5 Lenses that Every Nikon Shooter Needs to Know About

dissent

+1 pictureted. A nice, relatively lightweight lens for outdoor event shooting.

Andrewz

Interesting list I have none of them, well sort of. I have the older 80-200 AF-S f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.8D. But I agree no mention of the 24-70? and what about the 14-24mm f/2.8 my favorite lens. 800mm really I'd never use it, I rarely use my 80-200.

BabaGanoush

Lots of negative comments here about the list itself, but also the 70-300mm lens. Makes you wonder why Nikon recently brought out two consumer-level versions of 70-300mm for the D3400 but no pro-like replacement for the 70-300mm nor a pro-level DX version.

pictureted

BabaGanoush said:

Lots of negative comments here about the list itself, but also the 70-300mm lens. Makes you wonder why Nikon recently brought out two consumer-level versions of 70-300mm for the D3400 but no pro-like replacement for the 70-300mm nor a pro-level DX version.

I did not like the 70-300VR much until recently. It does, however, seem altogether better on the D500. I've been tempted to see whether it's the better AF, but I now use the lens regularly.

Ironheart

I've noticed that the 70-300 is a bit better on the D500 too. I think the combo of better AF and the better ISO performance (which leads to being less fearful of stopping down) has given it a new life for me.

DaveyJ

I have owned four of these lens. I have four of the 70-300VR due to our set up, several photographers, etc. I got rid of the 70-200. The 800 is fine for some but it is the lens I would not use in the field unless I knew darn well I could not get closer! To me that lend is the epitome of a sidelines lens! I do sideline photography, I'm either out in it, or I'm not there! You would have to have another camera and a wider angle lens to,use a 800mm!

spraynpray

I'll get the 50 as it is so cheap. It isn't a focal length I use a lot so I'm not getting another art. 70-300? Nah, too much variation in samples.

Generally, that article is really weak IMHO.

Capt_Spaulding

Without getting into the relative merits of the article, I've noticed a bit of asparagus being cast at the 105 macro. I'm curious as to what issues folks have with it?

I can see the 70-300. I own it and use it pretty extensively on a D610 and a D7200 and while it performs well for me, I can see some of it's limitations. I haven't spent much time behind really good tele-zoom lenses and could very well not know what I'm missing.

But the 105 seems pretty darn competent to me.

WestEndFoto

The issue is that it is not as good as the 105 1.4. So not really an issue. It is a great lens, though I picked the 200 f/4.0 macro.

pictureted

For me the issue with the 105VR is that while it's good optically, it's just not in the same category as such legendary lenses as the Nikon 200/4 macro, the Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar or the Nikon 105/2.5 AIS for portraits.

Ironheart

Hmm, Rodger might disagree:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-105mm-f1-4-e-mtf-bench-tests/

pictureted

Ironheart said:

Hmm, Rodger might disagree:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-105mm-f1-4-e-mtf-bench-tests/

Actually I think the new 105/1.4 might become legendary (like the 200/2 and almost all the super telephotos). I'd love to have it.