What are your favorite Nikon AF lenses?

[james.liam]

1++ for narsuitus' recommendation.

Owned a slew of AF Nikkors but my most used were the 14-24, 24-70 v.1 & 70-300. They covered nearly all my requirements, save portraiture and for that, I used an 85/1.4 D.

 

[NickTrop]

Bokeh is important to those of us who understand that both the subject and background are important.

As for the rest of what you said, its a nice long list of excuses for failure. I've done a lot of photographs that were no good. I threw them away and learned from the experience.

The technical specs for this lens are all over the internet -- to a tedious degree of detail on DXO, which rates it higher than several modern lenses including the Tamron 45/1.8 (tied), the Zeiss Makro Planar, Nikon's own 50/1.4 G, and the Canon 50/1.2 USM (both have a t-stop value of 1.5, so in terms of light that hits the sensor, it's just as fast as the 1.2 Canon, costs a fraction and is rated higher on DxO).

The OP asked what Nikon lenses are your favorite. I listed mine, posted some recent samples, and explained why this old standard Nikkor is probably my favorite of the lot.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The technical specs for this lens are all over the internet. The OP asked what Nikon lenses are your favorite. I listed mine, posted some recent samples, and explained why this old standard Nikkor is probably mine.

I stand by what I said. Artists, in any medium (not just photography) have to care about both positive and negative space in the composition. (Positive space is the subject, negative space is everything else).

I wasn't saying all of your work sucks, but the photo you posted in this thread is a poor image to extol the virtues of a lens. Its not sharp. Period. Full stop. Mic drop.

 

[farlymac]

Here's a couple no one has mentioned. The 24-120mm 1:3.5-5.6D "Streetsweeper", and the AF Micro Nikkor 60mm 1:2.8D.


The 24-120 is not a push-pull type, and the 60 is almost short enough for a "normal" lens.

(Click on the photo for a larger view)

Comparisons by P F McFarland, on Flickr


You can also use G lenses on the F100 if you happen to come across some bargains.


PF

 

[Contarama]

The 28 1.4 still commands high prices, even after the introduction of the 1.4E

The old fast 28d is a very special lens...like a Noct is a special lens. If there is one AF nikkor I would like to own it would be the fast 28d. Imagine that lens on a crop camera...stills or video. Good super clean astrophotography wide angle style anyone?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The 20-35 f/2.8 D and the 180 f/2.8 ED. When I was working on the aircraft carrier, the 16mm f/2.8 was great in small compartments.

Phil Forrest

 

[Rob-F]

My favorites are the 24mm f/2.8 D, 50mm f/1.4 D, 85mm f/1.8 D, and the 17-35mm f/2.8 D. I wasn't happy with the performance of the 35mm f/2. I just use the 35/2 AIs.

 

[kxl]

I know the OP asked about Nikon AF lenses, but don't forget about the Sigma ART lenses. I have the 24, 35 and 50 f1.4 lenses. The 35 is outstanding and the 50 is not far behind. The other prime ART lenses are also outstanding (20, 28, 40, 85, 105--all f1.4 and the 135/1.8). The 28's the weakest of that bunch and the 105 is a monster lens, but the 40 is exquisite -- not my favorite FL, but a very fine lens.

 

[peterm1]

My favorites are the 24mm f/2.8 D, 50mm f/1.4 D, 85mm f/1.8 D, and the 17-35mm f/2.8 D. I wasn't happy with the performance of the 35mm f/2. I just use the 35/2 AIs.

Just a comment in relation to the 35mm f2. I have both the AF version and an early version MF lens with the scalloped focusing ring. I would not say the AF version is a bad lens but of the two I prefer the performance of the early MF one - it just puts out images with that classic lens feel. I cannot comment on the AIs version as I have not tried it. It may be relevant also to note that most would say the AIS version of the 28mm f2.8 is the pick of Nikkors in that focal length too.

 

[Rob-F]

Peter, I felt that my images with the 35/2 AF-D were sharp in the center, but too soft in the outer zones, even stopped down a bit. My 35/2 AIs is better. I tried the 35/2 ZF and liked the images. I may get another one.

The 28/2.8 AIs is very, very good in the close range. At distance it's OK, though not better than other lenses.

 

[stevierose]

Thanks to everyone for responding. I appreciate it. It is impressive how inexpensive some of these excellent lenses are. I'm looking forward to trying some of them.

 

[Huss]

Sharp from 2.8 on with very good microcontrast is the 50/1.4 D with good color rendition, and...

Whoa! Was the wall really that colour? It seems that it was white and there is a crazy cyan tint to the image.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Whoa! Was the wall really that colour? It seems that it was white and there is a crazy cyan tint to the image.

That is the beauty of pre-flash exposure and auto white balance plus the lights illuminating the background being older flourescent tubes. The flash has a fixed color balance so it is "thinking" only in terms of 18% gray. The camera sensor is matching the AWB of the subject which happens to be wearing a bright red shirt, further confusing the camera. Exposure was made for a warm white balance bias because the camera probably has a bright red shirt in its programming and adjusted accordingly. You can see this background in the other photo posted with the two women as the subject. The tell other than the featureless cyan field is the sickly dark pallor of the skin of the people in the background. Same case of allowing the camera to think instead of the photographer. This was covered in week 5 of Navy photo school and we were using slide film along with handheld color meters. We'd have to compensate for background using a filter over the lens and we would gel the flash. This image would get thrown away immediately and we would have to go out and reshoot until we got it right.
Phil Forrest

 

[Dirk]

Disagree. Firstly, I maintain that bokeh is overrated. The bokeh in this picture is fine. Only wonks care about it. Nobody really cared about it "then" except for portraiture lenses. This is true of 50's and expecially 35's and wider. It's an "internet thing" that only photoblog geeks concern themselves with. I have hardly ever observed "distracting bokeh" in any lens? And I have never seen bokeh that made me want to go out and blow $1,000's of dollars on a lens for it. It's simply not that important. Hexagonal, circular -- whatever? Nobody cares. (Circular apertures turn the sun into blobs of light instead of cool sun stars in daylight shooting, btw.) If I was after great bokeh? I'd have brought a telephoto lens and shot them as close as possible. Secondly, when HCB said "sharpness is a bourgeois concept" he wasn't kiddin'. The image is "sharp enough". What matters in this pic? The composition (it's okay for a grab shot). The colors -- I like them. The subject. They were kids, they didn't pose or stay still very long. An acceptable image was rendered in an instant hand-held., at a slow shutter speed, in low light at night -- terrible conditions, the worst. Oh -- and my 6', overweight, middle-aged frame was rather hunched over in an awkward position. Ouch. And not condusive to keeping a camera steady.

These are people shots, candids, at night with little kids An acceptable image rendered. A decisive moment. I'm not shooting textures on a tripod with studio lighting. This illustrates why 1.4 over 1.8. Because here you're fighting motion blur and camera shake as much as anything and every photon matters to buy you every 1/nth of shutter speed.

That the lens was able to render an acceptable image, on the spot, under the worst of conditions (with wirey little kids, no less) to the average viewer (not internet lens testers) is a testimony to its capabilities as a photographic tool. Also, you can see fine hair and texures. Like I said, sharp enough. I also say some of the perceived softness has as much to do with shutter speed, camera shake, and motion blur shooting live subjects, handheld, in low light. It's shapness wide-open is what it is -- not "biting" but acceptable.

I am doubling down, yes.

I agree with the sentiments expressed here for this type of photography. Studio and commercial, etc. may require different qualities.