While on the subject of "kick-ass" lens. I just saw a listing of a Nikon Nikkor 6mm f/2.8 Fisheye Lens on Ebay for cool starting bid of $27,600....yikes :P
Nikon's Best Lenses
(62 posts) (30 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Out of the lenses I own the 105 F2.8 VR hands down.
Posted 1 year ago # -
satellites said:
i can't believe no one mentioned the 70-300. i reach for that instead of my 70-200 vr2 9 times out of 10 because it is small, light, just as sharp, and has more reach. i only use the big guy when i need more light. its a miracle lens for the money.I've never used it, so I can't comment, but I usually hear good things about that lens too.
That would be my next purchase.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think no one has mentioned 300 f4. That one is very
sharp, light and affordable. For the wide end the old but
still in production 24 2.8 af-d is really sharp and small option.My personal favourite is 85 1.4 af-s! With my d700 it's nice for
portraits and some studiowork and when mounted to d300s it becomes short
tele for street and sports.Posted 1 year ago # -
I've owned a few nikkors in my day. The few manual focus lens I've kept are 15mm 3.5 AIs, 16mm 3.5 NAI AI'd by Nikon, 28mm 2.8 AIs still used all the time, 105 2.5 AIs. Those are my never sell or trade group.
My #1 goto lens 17-35 2.8 AFs, #2 105 2.0 DC AFd.
framer
Posted 1 year ago # -
SquamishPhoto said:
The only reason to go with the older lens would be if you were absolutely in love with that very specific focal range. Otherwise its a pretty poor decision. The 24mm is better in every way that matters, especially AF speed and accuracy and over all image quality. And you're not going to find the 28mm for the same price as the 24mm, and that really burns considering that the 28mm can only be bought used. Spending $2000-3000 and not getting a warranty kinda sucks too.The lack of warranty / only bought used thing doesn't trouble me too much... 3 of my lenses were free old lenses, 6 were bought used, 2 were refurbished, and only 2 were bought new (both Tokinas). Though I'm trying pretty hard not to buy a used 28/1.4 in hopes that I see some 24/1.4s come along to get me by with a bit more wide until I can run into a full frame camera...
Posted 1 year ago # -
IMO you'd be crazy to spend $2000-3000 on the 28 1.4 when you shooting DX. Take that money right now and go and buy a D700.
Best lenses, that I own/have tried.
35 1.4G, this seldom comes off my camera.
300 2.8G, this is great for anything tele, though it can be a little short, it's also portable.
105 2.8G macro, sharp, pretty good focal length, but misses focus often at close distances.i have used the 14-24, and though it is sharp, I shoot mainly people and have come to the conclusion that I just don't like pincushion distortion. I am looking at the 24 1.4G for something wider than the 35. The 14-24 would be the best choice for lanscapes though.
I have used the 84 1.4D and it was great, I can only assume that the 1.4G is better, so I would like to add this to the kit one day. I will sell my 70-200VRII, so I can have the "Prime Holy Trinity" the 105 macro and the 300 2.8. All of the VR lenses longer than 300 are great too, but I don't really need them.
So for me the best and most practical lenses would be.
24 1.4G
35 1.4G
85 1.4G
105 2.8G
300 2.8G
300(+) 2.8/4G anything.On full frame digital.
Posted 1 year ago # -
He's right. Stop reading the KR gush-fest over the 28mm and just buy a D700. At this point its really a collectors lens since it was only ever produced in small numbers. Thats the only reason its more expensive than the 24mm 1.4
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gareth said:
IMO you'd be crazy to spend $2000-3000 on the 28 1.4 when you shooting DX. Take that money right now and go and buy a D700.I'm not really sure how much the D700 would do for me over the D7000, beyond losing the crop factor. It might be a little better in low light, and have better autofocus, but my D7000 has done a great job for my purposes in low light and even the 39 point 3D autofocus has done great in extremely low light or tracking chaotically, rapidly moving subjects. I want to borrow a friend's D700 to shoot in low light and see if I really do feel it's worth the difference. I think a faster wide (even if it is 36mm or 42mm EFL) lens would fill more need.
And for the record, I only read the "KR gush-fest" after I decided that was a lens I'd like to have / use. :P
[obligatory "but- but- D800!!11" here]
Posted 1 year ago # -
Does the lens have to be Nikon made? Or is it ok as long as it has a Nikon mount? If so I pick the Tokina 11-16mm, my all time favorite lens.
And I agree about 105mm 2.8 VR. Absolutely worth it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I obviously missed this post last year, I've just been cracking up with laughter at Niko and Alpha's opening vollies :-) LOL! I think you were a bit softer then Niko, don't think most of us would get away with that now :-).
In answer to the OP, I think any of the new 1.4 primes are spectacular, but the lens I have attached to my 3s the most is the 70-200 VR2. Yes it's a heavy combination, but it sure does the business.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Most fun lenses I have used:
600/5.6
400/2.8
50/1.2
28PC
6/2.8Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
