Anyway the heavily fungus covered lens that I rebuilt/cleaned takes awesome pics on the D800 and the D7000 but on the D7000 you really don't get the full potential of the lens.

I guess after this long babbling rant is basically find the lens that is best suited for what you hope to accomplish. There are lots of places that give reviews for lenses Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell are decent base line concepts of what is out there. But do not take their word as bible. Rockwell for example tends to be kinda I don't know about his reviews. I usually use that whole law of averages in deciding on a lens. Take what the people that "know" about cameras say and compare it with other random "normal" people reviews. You will find that there is a lot of good lenses out there that aren't the pro-line lenses that are perfectly capable of taking magnificent pictures. I hope this helps.

How do I know which are good, better, best Nikon lenses? Canon makes it easy by differentiating their L series vs their normal lenses. How do I know for Nikon?

For instance, the dpreview review of the D3200 said it needed to use a better lens to get more from that sensor
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200/20
So how would I know?

Please help me learn more about the Nikon lens lineup. Thank you!