What are the best Nikon lenses one can own which are perhaps superior to thier competitors?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
ElenaH said:
400/2.8E FL ED is definitelly a reference lens concerning the resolution (the image still has details when it is heavily cropped). Moreover it has a kind of crispiness no other lens has! No other of any brand, I mean.
The other qualities to consider are:
the bokeh (perfect by 400/2.8 but I am not so sure about 500/5.6 PF, for example ...)
the T-stop (light transmission)
the 3D-effect (only Voigtländer and Zeiss can compete with 400/2.3 FL. By the way many of Nikkors have 3D-effect but unfortunatelly I don't see it by Sony lenses... except the expensive primes)
the flare-resistance (shooting into the sun)
the overall rendition (colors, forms, transition from sharpness to unsharpness, brilliance, etc)

I thought, the legendary lens is like 105/2.5 ... with which the Afgan Girl was shoot... ;-)
Click to expand...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
+++++

I am SO GLAD to read your post.

It is EXACTLY what I think.

I have seen thousands of wildlife images on Instagram taken by professionals on Sony telephoto primes and the images made from them seem flatter, when I compare similar images or when I compare similar images from the same photographers with Nikon/Canon glass. The transition from the subject in the foreground to the background is more sudden, sharper, & flatter!

I feel Nikon gives amazing 3d pop. A more gradual & natural transition. To my naked eyes, the 400 F2.8 is sharp & gives that 3d pop.

But when it comes to 500/600 primes, I feel Canons are better than Nikon. They give that nice 3d pop but are also sharper than Nikon equivalents.

I feel the new Z lenses are going to be more like Sony lenses. The 70-200 Z apparently is sharper & transition sharper too...not sure....
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
If a modern lens of any brand costs more than $10,000 and is mounted on a high end camera, no one will be able to see a difference in an image and say 'that was the Nikon or that was the Canon.' That said I do pore over Canon reviews and sample images and bench tests hoping a lens I can afford will get me on the cover of Natgeo. Sigh, it's not the lens' fault I didn't make it this month. I'll take the RF600 f4L if you are gifting.
Click to expand...

Idk, I feel many will be able to tell the difference in certain type of photos. Differences in rendering ...etc...but yeah as you said....it is likely to be nearly identical...one needs to be familiar with the glass of different brands...
 
sid_19911991 said:
Is there an adapter to use Nikon glass with Sony bodies? There is one for Canon. If there is, you should give it a try.
Click to expand...

I believe there is no autofocus when you adapt Nikon glass to Canon cameras, and the reverse is impossible to focus infinity due to the flange depth difference, besides it's the bikini/Speedo rule in effect.
 
Member's gallery
There are 3rd party adapters from commlite, fotodiox etc but those are pretty much unusable in the real world. Tried one with the Sony A7R4 and 4002.8E FL. Nikon lenses generally do not play well with other brands whereas canon lenses work ok on Sony bodies.

sid_19911991 said:
Is there an adapter to use Nikon glass with Sony bodies? There is one for Canon. If there is, you should give it a try.
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
Besides a couple of MF Leica primes many years, I've only used Nikkors and Nikon-F fit.
There are many out there - present as well as discontinued. My selection is drawn from sifting uncounted reviews over best part of the past decade, and trying and trading in a fair number.
My Categories :
∞ Tried, Tested and Working; Ø = Tried and Tested, Good but Not Worked Enough so sold onwards

I rate a lens primarily on Image Quality, including rendering AND portability and Robustness. Thus Nikon is unmatched from all I've seen and read for unique image rendering with the 58 f1.4G, 105 f2AFD DF and 105 f2AFD DF . Prioritizng these criteria differs for my telephotos where IQ sharpness is by mile Number 1 :), and edge-to-edge sharpness important for Ultra-Wides

Ultra Wides - Wides

14mm f/2.8D IF-ED Nikkor
14-24mm AFS f/2.8 G ED Nikkor
Sigma 12-24 mm f/4 II DG HSM Art
Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM | A
∞ Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 ZF Z* Nikon (upgraded to ASPH Milvus)
∞ 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Nikkor (FX)
∞ 21mm ZF-ZF.2-ZE 21/2.8 Zeiss
Ø 25mm ZF-ZF.2-ZE 21/2.8 Zeiss


Normal and Travel Zooms

∞ 45mm f/2.8AIP Nikkor
Ø 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR II Nikkor
Ø 24-120mm f/4G ED VR AFS Nikkor
∞ 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF Zoom-Nikkor


‘Portrait’ also Tighter Landscape

∞ 85mm f/1.4 D AF Nikkor
105mm f/1.4E Nikkor ED
105mm f/2D AF-DC Nikkor
Ø 135mm f/2D AF-DC Nikkor
∞ 105mm f/1.8 AIS Nikkor
∞ 105mm f2.5 Nikkor F, AI and AI-S (1971-2005), notably 9 blade AI copies
Click to expand...


Wow, that's quite a list. Thanks a ton. I shall save this as a note.
 
sid_19911991 said:
Idk, I feel many will be able to tell the difference in certain type of photos. Differences in rendering ...etc...but yeah as you said....it is likely to be nearly identical...one needs to be familiar with the glass of different brands...
Click to expand...
It's hard to say, because you have the entire camera and lens system at play. One could never say that the lens itself caused a particular difference. Different profiles in raw conversion to start.
 
Member's gallery
sid_19911991 said:
The 70-200 Z apparently is sharper & transition sharper too...not sure
Click to expand...

@sid_19911991 I cannot tell about Sony 70-200 (but a good idea to test) but I wanted to buy 70-200 Z and tested it against Tamron 70-200 G2. And there was no difference in image quality! I expected it would... !
Nikon 70-200mm Z is longer than Tamron when object is closer. I don't think , it is a focus-breathing ... it is a DEEP breath then!! if object is about 2m away hen Tamron is about 170mm on the lang end. It is a big difefrence! Even Tamron 70-180mm (for Sony E) was longer in this condition.
But they were equally sharp and resolved details the same way... Tamron has even a bit more contrast. I tested both on Z7 (changing the lens)
At the end I didn't buy Nikon Z becasue I have that Tamron... Nikon was borrowed. I always borrow equipment and test it before taking decisions to buy it.
 
Member's gallery
ElenaH said:
@sid_19911991 I cannot tell about Sony 70-200 (but a good idea to test) but I wanted to buy 70-200 Z and tested it against Tamron 70-200 G2. And there was no difference in image quality! I expected it would... !
Nikon 70-200mm Z is longer than Tamron when object is closer. I don't think , it is a focus-breathing ... it is a DEEP breath then!! if object is about 2m away hen Tamron is about 170mm on the lang end. It is a big difefrence! Even Tamron 70-180mm (for Sony E) was longer in this condition.
But they were equally sharp and resolved details the same way... Tamron has even a bit more contrast. I tested both on Z7 (changing the lens)
At the end I didn't buy Nikon Z becasue I have that Tamron... Nikon was borrowed. I always borrow equipment and test it before taking decisions to buy it.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's wise to test & buy. Great to know you notice such nuances too, as sometimes people shoot down such observations sighting lack of numerical data etc.
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
A couple of other things to consider - AF speed and accuracy
Click to expand...
@John Navitsky I tested both lenses for AF speed and accuracy. Both were good on the running person and bad on the flying pillows ;-) So, we know that Z7 doesn't track very well... and actually I don't have it for that reason. Interestingly, Tamron has a good AF-speed on my DSLRs. I didn't expect it.

You are absolutely right that point: "if a given lens works FOR YOU" Or even better to say: camera+lens.
We are all very different and what can fit and work for one - will not work for the other! My partner tested A1 for BIF and he didn't like it. He changed from Sony A7R IV back to Nikon for BIF. Does it mean that A1 sucks? NO. It is an amazing camera! And if I have tryed it then perhaps I would come to the other conclusion. But it didn't work FOR HIM. That's it.
 
Member's gallery
Good points, and I agree particularly with suggestions about rendering, albeit a subjective term. Nikon have been refining their exotic telephoto primes for decades, especially since the 1990s. The fact this shows is acknowledged widely in picture and prose. The 400 f2.8E really does stand out and a wise investment for all it's worth. There is equal praise for the 800 f5.6E FL. Their performance with teleconverters is no accident. We owe a great deal to Susumu Sato for the optimal design of these modern Nikkor telephotos.

He went further to minimize axial CA with teleconverters – “Sato's promise was to ensure that when teleconverters were used with lenses utilizing new designs, the levels of performance and chromatic aberration exhibited by the teleconverter/lens combination was superior to that of other lenses of the time with the equivaenderlent final focal length (combined lens/teleconverter focal length).”

The 200 f2G is in the same league. I used a re-cond copy for 2 years but couldn't justify keeping it, as opportunities to do justice to its amazing qualities are the exception for wildlife unless one is meeting decently behaved pachyderms regularly.

ElenaH said:
400/2.8E FL ED is definitelly a reference lens concerning the resolution (the image still has details when it is heavily cropped). Moreover it has a kind of crispiness no other lens has! No other of any brand, I mean.
The other qualities to consider are:
the bokeh (perfect by 400/2.8 but I am not so sure about 500/5.6 PF, for example ...)
the T-stop (light transmission)
the 3D-effect (only Voigtländer and Zeiss can compete with 400/2.3 FL. By the way many of Nikkors have 3D-effect but unfortunatelly I don't see it by Sony lenses... except the expensive primes)
the flare-resistance (shooting into the sun)
the overall rendition (colors, forms, transition from sharpness to unsharpness, brilliance, etc)
Click to expand...

A Used 105 f2.5AIS was my very 3rd Nikkor I struggled to afford as a student back in the '80s and never regretted...it secured a series of Keepers on Kodachrome and Fujichrome. After a lapse investing in AFDs etc, about 5 years I found decent Used 105's. While, they show their age on the HR sensors their imaging is superb on the D4 / Df, and D* pro cameras (up to the 24mp sensors). A 105 f1.8AIS proved surprisingly hard to find because the few copies on the Used market are very overpriced. Earlier this year I found an affordable copy finally. The succession of rendering they demonstrate through the DeFocus Controls primes to the NeoNoct (58 f1.4G) and 105 f1.05E is interesting, with the influences of engineers including Haruo Sato.

ElenaH said:
I thought, the legendary lens is like 105/2.5 ... with which the Afgan Girl was shoot... ;-)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Tom-Neth said:
I miss the 500mm 5.6 PF. Very good lens, the competitors don't have something coming close. I switched recently to Sony and the only thing I miss is that lens.
Click to expand...
That lens is the reason that has kept from bailing from the Nikon system. Now with the Z9 on order, I think I'm firmly planted for a long while yet.
 
Member's gallery
dtibbals said:
I sure wish there was! They actually make them, I have tried them and none of them work well. I found the adapters work ok, not great on some wide angles but you aren't moving focus that far. On anything longer even the 70-200 it took about 15 seconds to grab focus. The 200-500 for example was close to double that. I was rather bummed out but it forced a full glass swap which was expensive but now that I did it I am glad the adapter didn't work.

The adapters for Canon glass work much better but from what little reading I have done on the subject you are very limited in focus modes and such so while it might be an option I am not sure it is a good one unless you have no choice. Native glass will always give you the best results.
Click to expand...
Don't bother. I think the Commlite was the best of the crowd, but that's not saying much. Many lenses didn't work, many worked partially or poorly, and at least one adapter was simply dropped (unsupported) by its manufacturer. Oddly, the most successful was using AIS manual focus lenses. I didn't expect much, and the combination of IBIS and peaking made many of them quite useful.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I don't know about comparing optical quality or splitting hairs between a Nikon 400FL and a Sony 400GM or Canon 400III. But to me the special lenses in Nikon's lineup for the type of photography I do are:

500PF
300PF
180-400 TC
120-300 TC

Soon to be 400S TC and probably some of those other "PF" outlines on the roadmap. Of course if 600S has TC then !!!
 
Member's gallery
One Nikkor prime I've resisted is the 105 f1.4E - just shared some links in thread

here's an interesting comparison I've shared elsewhere (from old dpr thread) comparing Bokeh wrt several of the portrait primes mentioned above ;) :)

1636437947949.png
 
Member's gallery
Neo-Noct : "....One of those non-quantifiable features is the three-dimensional look that the Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G is able to produce in images. Nikon specifically used these words in its marketing materials and even called the 58mm f/1.4G “three-dimensionally high-fidelity lens”. The three-dimensionality is a very subjective factor....."

105 f1.4E - " Thanks to the magic that Nikon put into this marvel, the lens is able to produce aesthetically pleasing images that rival the look of some of the best portrait lenses in the world. Its ability to beautifully isolate subjects from the background with creamy bokeh, while capturing an incredible amount of detail at maximum aperture will surely keep its reputation high for many years to come, and make it the ideal tool for portrait photography. "

Bokeh tests_DPR_Oelund_105, 200 85 f1.4, 58 f f1.4G.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Bokeh tests_DPR_Oelund_58 f1.4G.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


fcotterill said:
One Nikkor prime I've resisted is the 105 f1.4E - just shared some links in thread

....shared elsewhere (from old dpr thread) comparing Bokeh wrt several of the portrait primes....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
sid_19911991 said:
I have very little know-how about lenses, but here is my list of legendary Nikon lenses based on image quality & not based on factors like weight etc.

While there are several other good Nikon lenses, I feel they are not as good other brands. For example - Nikkor F mount 500 F4 Fl. I haven't done any testing, but I feel the Canon 500 f4 is superior overall, while the Sony's 500 f4 is sharper.

The list in no particular order.
I could be completely wrong as my list is mostly based on Youtube reviews or opinions from a few photography friends.


1) AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2G ED VR II

2) NIKKOR Z 58MM F/0.95 S NOCT

3) AF-S NIKKOR 120-300MM F/2.8E FL ED SR VR

4) NIKKOR Z MC 105MM F/2.8 VR S

5) NIKKOR Z 50MM F/1.2 S

6) AF-S NIKKOR 400MM F2.8E FL ED VR

7) Nikon NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.8 S


What's yours folks!?
Click to expand...
Great lenses - except i've never used a 120-300mm f2.8E outside a store yet...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top