High End Nikon Lenses

[thomas_hardy1]

It is pretty easy to recognized the high end Canon lenses by the L

designation. How do you tell which lens are high end (best quality) from

Nikon?

[User_276104]

ED lenses used to be the cream of the crop, but now these "kit" lenses have ED glass so we're left with the sheer price of the lens to determine how high it is in the lineup.

 

I bought what was probably the first of the consumer ED lenses in 1998 (70-300 ED). I sure felt ecstatic buying an ED lens. I miss that.

[franklin_polk]

By the price, of course! :) Seriously, as said before, while the ED designation used to mean pro, it really doesn't mean a whole lot anymore. However, usually lenses with AF-S and/or VR have far better build quality.

[szrimaging]

Currently AF-S and VR are decent ways to tell. The thing is, Nikon uses a tech in its pro lenses, and then migrates it down the line to the mid-range, then finally the low-end. Canon does it to, so what you don't realize is taht the pro tech from some of their older lenses is in the newer mid-range lenses, or at least you don't realize it from the lens designation since it isn't an "L". That said, it doesn't mean a mid-range using the same tech now as a pro from earlier are going to shoot the same. Build qualities and how the tech was implemented are still factors, and could mean the older lens is still better.

 

But back to the question, best way to tell, research, and the filter thread size. A large portion of Nikon's pro lenses use a 77mm thread size (obviously large teles won't).

[photo5]

Even the el-cheapo 18-55mm kit lens included with the Nikon D50 is an AF-S lens (albeit

a lo-cost implementation). Canon has an 85mm f/1.2 L lens, nothing from Nikon can

touch it?

 

Dave

[frank_skomial]

Nikon lenses with golden ring painted on lens barrel are supposed to be designation of PRO quality lens. Canon uses Red color ring on their PRO lenses.

 

Needless to say that some best of Nikon lenses do not have the golden ring, perhaps ? since they were introduced much earlier.

 

Most or all NIkon lenses are of very high optical standard, even though the build quality may be for reduced price, and for wider market reach. Practically you cannot go wrong with Nikon brand modern lens, subject of your quality threshold.

[ilkka_nissila]

And some lenses with that gold ring perform poorly on newest DSLRs. It really doesn't mean much.

 

To determine if a lens is of good quality, you try it out for a few years. Then you'll know. You can also read various sources on the internet or magazines or talk to experienced photographers. There's no short cut.

 

It used to be that price was a good guide but again the equations have changed with digital sensors requiring different optical design than film. Thus older expensive lenses may be worth their weight in gold ... or nothing at all.

[Jerry_]

"Canon has an 85mm f/1.2 L lens, nothing from Nikon can touch it?"

 

 

 

Can't say for sure, but the AF 105mm f2D DC-Nikkor is fairly decent. As is the AF 135mm f2D DC-Nikkor. Both are Canon-less models....

[david_h._hartman]

Here is the best place to find out whats what...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

The whole site is worth some time<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Sometimes some rather humble lenses perform very well and at

times expensive ones arent what they seem to be. The real

meat is not in the number ratings but the may observations and

tips.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[Ed_Ingold]

The gold ring on a Nikkor lens indicates there are one or more ED elements in the lens.

 

The high-end zoom lenses are easy enough to identify - they are a constant f/2.8 (except the 12-24/4 AFS, which should count in the pro category), internal AF-S focusing, non-extending zoom action (except for the 28-70/2.8 AFS) and (of course) the price, which is three times the next tier down. What this means is that the price point is secondary to the best possible performance in its class. Several consumer-level zoom lenses have ED elements, AFS focusing or both, but are not constant f/stop design, and extend dramatically as the focal length is changed.

 

The few remaining prime lenses are all high grade - consumer level marketing is largely restricted to the zoom lenses. Even the inexpensive (<$80) 50/1.8 has exceptional optical performance.

[ky2]

I don't see much point in that. Would you only buy L lenses, independent of what you are aiming to use that tool for? (Try to find an L alternative for Canon's fisheye, for example, or any standard-range-zoom L per se to match the 30D).

 

There are good and bad lenses. L/ED/VR is no real indication. In general, the more you pay, the better product you get back. This of course has exceptions.

[lilly_w]

<How do you tell which lens are high end (best quality) from Nikon?> A few suggestions would be to: 1) read reviews from trusted sources on the 'net, 2) talk w/ pro shooters, 3) shoot the lenses of your choice and 4) scrutinize images. If there are lenses of interest...this forum is a good start (incl archives). Any particular lenses you have in mind?

 

Big prices, gold rings and nomenclature (AFS, ED, VR) generally mean little up to the $850 price point, in deference to the 18-200 VR. Homework before buying and hands-on use (return / exchange?) is imperative to cull a top-performer.

 

<Nikon lenses with golden ring painted on lens barrel are supposed to be designation of PRO quality lens.> There was a time when that was true. A gold ring has always denoted ED glass AND, generally speaking, very good to excellent build quality. Now it merely denotes the inclusion of ED glass and says little about build or image quality.

 

D Lee: <Canon has an 85mm f/1.2 L lens, nothing from Nikon can touch it?> Dave, your punctuation has thrown us.

[John Crowe]

It takes a lot of research.

 

 

Both Canon and Nikon have lenses that are not L and not ED which are just as good if not better. Some L lenses and some ED lenses are much better than other L and EDs.

 

 

You have to be careful about judging by price alone because some lenses have the ridiculously expensive IS/VR option which you may not need for your given situation and which do not offer any optical advantage simply a use/picture-taking advantage. Super range zooms built to good quality can also be overly expensive and not optically as good as less expensive zooms or primes. Again they offer a use/picture-taking advantage for the steep price.

[frank_skomial]

There was a 85/1.2 L from Canon, Nikkor 85/1.4, and Zeiss 85/1.4 review of tests done by some Europeans, published somewhere 3 years ago, and there was no clear winner.

 

If I remeber correctly the Zeiss was a bit better in some respects, but Nikon and Canod were about even on all graphs presented. I will try to find that publication.

 

There was also Canon's produced tests published right shortly after that article appeared, showing that Canon 85/1.2L was better than Zeiss and Nikon, funny coincident, is it?

 

I bet Nikon could have produced tests that their lens could possibly come out the best, but thankfully, Nikon is above that game.

 

The Nikkor lenses like 85/1.4, or 180/2.8 are PRO quality lenses, even though they do not have the golden color ring painted.

 

Some 3rd party vendors started painting the golden ring on their lenses, to mimmick Nikon's PRO line, but that sometimes is only a "wishfull thinking" on the part of 3rd parety vendors. So generaly color marking is not the ultimate quality test or designation of PRO lens.

[ebogaerts]

"There was also Canon's produced tests published right shortly after that article appeared, showing that Canon 85/1.2L was better than Zeiss and Nikon, funny coincident, is it?

 

I bet Nikon could have produced tests that their lens could possibly come out the best, but thankfully, Nikon is above that game."

 

If all of those lenses are very close, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility that a company could hand-pick a particularly sharp example of their own lens, while finding the a really bad sample from their competitor, and conclusively "prove" that their lens eeks out ahead of the competition.

[photojim]

This is far less complex than one would think.

 

Canon L lenses have a fluorite element. That's all. They were never intended to be high-end lenses, although the cost of fluorite guaranteed that they would be expensive generally. The lack of an L means the lack of fluorite, not the lack of being a high-end lens. (The EF 50/1.4 is a very high-end lens but is not an L lens.)

 

Nikon uses ED glass instead. Again, not all lenses have ED and not all of them need it. Telephoto lenses, particularly zooms, often do. Wide angle zooms intended to be used on digital cameras need it (digital sensors are more prone to chromatic aberration than film cameras are, and ED glass reduces chromatic aberration). Some very wide prime lenses intended primarily for digital photography are now ED, too. Many lenses don't need it, particularly if used with film.

 

High end != best quality, necessarily. Some of the sharpest lenses I own were very inexpensive (shh, don't tell anyone else about the first version of the AF 35-80/4-5.6D with the metal lens mount, under $50 if you shop around). Some of the sharpest lenses I own were very expensive. Cela dépond.

[alex_lofquist]

Write to Nikon USA for their annual photograpic catalog. They show lens construction, identify ED glass and aspheric elements, along with special attributes. They often point out which lenses are particularly suited for professionals, and give appropriate specifications not available elsewhere.

[carl_johnson3]

You look for independant reviews and use your own eye?

 

Canon's L red-ring is one of the greater marketing coups in photography.

[ilkka_nissila]

Jim, not all Canon L series lenses have fluorite glass. It's actually quite complicated, how they designate L.

[photo5]

My Canon Powershot Pro1 8mp camera has an L lens with the 35mm equivilant of 28-200mm f2.5-3.5. It is an excellent performer and the only non dSLR to offer an L lens by Canon.

 

And it has the red ring. Woo hoo! ;-)

 

Dave

[rick_m.]

Let me be a bit of a curmudgeon. A pro lens is one that a professional uses. I am a professional and routinely use the Nikon 18-70 AFS G lens. It is not expensive. It is not the fastest lens in my inventory. It produces wonderful pictures that have been published in magazines and newspapers. Why use this lens? It does a great job and is light to carry. I usually shoot digital. Which lens from Canon or Nikon lacks the optical quality to live up to a digital camera? Probably none. I also use the 80-200 F2.8, usually considered a "pro" lens. I use the 300 2.8 and 85 f1.4. Both also "pro" lenses. These are tools I take out for specific work.

 

Canon makes a lot of money selling L series lenses. They are nice but for all but the most demanding film applications I defy someone to tell the difference in the finished product between them and a good Canon standard lens. Who here is going to grab an ink-jet print and say; "Darn....I wish I had used a "pro" lens?

 

Many reviewers have commented on the quality of Nikon's less expensive lenses being better than the equivalent Canon lens. It appears Nikon eschews the two-tiered approach. Bravo for Nikon.

 

Lenses should be chosen for their application as should cameras. I use a D2Hs much of the time. For a working photojournalist it is as good as any camera out there, possessing a feature set aimed right at us. For even an advanced amature it is a monumental waste of money. A D70 is a far better choice for so many reasons. I frequently use one professionally.

 

My point is that modern Nikon lenses are so advanced that any of them will take super pictures. They should be chosen for their specific functional assets. Carrying an 80-200 F2.8 mounted on a D2H on your vacation to Italy is absurd. It is heavy, limiting and conspicuous. It is the wrong tool for the job. A 28-200 on a D50 or D70 would be the real professional's choice for their own vacation pics. That or a good point and shoot.

 

Or consider this. On an assignment the other day I was using an old D100 with the 24-85 AFS lens to photograph a little boy. When I got home I was looking at one of the images on the windows picture and fax viewer. I zoomed in on the little boy's eye and was able to see my own reflection in his eye. Going further in I was able to see the snap on the closure of my vest in the reflection in the little tykes eye. That is good stuff. From a lens that costs just north of 300 bucks. For that you can keep your L series lenses. Unless I need the faster F2.8 lenses I own for the specific task at hand I leave them home.

 

Here is an honest recommendation for the average amature photographer. Use the $500.00 you save buying an inexpensive Nikor lens and take a couple of good workshops. It will be fun and will improve your pictures far more than an expensive lens will.

 

Unless you wear your equipment like a Rolex save some money and enjoy the hobby more. For the difference between an 80-200 f2.8 AFS VR and a 70-300 G lens you can buy a ticket, fly to Rome, visit the Vatican and photograph the Pope in person. And you will not be able to tell the difference in the finished product that you print for your friends. Or buy me the ticket and I will loan you my fast glass for the time I am gone. I won't be using it anyway.

 

Sorry for the long post. It is a pet subject for me.

[akochanowski]

Rick's post should be gold plated, copied, and periodically pasted into every "which lens should I buy?" thread.<p>BTW, the 18-70 lens that comes as a kit with the D200 is astoundingly good, and for $300 a steal.

[ShunCheung]

Very well said indeed. Thanks a lot Rick (McCallum).

[jack_johnston]

--- Here is an honest recommendation for the average amature photographer. Use the $500.00 you save buying an inexpensive Nikor lens and take a couple of good workshops. It will be fun and will improve your pictures far more than an expensive lens will ---

 

Great post, Rick, but gearheads don't want to hear this kind of thing. :) They think that they can quantify the quality of their pictures with MTF and $$$.

[wuyeah]

As far as I know from Canon, the red line is really in consumer's mind. That you just

wanting to have a lens that has red line on it so you THINK it is the best possible lens. The

truth of fact is....50mm f1.0L is not as good of a lens than a 50mm f1.4 in performance.

The 180mm 3.5L macro does not provide sharper image than 100mm f2.8 macro. Now

they have got green line on 70-300mm DO IS, so what does that mean? Sure those lenses

with LINE has better body build quality over all, and yet, quality not always better.

 

Nikon has MF Ai 15mm f3.5S, the price is running sky high! as far as research it is not

much of a good lens. Many have response 35mm f2 AiS produces very satisfy result than

35mm f1.4 AiS. The 18-35mm ED has very similar quality compare with 17-35mm ED.

 

With all that said, lens price tells build quality, but not always means they are better lens

for the performance & money. Seeking or after high end lens seem pointless. By using

mark on lens to define its price class & build quality is kind of stupid. After all, it is not

about your are holding a $1500 lens or a $300 lens. Is more about what can you do with

available lens in your hand. The line is in your mind! What consider high end is more

about build quality and price reflect on material they were use and develope.