OK KR has made the list, but what do you think of his choices? I think he has some good (bad) ones on his worst of the worst list, the best of....well I disagree somewhat. The 43-86mm WAS a horrible lens that did taint all zooms ever since. It is the WORST of the Nikkors.
"This manual focus lens(85mm f/1.4 AI-s) outperforms its newer 85mm f/1.4 D autofocus sibling. In fact, its so good that even after the f/1.4 autofocus lens came out, for about the about the same price, Nikon kept making these for 10 more years!
It's sharper than the new AF lens, and it has much better bokeh than most other Nikon lenses"
Interesting lists. I haven't owned most of them so can't comment on his choices. I did notice, however that his picture of the 85 1.4 Ai-S is most likely that of an Ai.
eos-m42guy wrote:
Interesting lists. I haven't owned most of them so can't comment on his choices. I did notice, however that his picture of the 85 1.4 Ai-S is most likely that of an Ai.
There's no such thing as an 85mm f1.4 Ai - it was only released in an Ai-S mount before the change to AF.
I would have put the 28-80G on the worst lenses list. Other than that I can agree with some of his choices, but he definitely forgot a few much better lenses...
my list would be (the best ones, I am not too interested in the worst ones) - among the ones I am using
50 1.4 (over the 50 1.8)
14-24
70-200VR (even with the recently discussed issues)
200-400VR
105 2.5
85 1.4
35 1.4
50 1.2
18-200VR
18-70
and among those I have tested but don't own
200VR2.0
300VR2.8
"This manual focus lens(85mm f/1.4 AI-s) outperforms its newer 85mm f/1.4 D autofocus sibling. In fact, its so good that even after the f/1.4 autofocus lens came out, for about the about the same price, Nikon kept making these for 10 more years!
It's sharper than the new AF lens, and it has much better bokeh than most other Nikon lenses"
This is my fav comment from KR's 18-200 pick: "If you need anything longer, you'll get better photos by getting closer with the 18-200 VR than you will by using a longer lens like the 600mm VR."
The list is like most lists, just one person's opinion, which I generally don't agree
One of the most convenient lenses I ever owned while shooting film only was the 43-86.
I guess I had a good copy because I still keep enlargements from that lens that are tack sharp.
I did have in the late 60's a 28mm f3.5 that was short of being an excellent lens. Soon I sold it and went with the 24mm f2.4 that I found far superior in optical quality.
I am honest when I say that except for a 28-85 that was giving me horrible images due to a decentered element, I have always been very happy with Nikkor lenses. Yes, also the 24-120 gave me awesome images!
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
I have to agree on the 50 1.8 and the 18-55 'kit' as I own both and they really are outstanding (though I have the 18-55 VR which has better contrast).
But yeah, he does tend to come out with some BS...
I was hoping this thread was a request for our opinions on best and worst Nikon lenses, but it turned out to be another Ken Rockwell thread I don't think that people who are considering buying Nikon gear should look to KR for guidance. Despite the fact that he mentions in his intro that his site is for entertainment purposes only, many people might be mislead to believe his "entertaining" comments on Nikon equipment are proven facts, especially by the authoratative writing style he uses.
There are other much more reliable sources out there. If you really want to know how good or bad a particular Nikon lens is, why not simply ask some of us here who have actually used it before? For example, if you wanted to know how well the Nikkor 105mm 2.5 AIS is, I can give you a users opinion because I have been using two of them for over the past 20 years! I am sure that there are other members here with lots of hands-on time with lenses as well who would be more than happy to share their experiences with the rest of this community!
At the end of the day, your opinion is just as valid as his...except I doubt you will ever her good old KR telling people that they shouldnt listen to you simply because there are others out there that say something different.
If you are a beginner, then he has something for you. If you know what you are doing, then look around and see what others have to say. But as with everything, always search for information and NEVER rely on one site.
How can a person give a review of an item they never actually used?
Again, I can't (responsibly) tell you anything about a Nikkor 300mm 2.8 AF-D because I have never used one. I can, however, tell you and show you what I have actually done with a 105mm 2.5 AIS and how it has performed for me for over the past 20 years.
IMHO, I would take much more seriously an opinion of a person who has actually used a particular piece of equipment for an extended period of time than that of a person who simply reads the spec sheet from the manufacturer and posts it on a website in a manner that seems as if he is an expert.
I have not used every single lens that Nikon has ever made, but I have owned a bunch of them. Some of these lenses I purchased many years ago, some not too long ago. There are others in here who have owned lenses that I don't have and they have been using those lenses for many years as well. I value their opinion because they have put those lenses to the test, not just some controlled lab test for a couple of days, but actual field tests in the real world. They may be able to better inform me if a sharp lens has fallen apart on them (as I have had on two ocasions), if the features or parts of the lens are sturdy, etc.
A perfect example, KR doesn't particularly care for the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 while I swear by it. Why do I swear by it? Because I have shot countless weddings with it and it has never let me down. I have the proof in the pictures. Is it expensive? Yes. Is it worth it? For me, yes; to others, they need to ask if they can justify the price vs. the intended use. Is it a fantastic performer? According to a regular user of it like myself, yes.
I'm in the market now for a manual focus 28mm Nikkor. I have decided based on asking several users at Nikonians that I will go with the 2.0 version instead of the 2.8 version. I made this decision based on several conversations with people who actually owned and used both lenses.
I don't think that people who are considering buying Nikon gear should look to KR for guidance. Despite the fact that he mentions in his intro that his site is for entertainment purposes only, many people might be mislead to believe his "entertaining" comments on Nikon equipment are proven facts, especially by the authoratative writing style he uses.