Quality prime lenses for digital Nikon?

[Philip Freedman]

I am planning to upgrade from my D70 to a D200 mainly so that I can

revert to my preference for using prime lenses and then cropping

when necessary - the 6mp of the D70 does not allow heavy cropping

without loss of quality. I have a Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D lens

(equivalent to around 50mm in 24x36) which I could use as a standard

lens on the D200; the glass is sharp although the build is a bit

plasticky. I would appreciate recommendations for well built primes

(w/a and tele) of an optical quality that will do justice to the

resolution of the D200. Nikon has its "professional" expensive

zooms marked with a gold line at the leading edge, but I am not

aware of Nikon marking prime lenses with gold lines or other

indications of top quality (although I recall that they have a heavy

85mm lens with a solid build). I also realise that some older

lenses may produce more colour fringing on the sensitive digital

sensor that on traditional film. Can anyone give me any useful

pointers please.

Thanks

Philip

[dennisprice]

One of many helpful sites is that of Bjorn Rorslett, who addresses many of your concerns in his Lens Survey and Subjective Evaluations.

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

 

As for personal experience, I now use zooms almost exclusively; however, I have also used the following AF-D primes extensively over the years, and thought their performance on both film and digital bodies was excellent.

 

14mm 2.8;

20mm 2.8;

35mm 2;

50mm 1.4;

85mm 1.4;

100mm micro 2.8 [Actually 105mm/f2.8 AF-D as Jonas points out below. -- SC];

180mm 2.8

 

I also think the 10.5mm fisheye is wonderful!

 

Regards,

[jv1]

I second Dennis' suggestions, they are all extremely good lenses. One slight note is that the 100mm micro is in fact a 105mm f/2.8 micro, I don't want to be nitpicking, but in case you want to look for more information on this lens on the web, this could save you some time.

 

You might want to mention if the lenses you are looking for should be autofocus, and if so what type (at least D, or do they have to be G, or AF-S lenses,..) or manual focus.

 

Cheers

[joseph_smith3]

I would add the 24mm f 2.8 mm AF-D to the list above. When I get my D200, I plan to use my 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, and my 28-70mm f 3.5-4.5 AF-D zoom and my 35-70mm f 2.8 AF-D zoom first and see what results I get before buying any DX zoom lenses. I got this advice from friends who are shooting with a D2X. Joe Smith

[greg s]

"recommendations for well built primes (w/a and tele)"

 

Well, since tele is included in the mix I will need to enter my standard pitch for the 300mm f/4. For a cost/weight/performance ratio it's pretty hard to beat. The single drawback to the current AF-S version is the tripod mount. Users are commonly using a 3rd party brace with it to eliminate the unfortunate vibration. The older AF version has no such problem (totally different mount, directly on barrel), but it is much slower to autofocus. If one is open to buying used, then the older AF model can often be found fairly cheap (about $400 or so). Both are very sharp. Add a 1.4x teleconvertor (older AF needs a Kenko) and you have a 420mm f/5.6 weighing in at a mere 3 lbs or so. The AF-S has a min focus distance of 5 ft, while the AF is 9 ft. I own the older AF version, and will probably just stay with that (also have a 500mm).

 

Enjoy your D200... looks like it will be a big seller for Nikon. Really glad to see them add the camera to their lineup. Cheers, -Greg-

[Michael R Freeman]

<I>"Nikon has its "professional" expensive zooms marked with a gold line at the leading edge, but I am not aware of Nikon marking prime lenses with gold lines or other indications of top quality ..."</i><br><br>

 

The "gold line" is merely an indication of ED glass (available in both professional and consumer zooms), so that really isn't a good indication of a "professional" designation. And not all pro zooms with ED glass have the gold line (the current 80~200/2.8D ED for example), and Nikon has built pro zooms without ED glass (such as the discontinued 20~35/2.8D - no ED glass or gold line but definitely pro build quality).<br><br>

 

Having said that (and contributed very little actually :-)), the recommendation to check out Bjorn Rorslett's lens evaluations is a good one, as he has tested and uses many of these lenses on D1/D2 series bodies, and he covers issues like colour fringing,

[joseph_smith3]

In concur with Greg's thoughts. I have both Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AF lenses. The 300mm f 4.0 AF mates with the tc-14B, but you will lose AF (and sharpness is retained.) I do not view that a big deal except for flight shots. I find myself shutting AF off most of the time and fine tune the focusing manually. While the AF-S does perform in AF better than the AF with my F100, I do not find it to be that much better for general shooting situations. The one exception is flight shots. So for many of you out there w/o a 300mm F 4.0 AF lens, the older 300mm f 4.0 AF is a great bargain. IMO this lens is much better built than the 300mm AF-S--the tripod collar is excellent and the rest of the lens is built like a tank and the optics are excellent. It also takes a drop in filters, 39mm I think, while the AF-S does not have this feature. If you like to use polarizers, this can be a real advantage. Joe Smith

[dennisprice]

Good catch, Jonas! Thanks for the correction - it is indeed a 105mm 2.8 micro, not 100...

 

Also, you made an excellent point about lens type: if Phillip wants to include manual focus Nikon primes for consideration, that opens up the field tremendously.

 

While there are many people on this forum with FAR more experience than I will ever have, I would like to offer a few additional comments regarding the AF-D lenses I listed earlier:

 

The 85 1.4 stands out noticeably with its build quality, and is probably the best of the lot optically. It is stunningly sharp from 2 to 5.6, with perhaps the creamiest bokeh of all the Nikkor lenses. Phillip, it might even come close to the quality of your Leica glass ;-)

 

The 180 2.8 is also well built, and superb optically when stopped down to 4 or 5.6. AF is somewhat slow, probably not the best long lens for tracking focus on moving subjects.

 

As with all cameras with 1.5 FOV factor, the choice of ultra wide primes becomes much more limited. My wonderfully panoramic 14mm turned into an ordinary 21mm, a big and heavy 21 at that, so I eventually sold it and replaced it with a Nikon 12-24mm f4 DX, and added the 10.5mm f2.8 DX fisheye. Would have preferred a 9-10mm f2.8 rectilinear, but no such beast is yet available. De-fishing is just a gimmick IMO.

 

Phillip, if you would be willing to consider a wide zoom (18-36 equivalent), perhaps the 12-24 DX would work well for your street photography. Mine is an excellent performer at all focal lengths when used around f8-11.

 

Best,

[dan_brown14]

For AF Nikkors, to avoid that "plasitcky" feeling, the 28/1.4D-AF and the 85/1.4D-AF

come to mine. Now, if your talking AIS Nikkor? Hmm, gotta have a 105/1.8 (rock solid)

and a 35/1.4 and a 50/1.2 and a 24/2.0 and a ...

[hayward]

I can't think of an current autofocus Nikon prime lens that is considered to be less than top quality. People tend to rave about the 85mm 1.8, 180mm 2.8, and the inexpensive *50mm 1.8. The *35mm 2.0 is rated highly, the *24mm 2.8 and *28mm 2.8 less so, but still within the quality range. All the lenses I've marked with an asterisk have the same "plasticky" build. In addition to the 85 and 180, the 20mm is a little large and has a slightly better build feel.

 

Nikon also makes top-flight lenses with a 1.4 aperture and a large price tag, including the 85mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4. The 50mm 1.4 is less expensive and there is a low-light 28mm. but I can't remember for sure if that is 1.4.

 

Someone else may care to review the DC and PC lenses as well.