Jesus. WTF???? I'm so glad you're online and available to answer questions. It's superbly awkward as a new consumer of gear to know what source of info to trust. I just picked up the Nikon 12-24 you recommend. wouldn't an 11-20 be redundant?
Sold my 80-200 and will sell my 70-200 VR too, too big, too heavy, eye-catching. Don't like a bazooka in front of my camera, because it draws alot of attention. 180 2.8 and 85 1.8 are really good lenses.
Thanks for your excellent review! I checked actual prices for all your recommended 13 lenses here in Germany. 10.500 € in total. If you buy all of these lenses used in very good condition price is about 50% less. I own already 5 of the presented glasses and I'm following your advise since years: Never by a Zoom from an third party manufacturer, never! Please, have a coffee break, your angriness starts to dilute :-)
***** Tamron has some great lenses, Pentax has great lenses, Leica and Zeiss have great lenses, Minolta had great lenses, Olympus OM lenses are great too.
I got the 55mm 2.8 micro ais in mint condition! I actually like it better than my 60mm 2.8 macro D. I use it mostly for table top projects at home. So far though I favour the 60mm for portrait on DX. The D700 really likes the 55mm, really a good match. I paid $150.00 and really worth it! A brilliant recommendation... thanks : ) .
hey hey?, no yelling, no breaking of chairs, no cussing? Wonderful lecture professor. I wonder if you will revise with all the new f/1.8 lenses out now. No 35mm prime??
....FYI...attached to my previous question.....I am using D300 which I plan to keep.....and I can't afford or believe in those other expense lens just for VR.
omarchafa you should test them yourself, the 70 200 2.8 VR1 and VR2 are despicable lenses, the tamron 70 200 2.8 VC is far superior for far less. the 80 200 has far less element count than all of them and is both better in color sat. and rendition. why did you think theyve been making that "old" 80 200 for SOOO MANY years?
It is sad to see them leaving off the rings and cameras not being able to use them. That why I have a Df. Many D series lenses are very good and a good value. I have a 20, 50, 60, 85, 28-105, 80-200, & 300, all of these are great performers, not all perfect. The 20 is close to perfect in all counts, the 50 is a little soft at 1.4, the 60 micro is fantastic, the 85 is also fantastic but lacks some contrast wide open, the 28-105 is very sharp stopped down a little with good contrast, some flare issues at times but for less than $200 like new condition, the best value. The 80-200 is a little soft wide open at 200mm, but a great lens, the 300 is as I mentioned a fabulous lens and a very very good value.
Just to be clear you rate the 24-85 over the 24-70 (cost not being a consideration)? The 24-70mm f/2.8 G was my first Nikon lens. I bought it with my D600 a few years ago when I decided to get back into photography after a 25 year hiatus. It was my only lens for over a year and I bought it under the impression that it was significantly less fragile than you claim it is. I haven't managed to break mine yet anyway! Since then I'm pleased to say I too chose the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 to add to my bag and despite the fact it feels a little insubstantial after being used to the 24-70 have found it to be a great little lens. At the long end I went with the new 70-200mm f/4 as it's much smaller and lighter than the faster alternatives and therefore less irksome to have to drag around with me. I'd be interested to hear how you think it compares to the 80-200. Love the channel! Peace
Theoria Apophasis Thank you for your quick (and admittedly unexpected) response and, more importantly, your video postings. I have enjoyed watching many of them as I seek to populate my wife's camera bag. Take care.
Love your videos and have learned a lot from them. I recently watched your review on the new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 E FL ED VR, which you gave a great review. I'm interested in your thoughts between this lens and the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8? Removing cost as consideration, how does the 80-200 stack up against the NEW 70-200 f/2.8 E FL? Thanks!
Ok, thanks. I appreciate all your photography info. It's much appreciated, and I've learned so much from you. I have the 50mm 1.8G already. Do you think the d is so much better that I should buy that one and sell mine?
IQ is very close with both @1.8 the G wins......the G controls aberration better but the D has less distortion2.8 and up they are equal. I like the aperture control on the D for reverse ring macro
I'm having a hard time finding these lenses you reccomend. I live in the Netherlands and sites like ebay don't work without a creditcard. But I will continue, maybe I have more luck later on. Love your videos and keep coming with the reccomendations.
I was wondering if the 80-200 F/2.8 is the AF-S or AF-D model? I hear the AF-D model is no longer being made? If it's discontinued should i consider the AF-S version?
whoever told you the 80 200 D is no longer being made was smoking crack , its still made. have 2 of them , see here: www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-Zoom-Nikkor-80-200mm-f%252F2.8D-ED.html $1200 new, and $600 minty used Ebay
I don't have any primes longer than 50mm on my FX (mainly as I haven't had a huge need) but looking for the reach now so tossing up (based on you excellent recommendations) between an 85, the 70-300 or the 135 AIS. Interestingly I can get the AIS minty for about $200. Like I said i shoot wider most of the time but a portrait-type lens or simply some added reach would be great. Is the 135 THAT good? Thinking I might as well just pounce....can always get something else later if its that awesome?
consider getting the 60mm macro D nikkor. 135mm 3.5 or 2.8 AI / AIS is of course excellent. is it that good? the answer is hell yes. about 100+ people on here rushed to buy that "cheap" lens, all are 100% happy (more than actually). The $1300 135mm DC Nikkor isnt more than a HAIR better. LOL !! and i have BOTH, see the video.
AFD is a far superior build. likewise has an app. ring, and optically both are the same, ive found NO diff. There is no way in hell to compare these two other than identical focal lengths. the Tank VS. the inferior plastic Cream Puff
Ken, awesome, awesome videos. I currently have the 28-300. Is there any midrange zoom that would be a significant improvement over the 28-300 like for the example the 24-70 2.8
- Ken, I want to get into photographing bands etc in low and constantly changing light. I have the D7100 with a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 .. A Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 .. the Tokina 100mm macro f/2.8-4(based on your recommendation .. and I love it .. thank you), and also a Nikon 35mm 1.8 G.I've just bought the D750 so could you recommend some lenses to go with this camera for bands etc .. Cheers Ant :))
If you are still interested, I have used primes like 20mm 2.8 , 50 1.4, 85, 1.8. I have done a lot of shots with my Df. (low light D4 sensor) in crazy lighting, I shoot about 2 stops or so down to avoid burned out faces, at wide or near wide opening, with great results at ISO 16 -3200 stopping the action well. The primes can give you that extra stop or 2. So I'll shoot a bunch of shots close up with a wide angle lens, then change to longer focal length shoot another bunch, then to another... The overall set of photos will include everything I need. So a zoom is not a must, since the band is pretty much in a fixed area.
Could you share with us what Nikon lenses you favor for FX youtube review and DIY videos? I'm interested in both M and AF recommendations that are around $500.
The 200mm and the 60mm you mentioned, are fabulous lenses, I happen to own. The manual focus option however stopped working on my 80-200, a common problem, even with the light use I had on it. The 50mm 1.4 lacks some contrast at I.4, like most, but may be better at 1.8 than the 1.8 50mm. A bit more cost but great for low light focusing. You say the 70-300 up there with the 80-200? You need to stop down to F4 with the 80-200 to get sharpness/ contrast at beyond 135mm, is the only fault I have with it, but I would think the 70-300 would be inferior in sharpness, color and sharpness and a, "why bother", if you have the 200mm.
I have owned all three, got rid of the 70-300 a while back and now have a f4 300 D. This is another fabulous lens that far out shines the 70 -300 in color, contrast, bokeh, and sharpness.
You have mentioned to buy from Japan because they know quality when it comes to lenses (among other things) but i have heard horror stories about buy from outside the United States. What are your thoughts advice on that?
Thanks for this great video once again! I was wondering what's your experience with the the previous version of the 80-200 mm, the one with the push pull zoom thingy? Is the image quality comparable to the current production 80-200? Thanks
i had a push pull i got almost for free ages ago. its worth currently no more than $280 roughly. The image is not up to par, no. however likewise it doesnt take a pixel peeper to see this fact either.
snoopygray great lenses that are INSANELY overpriced not to mention i can fool 95% of the people 100% of the time between a 1000$ Sigma Art lens and a 1.8 50mm Nikkor. Ive proven this already some time ago. Sigma art is a great black hole down which to needlessly toss money at a great lens that isnt "Extra great" by ANY empirical measure.
I am looking for a medium zoom lens & was convinced that the 24-120 f4 was the only way to go. I was hoping to buy the 28-300 but was saddened to hear it wasn't nearly as sharp -but am questioning that after after watching this video. Also, how would you compare these two to the 24-85mm (I understand that you said it is the sharpest but I am interested in the tradeoff between versatility & quality). I suppose built quality should also be a factor considering that 'this' type of zoom lens would be a go-to travel lens for me.
Morgan D Ohhhhhhhhhh 24-120 is a total POOPER. God, dont buy that thing. Quality , versatility, sharpness, the 24-85G (ONLY THE G series!) is unmatched, AND its cheap as hell, $220+ minty used Ebay. 24-85 is compact also and a PERFECT travel lens. Ive got 3 of em for a reason.
The Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC is a great portrait lens. The Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC is a bit sharper. I used the two DC lenses for B/W erotic portraits with my Nikon F5. The autofocus is super fast on my F5 and is always pin sharp. My most used prime lens is the Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1,4D IF on my Nikon D3S on my D700. The lens is magic and far superior than the new crap G version.
sorry for being a dumb brit, I've been looking over ebay for the 80-200 there appears to be several versions over here, which one should I be looking out for
its this one, which is also still a current version production lens!!!! here in USA Ebay, minty used is $600+ www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-Zoom-Nikkor-80-200mm-f%252F2.8D-ED.html Sorry for my SLOW and late reply to you ,but Im on vacation on Sanibel island, and been taking a lot of pics now that my shoot is over, and I only have 3GB per month tethering on data, so I have to answer questions here at the coffee shop !!!
Ive got a TON more videos to crank out when I get back, also Im making a few here on the island but I need a vacation pretty bad! me and my spandex G-string and my Nikon on the beach catching shots (NOT!) ...... shots yes, Gstring NO
Can you do me a favour> whats your thoughts on the Nikon 300mm F4 ED...the older one without the VR. I want to buy it for outdoor sports and wildlife (more sports though). I just bought the 80-200 f2.8...(damn that thing is lense porn to borrow your phrase....lol)
MelMax Photography the 300 F4.5 is a better lens optically, however its also an old MF lens.......the 300 F4 ED is usually about $850 used great shape. value wise, im not keen on it :P
i have an ENTIRE video about that 70 210 F4, yes, great killer lens, usually VERY cheap too (usually). 17 35 is bit too slow, and optically a hair inferior, if you can find one for UNDER $480, and great shape, buy it. i used to have one. yes, i have the 70 210 F4 also.
can you please do a video about insuring gear? I use the tamron 24-70 2.8 on my d800 (i made the jump from canon) i find the focus on that lens to be slow when i use it in single point non continuos and i was wondering if you think the 24-85 would focus faster? ive seen some reviews and i am under the impression that it will focus slower then the tamron. what do you think?
Ohhh, i made that video already!!! The tampon (err i mean tamron) slower in single point? thats NOT a shocker! ive used both, and OWN 3 copies of the 24-85, however i cannot recall to make a mental comparison of AF single point focus speeds.
Theoria Apophasis can you tell me which video you discuss insurance. how fast would you say the nikon 24-85 in single point focus is compared to the canon 24-105 L which sucks as a lens but it focuses so frikin fast im trying to get speed and i want to know if the 24-85 will provide that ( i had speed with canon, although nothing else)
I cannot compare it to the Canon, ive been outta canon FAR too long. Hehehe, even I DONT remember the video on insurance where it is. Do you have state farm insurance? its called PERSONAL ARTICLES POLICY INSURANCE, or "Inland marine insurance" ALL major insurance agents carry such types of insurance, and its CHEAP
always dust with brush before cleaning with Qtip with distilled water, so your not dragging stuff across the lens. if theyre VERY FINE spiderweb scratches, NO, not one bit, no worries there.
Theoria Apophasis Yea, i thought so, Its the way i got it . you cant really see it unless you tilt the lens at the right lighting angle and then it appears with the flashlight. Its almost circular so i bet its from cleaning. its "spider web" thin
the 24-70 2.8 has very soft corners...even stopped down was not good enough for landscape. I shot mainly at 24mm or 70mm. I sold it and bought a 24mm 1.4g and 85mm 1.4g . that was long ago now I would buy the 20mm 1.8g, 50mm 1.8g, and 85 1.8g for the same money and have way better image quality than the 24-70 2.8
I'm not sure if he does. But I don't.... very soft corners at 24mm (so forget about landscape) its ok @70 ok@50mmget the 20mm 1.8g, 50mm 1.8g and 85mm 1.8g the 24-70 2.8 is built well but the unless you plan on abusing your equipment the G series primes will do goodPrimes are always better
on the DX, unquestionably the 12 24 ive got both as well. which is superior? The 12-24 is a bit tougher to be sure, no question about it. as per construction.
ohh, its optically a winner alright, but it didnt "win out" due to the other points. ive no issue owning the 20mm 1.8 all day long. Ive used it and its wonderful despite its Tinker-Toy nature.
Ken, I have a Nikon D700 and a Nikon D500 All following lenses I have bought and I am ready to devote myself to them. Lenses which I DO NOT HAVE ARE THE 2 with the question mark ??????? Should I add them too??? I am nearly broke. xaxaxa But I am sure It will worth every minute of my life. Thank you very much for your true support. Do you still propose the TAMRON f/2G????? ZOOMS Tokina 11-16 2.8 IF DXII Nikkor 12-24 f/4G Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 Di VC USD Nikkor 17-55 2.8G DX Nikkor 24-85 3.5-4.5 G IF ED VR (VRG) RESERVED Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 E FL ED Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR (VRG) AF-S Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 D ED ???????? Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E ED VR AF-S RESERVED AF PRIMES Nikkor 10.5 f/2.8G ED DX Nikkor 20mm f1.8 G Nikkor 60mm f2.8 D Tokina 100mm f2.8D Nikkor 105 f/2D RESERVED Nikkor 180mm f2.8D IF ED (AF) Nikkor 300mm f4D IF ED MF PRIMES Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZF2 Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 ZF2 Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Noct Zeiss Planar 85mm 1.4 ZF2 Nikkor 135mm 2.8 AI-S Zeiss 100 f/2 Macro Planar ZF2 ?????????
you have all of those ehhh? ahhh i see..... oh shit, forget all your ?????? lenses...... forget em' yes, test drive a G2, dont waste money you dont have to waste however
referring to the 180mm F2.8 ED IF www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/92012-USA/Nikon_1940_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_180mm.html either newest version, or the older ED AF version with smooth plastic barrel which is typically $300+ used.
I'm confused here. The 24-70 2.8 in this video is ranked 13th, and not the best in this list at least. And in the other video Ken says it's the best. Seems to be a contradiction here: ua-cam.com/video/XOjG3VCfsec/v-deo.html Which video is more accurate about the 24-70?
Ok. You're right. But by squeezing it in as the 13th lens with the top 12 lenses, aren't you implying that it's not the best, as mentioned in your other video?
I would like to buy a new lens for my D7000. I have been looking around on all different options and it's quiet hard to know what to go for. I think for me a zoom lens is the best right now. (I only got the standard 18-105 at the moment. I need to go bigger.) And I don't want to buy a DX lens even though my camera is a DX camera. One day I will buy a new camera (FX next time) and then I want to have good leses for that one as well. As you know, you can change the house, but you will resue the lenses over and over again.
Theoria Apophasis You guessed it, with bigger I mean more zoom. I guess I need to use some other words when I mean the "big" zoom lenses. As english isn't my native language I just try my best. Thanks for answer. And on a DX the 70-300 will be a 105-450?
no , however the VRII is faster whats the price? glass age? NO, however the motor and contacts and will do same if not kept out of humidity and the lens coating can and will strip if you dont treat it right
Theoria Apophasis They really do produce striking images! so ive been thinking bout my next lenses for the 7100(refurb) i have recently acquired. That 80-200 has been catching my eye aswell as your much beloved 12-24...anything between that id think i could just pack a 35mm and/or 50mm to cover the mid range while bringin a little more sharpness to the party!
Theoria Apophasis Yes and itll probably be the 80-200 first cause the only thing i have that goes that high is the 55-200 kit lens which....works? technically speaking!
you could get same, or save for a second FX body, there are so many choices, either way the 80 200 is a killer FX or DX and built to last get insurance on it however !
I'd love to hear your opinions on this gear, but after 6 minutes of listening to your over-repetition (how many times did you use the phrase "current production"?) and lack of coherence, I couldn't handle it anymore.
its actually fuzzy, and its a dust collecting focal. 28mm is the WORST wide prime Nikon makes. everyone even asks me "is my 28mm messed up? its fuzzy" LOL
Theoria Apophasis You are wrong there, 28 mm 1.8G is the sharpest lens I have. I kid you not, the thing is crazy sharp on D 800, I dont know how did you come to a conclusion that its fuzzy?! I like your videos by the way:)
You seem like a smart knowledgeable guy, but you repeat everything a dozen times which makes your vids far too time consuming to watch to get to the point. If the point of this vid was the letter "G" it would take you 5 full minutes to state it.
No worries, the truth is, that it's worth it in the end, and we appreciate the effort. I need questions answered, and my sin is impatience. But really, it's great to have knowledgable free advice and recommendations. Thanks bro.
you're so funny. I want a wide angle, and im not sure that 20mm is wide enough on a crop sensor. not to vex you, but the 20mm Sigma art lens has a much better rating then the Nikor 20mm you suggested???? is that B.S too? thank you
You cant put a front filter on the sigma. You can with the Nikon. I have 3 1,4''s but I shoot mainly at 2.0 due to DOFthey are very close at that aperture . Don't think about the tokina 11-16 unless you want to shoot at f8 and upI am getting the Nikon 20 1,8 ... I think it will be the ultimate landscape lens
We'll i am going to miss a few till i get back from spending time at the VA so keep the good work rolling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh and remember each image is a time machine but also a lie of the truth
My bank account just went: "Oh FUCK!!!!!"
Mine dolphin dive out the 3rd story window head first into the Fucking concrete!
Can you start putting the lenses in your video comments. Makes it easier for me to reference back
CURRENT Production 2015
18-35mm 1:3-4.5 G [Wide Zoom]
135mm 2.0DC
180mm 2.8
50mm 1.8D
20mm 2.8 [non D]
80-200mm f2.8 AF
24-85mm 3.5-4.5G ED VR
70-300mm 4.5-5.6ED VR
28-300mm 3.5-5.6G ED VR
85mm 1.8G
60mm 2.8D Macro
14-24mm 2.8G ED
Could you please list in a reply the lenses. Want to make sure I have the correct list.
Jesus. WTF???? I'm so glad you're online and available to answer questions. It's superbly awkward as a new consumer of gear to know what source of info to trust.
I just picked up the Nikon 12-24 you recommend. wouldn't an 11-20 be redundant?
indeedy yes :) heheheh but you did ask
Sold my 80-200 and will sell my 70-200 VR too, too big, too heavy, eye-catching. Don't like a bazooka in front of my camera, because it draws alot of attention.
180 2.8 and 85 1.8 are really good lenses.
Thanks for your excellent review! I checked actual prices for all your recommended 13 lenses here in Germany. 10.500 € in total. If you buy all of these lenses used in very good condition price is about 50% less. I own already 5 of the presented glasses and I'm following your advise since years: Never by a Zoom from an third party manufacturer, never!
Please, have a coffee break, your angriness starts to dilute :-)
***** Tamron has some great lenses, Pentax has great lenses, Leica and Zeiss have great lenses, Minolta had great lenses, Olympus OM lenses are great too.
Tokina = Pentax
winks
Yay! 135 f/2 DC... love that thang!
Great video Ken. Thanks
Nikon 80-200 2.8 is the best lens zoom or prime, Nikon or anybody made, anytime , anywhere. Big period.
I got the 55mm 2.8 micro ais in mint condition! I actually like it better than my 60mm 2.8 macro D. I use it mostly for table top projects at home. So far though I favour the 60mm for portrait on DX. The D700 really likes the 55mm, really a good match. I paid $150.00 and really worth it! A brilliant recommendation... thanks : )
.
hey hey?, no yelling, no breaking of chairs, no cussing? Wonderful lecture professor. I wonder if you will revise with all the new f/1.8 lenses out now. No 35mm prime??
James Winters well, im not breaking anything !
35 prime is an upcoming review
the 35mm (FX) is a rather 'useless' prime for most people
Love the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G which I got on your recommendations
....FYI...attached to my previous question.....I am using D300 which I plan to keep.....and I can't afford or believe in those other expense lens just for VR.
The Nikon 80-200 2.8 is sharper than the newer 70-200 2.8 VRII Lens? Do you have any comparisons between the two lenses?
omarchafa you should test them yourself, the 70 200 2.8 VR1 and VR2 are despicable lenses, the tamron 70 200 2.8 VC is far superior for far less.
the 80 200 has far less element count than all of them and is both better in color sat. and rendition.
why did you think theyve been making that "old" 80 200 for SOOO MANY years?
my biggest problem is finding good lenses with an aperture ring so i can use them on my old FM2 and FE too...
It is sad to see them leaving off the rings and cameras not being able to use them. That why I have a Df. Many D series lenses are very good and a good value. I have a 20, 50, 60, 85, 28-105, 80-200, & 300, all of these are great performers, not all perfect. The 20 is close to perfect in all counts, the 50 is a little soft at 1.4, the 60 micro is fantastic, the 85 is also fantastic but lacks some contrast wide open, the 28-105 is very sharp stopped down a little with good contrast, some flare issues at times but for less than $200 like new condition, the best value. The 80-200 is a little soft wide open at 200mm, but a great lens, the 300 is as I mentioned a fabulous lens and a very very good value.
Ken is there a reason why you don't any Q series lenses. I have been looking at the 105; 135 and 200mm in the Q series. thanks
i have some yes,
+Theoria Apophasis d
which Q's would you recommended
Just to be clear you rate the 24-85 over the 24-70 (cost not being a consideration)?
The 24-70mm f/2.8 G was my first Nikon lens. I bought it with my D600 a few years ago when I decided to get back into photography after a 25 year hiatus. It was my only lens for over a year and I bought it under the impression that it was significantly less fragile than you claim it is. I haven't managed to break mine yet anyway!
Since then I'm pleased to say I too chose the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 to add to my bag and despite the fact it feels a little insubstantial after being used to the 24-70 have found it to be a great little lens.
At the long end I went with the new 70-200mm f/4 as it's much smaller and lighter than the faster alternatives and therefore less irksome to have to drag around with me. I'd be interested to hear how you think it compares to the 80-200.
Love the channel!
Peace
I'm curious about your thoughts about the comparison between the current 24-70mm f2.8 and the previous version (28-70mm f2.8).
Thanks
owned both, both are equal in sharpness and their fragile nature and build. there is very very little diff.
Theoria Apophasis Thank you for your quick (and admittedly unexpected) response and, more importantly, your video postings. I have enjoyed watching many of them as I seek to populate my wife's camera bag. Take care.
Ohhh, its your "wifes"? Kidding. LOL !!
No no, im not buying this for me, but my wife!!
I used to do that.
just a bit of humor.
Love your videos and have learned a lot from them. I recently watched your review on the new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 E FL ED VR, which you gave a great review. I'm interested in your thoughts between this lens and the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8? Removing cost as consideration, how does the 80-200 stack up against the NEW 70-200 f/2.8 E FL? Thanks!
What about the 50mm 1.8G? Why wouldn't you take that over the 1.8d? The G has autofocus...
the D is an AF lens also :P
Ok, thanks. I appreciate all your photography info. It's much appreciated, and I've learned so much from you. I have the 50mm 1.8G already. Do you think the d is so much better that I should buy that one and sell mine?
IQ is very close with both @1.8 the G wins......the G controls aberration better but the D has less distortion2.8 and up they are equal. I like the aperture control on the D for reverse ring macro
I'm having a hard time finding these lenses you reccomend. I live in the Netherlands and sites like ebay don't work without a creditcard. But I will continue, maybe I have more luck later on. Love your videos and keep coming with the reccomendations.
What does the 28-300mm lack?
No i don't wanna hear that song again 😠😅😡😂
What version of 24-85mm are your referring to ? Is it the 2.8-4D ? Or the 3.5-4.5 G ED
the difference is the 3.5-4-5 is VR and the 24-85 vr is what he said
it is a bit gut wrenching to see all these together. My lenses are not so buff, but I do actually own (drum roll) the 105mm dc lens.
Better than 18-300mm?
I was wondering if the 80-200 F/2.8 is the AF-S or AF-D model? I hear the AF-D model is no longer being made? If it's discontinued should i consider the AF-S version?
whoever told you the 80 200 D is no longer being made was smoking crack , its still made.
have 2 of them , see here:
www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-Zoom-Nikkor-80-200mm-f%252F2.8D-ED.html
$1200 new, and $600 minty used Ebay
CURRENT Production 2015
18-35mm 1:3-4.5 G [Wide Zoom]
135mm 2.0DC
180mm 2.8
50mm 1.8D
20mm 2.8 [non D]
80-200mm f2.8 AF
24-85mm 3.5-4.5G ED VR
70-300mm 4.5-5.6ED VR
28-300mm 3.5-5.6G ED VR
85mm 1.8G
60mm 2.8D Macro
14-24mm 2.8G ED
Good advice. Intros are long though. Could be tighter. ButI am still watching aren't I!
I don't have any primes longer than 50mm on my FX (mainly as I haven't had a huge need) but looking for the reach now so tossing up (based on you excellent recommendations) between an 85, the 70-300 or the 135 AIS. Interestingly I can get the AIS minty for about $200. Like I said i shoot wider most of the time but a portrait-type lens or simply some added reach would be great. Is the 135 THAT good? Thinking I might as well just pounce....can always get something else later if its that awesome?
consider getting the 60mm macro D nikkor.
135mm 3.5 or 2.8 AI / AIS is of course excellent.
is it that good? the answer is hell yes.
about 100+ people on here rushed to buy that "cheap" lens, all are 100% happy (more than actually).
The $1300 135mm DC Nikkor isnt more than a HAIR better. LOL !!
and i have BOTH, see the video.
Hi, why do you recommend the Nikon 60mm AF-D over the AF-S? Does it produce sharper images?
AFD is a far superior build. likewise has an app. ring, and optically both are the same, ive found NO diff.
There is no way in hell to compare these two other than identical focal lengths.
the Tank VS. the inferior plastic Cream Puff
Ken, awesome, awesome videos. I currently have the 28-300. Is there any midrange zoom that would be a significant improvement over the 28-300 like for the example the 24-70 2.8
+Howard McBean 24 85 VR G Nikkor
$200+ minty used ebay :)
- Ken, I want to get into photographing bands etc in low and constantly changing light. I have the D7100 with a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 .. A Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 .. the Tokina 100mm macro f/2.8-4(based on your recommendation .. and I love it .. thank you), and also a Nikon 35mm 1.8 G.I've just bought the D750 so could you recommend some lenses to go with this camera for bands etc .. Cheers Ant :))
If you are still interested, I have used primes like 20mm 2.8 , 50 1.4, 85, 1.8. I have done a lot of shots with my Df. (low light D4 sensor) in crazy lighting, I shoot about 2 stops or so down to avoid burned out faces, at wide or near wide opening, with great results at ISO 16 -3200 stopping the action well. The primes can give you that extra stop or 2. So I'll shoot a bunch of shots close up with a wide angle lens, then change to longer focal length shoot another bunch, then to another... The overall set of photos will include everything I need. So a zoom is not a must, since the band is pretty much in a fixed area.
Could you share with us what Nikon lenses you favor for FX youtube review and DIY videos? I'm interested in both M and AF recommendations that are around $500.
+T Lukasiewicz 24 85 VR G nikkor, $220 minty used :P
I own the 105 f2 DC, very nice indeed. My best lens.
The 200mm and the 60mm you mentioned, are fabulous lenses, I happen to own. The manual focus option however stopped working on my 80-200, a common problem, even with the light use I had on it. The 50mm 1.4 lacks some contrast at I.4, like most, but may be better at 1.8 than the 1.8 50mm. A bit more cost but great for low light focusing. You say the 70-300 up there with the 80-200? You need to stop down to F4 with the 80-200 to get sharpness/ contrast at beyond 135mm, is the only fault I have with it, but I would think the 70-300 would be inferior in sharpness, color and sharpness and a, "why bother", if you have the 200mm.
Larry is 100% right 50% of the time
I have owned all three, got rid of the 70-300 a while back and now have a f4 300 D. This is another fabulous lens that far out shines the 70 -300 in color, contrast, bokeh, and sharpness.
My bank I think subscribed to you because every time you post a video they freeze my accounts lol
You have mentioned to buy from Japan because they know quality when it comes to lenses (among other things) but i have heard horror stories about buy from outside the United States. What are your thoughts advice on that?
Thomas Fisher 90% of the time i agree COMPLETELY, I "never" buy outside the USA, Japan and Holland, and Germany are my ONLY exceptions to that.
Thanks for this great video once again! I was wondering what's your experience with the the previous version of the 80-200 mm, the one with the push pull zoom thingy? Is the image quality comparable to the current production 80-200?
Thanks
i had a push pull i got almost for free ages ago. its worth currently no more than $280 roughly.
The image is not up to par, no. however likewise it doesnt take a pixel peeper to see this fact either.
Thanks for the quick reply!
ohh, no problem
hugs and winks
What are your thoughts about the Sigma Art lenses. More specifically the 35 and 50 art.
snoopygray great lenses that are INSANELY overpriced
not to mention i can fool 95% of the people 100% of the time between a 1000$ Sigma Art lens and a 1.8 50mm Nikkor.
Ive proven this already some time ago.
Sigma art is a great black hole down which to needlessly toss money at a great lens that isnt "Extra great" by ANY empirical measure.
I am looking for a medium zoom lens & was convinced that the 24-120 f4 was the only way to go. I was hoping to buy the 28-300 but was saddened to hear it wasn't nearly as sharp -but am questioning that after after watching this video. Also, how would you compare these two to the 24-85mm (I understand that you said it is the sharpest but I am interested in the tradeoff between versatility & quality). I suppose built quality should also be a factor considering that 'this' type of zoom lens would be a go-to travel lens for me.
Morgan D Ohhhhhhhhhh 24-120 is a total POOPER. God, dont buy that thing.
Quality , versatility, sharpness, the 24-85G (ONLY THE G series!) is unmatched, AND its cheap as hell, $220+ minty used Ebay.
24-85 is compact also and a PERFECT travel lens.
Ive got 3 of em for a reason.
Much appreciated, thanks a bunch & keep up the awesome videos 👏
warm hugs :)
The Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC is a great portrait lens. The Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC is a bit sharper. I used the two DC lenses for B/W erotic portraits with my Nikon F5. The autofocus is super fast on my F5 and is always pin sharp. My most used prime lens is the Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1,4D IF on my Nikon D3S on my D700. The lens is magic and far superior than the new crap G version.
It is so hard to say which of your reviews or other vids is the best. This is definitely nominated :-)))
the "BEST" should be the one ill do late tonight
or at LEAST thats my delusion about same.
sorry for being a dumb brit, I've been looking over ebay for the 80-200 there appears to be several versions over here, which one should I be looking out for
its this one, which is also still a current version production lens!!!! here in USA Ebay, minty used is $600+
www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-Zoom-Nikkor-80-200mm-f%252F2.8D-ED.html
Sorry for my SLOW and late reply to you ,but Im on vacation on Sanibel island, and been taking a lot of pics now that my shoot is over, and I only have 3GB per month tethering on data, so I have to answer questions here at the coffee shop !!!
Ive got a TON more videos to crank out when I get back, also Im making a few here on the island but I need a vacation pretty bad!
me and my spandex G-string and my Nikon on the beach catching shots (NOT!) ...... shots yes, Gstring NO
Can you do me a favour> whats your thoughts on the Nikon 300mm F4 ED...the older one without the VR. I want to buy it for outdoor sports and wildlife (more sports though). I just bought the 80-200 f2.8...(damn that thing is lense porn to borrow your phrase....lol)
MelMax Photography the 300 F4.5 is a better lens optically, however its also an old MF lens.......the 300 F4 ED is usually about $850 used great shape.
value wise, im not keen on it :P
hello, do you like Nikkors 70-210 F4 constant F4, 25years old and Nikkor 17-35 F2.8 ?
i have an ENTIRE video about that 70 210 F4, yes, great killer lens, usually VERY cheap too (usually).
17 35 is bit too slow, and optically a hair inferior, if you can find one for UNDER $480, and great shape, buy it.
i used to have one.
yes, i have the 70 210 F4 also.
hey ken
if you were to have only one lens what would it be?
and also if you were to have only one camera what would it be?
shit, what a tough choice. out of ALL of those? 14-24 2.8
but NO single lens can 'do it all' of course.
What is the specific use for the 80-200 telezoom in your opinion?
portraiture, wedding work…….its not fast enough for sports action……well not generally
What do you think of the AF NIKKOR 28-105 3.5-4.5 D
***** its a steaming Poo pile. Avoid it.
can you please do a video about insuring gear? I use the tamron 24-70 2.8 on my d800 (i made the jump from canon) i find the focus on that lens to be slow when i use it in single point non continuos and i was wondering if you think the 24-85 would focus faster? ive seen some reviews and i am under the impression that it will focus slower then the tamron. what do you think?
Ohhh, i made that video already!!!
The tampon (err i mean tamron) slower in single point? thats NOT a shocker!
ive used both, and OWN 3 copies of the 24-85, however i cannot recall to make a mental comparison of AF single point focus speeds.
Theoria Apophasis can you tell me which video you discuss insurance. how fast would you say the nikon 24-85 in single point focus is compared to the canon 24-105 L which sucks as a lens but it focuses so frikin fast im trying to get speed and i want to know if the 24-85 will provide that ( i had speed with canon, although nothing else)
I cannot compare it to the Canon, ive been outta canon FAR too long.
Hehehe, even I DONT remember the video on insurance where it is.
Do you have state farm insurance? its called PERSONAL ARTICLES POLICY INSURANCE, or "Inland marine insurance"
ALL major insurance agents carry such types of insurance, and its CHEAP
Does minor cleaning scratches in the AR coating on the rear elements affect the image quality much?
always dust with brush before cleaning with Qtip with distilled water, so your not dragging stuff across the lens.
if theyre VERY FINE spiderweb scratches, NO, not one bit, no worries there.
Theoria Apophasis Yea, i thought so, Its the way i got it . you cant really see it unless you tilt the lens at the right lighting angle and then it appears with the flashlight. Its almost circular so i bet its from cleaning. its "spider web" thin
if thats the case then youve got nothing to worry about whatsoever
likely someone BEFORE you made those cleaning marks.
would you recommend getting the 24-70mm f/2.8 on a dx?
+Lou Parham ohhh no, works fine, but its overkill in teh extreme.
the 24-70 2.8 has very soft corners...even stopped down was not good enough for landscape. I shot mainly at 24mm or 70mm. I sold it and bought a 24mm 1.4g and 85mm 1.4g . that was long ago now I would buy the 20mm 1.8g, 50mm 1.8g, and 85 1.8g for the same money and have way better image quality than the 24-70 2.8
I'm not sure if he does. But I don't.... very soft corners at 24mm (so forget about landscape) its ok @70 ok@50mmget the 20mm 1.8g, 50mm 1.8g and 85mm 1.8g the 24-70 2.8 is built well but the unless you plan on abusing your equipment the G series primes will do goodPrimes are always better
Nikon AF NIKKOR 14mm f/2.8D ED Lens? for Crop sensor, Thoughts?
that lens is an old TURD :) expensive and cool looking only
on DXO Mark
DXOmark is a BS site no pro has any respect for, theyre fools :)
I think you rock my friend
Is that the 80-200 AF-D or the 80-200 AF-S?
D
I would say 24 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 are my shiny superstars
sup gerl :)
Would you go with the 18-35 or the 12-24 (On a DX).
this is a video on FX ONLY, for DX, its the 12-24
Yes I know but if you compare the two lenses and could only go with one of them which is better? Don't count FX/DX, but which lens is superior?
on the DX, unquestionably the 12 24
ive got both as well.
which is superior? The 12-24 is a bit tougher to be sure, no question about it.
as per construction.
why the manual focus 20mm over the 20mm/1.8G?
20mm 1.8G is an overpriced over-plastic cream-puff pussy that offers NOTHING but a LACK of an aperture ring , plastic, and a higher price
Theoria Apophasis Overpriced and plastic but optically pretty good. better than my 2.8D but it should be for 2x the cost
ohh, its optically a winner alright, but it didnt "win out" due to the other points.
ive no issue owning the 20mm 1.8 all day long. Ive used it and its wonderful
despite its Tinker-Toy nature.
picked up an exquisite 80-200 $195, wow!!! etsy
Why do you only mention the 135mm dc and not the 105dc? aren't they both great lenses, money aside.
steelbill9 not a fan of the 105, its too short. Yes, theyre both equally great. its just the focal.
Which 80-200 2.8? There is an AF 80-200 2.8D, a 70-200 2.8 AF-S. And there is a kind of one touch and two touch next to the 2.8D version.......
either the D or AFS (costs more)..... you have $1300??? get the tamron 70 200 G2
Ken, I have a Nikon D700 and a Nikon D500 All following lenses I have bought and I am ready to devote myself to them. Lenses which I DO NOT HAVE ARE THE 2 with the question mark ??????? Should I add them too??? I am nearly broke. xaxaxa But I am sure It will worth every minute of my life. Thank you very much for your true support. Do you still propose the TAMRON f/2G?????
ZOOMS
Tokina 11-16 2.8 IF DXII
Nikkor 12-24 f/4G
Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 Di VC USD
Nikkor 17-55 2.8G DX
Nikkor 24-85 3.5-4.5 G IF ED VR (VRG) RESERVED
Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 E FL ED
Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR (VRG) AF-S
Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 D ED ????????
Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6E ED VR AF-S RESERVED
AF PRIMES
Nikkor 10.5 f/2.8G ED DX
Nikkor 20mm f1.8 G
Nikkor 60mm f2.8 D
Tokina 100mm f2.8D
Nikkor 105 f/2D RESERVED
Nikkor 180mm f2.8D IF ED (AF)
Nikkor 300mm f4D IF ED
MF PRIMES
Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZF2
Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 ZF2
Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Noct
Zeiss Planar 85mm 1.4 ZF2
Nikkor 135mm 2.8 AI-S
Zeiss 100 f/2 Macro Planar ZF2 ?????????
you have all of those ehhh? ahhh i see..... oh shit, forget all your ?????? lenses...... forget em'
yes, test drive a G2, dont waste money you dont have to waste however
Thank you for being here for me. I bow to your experience
Hey Ken, 105DC VS 135DC? Shooting on FX... Which is the go to? Im leaning 105..
+Brian Feutz 105mm is the super tits
+Theoria Apophasis I just love the super tits! ROFL!
+Brian Feutz i have 2 of those fucking lenses :) Yeahhhh boiiiii
+Theoria Apophasis Of course you do... : P
werd
is that 180mm ed or ais? f2.8? thnx
referring to the 180mm F2.8 ED IF
www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/92012-USA/Nikon_1940_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_180mm.html
either newest version, or the older ED AF version with smooth plastic barrel
which is typically $300+ used.
I'm confused here. The 24-70 2.8 in this video is ranked 13th, and not the best in this list at least. And in the other video Ken says it's the best. Seems to be a contradiction here: ua-cam.com/video/XOjG3VCfsec/v-deo.html
Which video is more accurate about the 24-70?
Art I i give NO numerical ranking in this video, such as #1 is top, #2 next
Ok. You're right. But by squeezing it in as the 13th lens with the top 12 lenses, aren't you implying that it's not the best, as mentioned in your other video?
youre seeing implication where none exists :)
if i had 5 brothers and mentioned "bob" last , does that imply i dont really like bob???
no. :P
I would like to buy a new lens for my D7000. I have been looking around on all different options and it's quiet hard to know what to go for. I think for me a zoom lens is the best right now. (I only got the standard 18-105 at the moment. I need to go bigger.)
And I don't want to buy a DX lens even though my camera is a DX camera. One day I will buy a new camera (FX next time) and then I want to have good leses for that one as well. As you know, you can change the house, but you will resue the lenses over and over again.
bigger? grab a 70-300 VR for $300 minty used.
Theoria Apophasis You guessed it, with bigger I mean more zoom. I guess I need to use some other words when I mean the "big" zoom lenses. As english isn't my native language I just try my best. Thanks for answer. And on a DX the 70-300 will be a 105-450?
yup
Theoria Apophasis Hi Is there much difference between a 70-300 from 2007 compared to a new one?Will the glas age?Or are there other issues?
no , however the VRII is faster
whats the price?
glass age? NO, however the motor and contacts and will do same if not kept out of humidity and the lens coating can and will strip if you dont treat it right
That is the 24-85 f4 constant aperture right?
ohhh, no , its the 24-85 4.5 to 5.6 G VR !!
Theoria Apophasis can't find 4.5-5.6
Isn't it 3.5-4.5😬
How about the 24-120 f4 VR ?
it sucks, hate it
Got a new 70-300 vr $395, excited
super sharp lowest fstop all the way.. at 300mm take a pic at 5.6 and at 8 raw
No Sigma Art lenses? Art series equivalent to the Nikkor are superior.
+Karl Webb Art lenses are poorly made and inferior lenses :)
The sigma art lense i have is far better built that the nikon equivalant and produces sharper shots?
28-70mm 3.5-704.5d?
i like the bokeh on 50 1.8 ads better than the 50 1.8 afd
pfft i rock that 85mm on my dx all day, everyday! Aswell as the 35mm. Always on the camera or in the bag, those two!
Absofrigginglutely !
Theoria Apophasis They really do produce striking images! so ive been thinking bout my next lenses for the 7100(refurb) i have recently acquired. That 80-200 has been catching my eye aswell as your much beloved 12-24...anything between that id think i could just pack a 35mm and/or 50mm to cover the mid range while bringin a little more sharpness to the party!
Thats a logical and intelligent plan you have there
80 200 is a TANK
Theoria Apophasis Yes and itll probably be the 80-200 first cause the only thing i have that goes that high is the 55-200 kit lens which....works? technically speaking!
you could get same, or save for a second FX body,
there are so many choices, either way the 80 200 is a killer FX or DX and built to last
get insurance on it however !
I'd love to hear your opinions on this gear, but after 6 minutes of listening to your over-repetition (how many times did you use the phrase "current production"?) and lack of coherence, I couldn't handle it anymore.
Andrew Juries yeah, imagine how tough it is that i have to live with this SOB (myself), what a bummer.
Im right there with you.
I dont get the Ai/non-Ai/Ais concept. will non-Ai lenses work with my D7100?
no, not the NON-AI, not without a $30 conversion
but MANY of those lenses are optically INFERIOR , forget about the non-AI
how about nikor 28mm f1.8 N
its actually fuzzy, and its a dust collecting focal. 28mm is the WORST wide prime Nikon makes.
everyone even asks me "is my 28mm messed up? its fuzzy" LOL
thank you
Theoria Apophasis You are wrong there, 28 mm 1.8G is the sharpest lens I have. I kid you not, the thing is crazy sharp on D 800, I dont know how did you come to a conclusion that its fuzzy?! I like your videos by the way:)
Im referring to ANOTHER version of the 28mm , the AI
11:35 =)) if u see what special drop on the floor
Canon announced 11-24 zoom
70-300 nikon or tamron?
70 300 VR Nikkor . $300 minty used, fast, quiet, perfect, and also cheap (in price)
why not tamron?
this is about current production NIKON lenses!
You seem like a smart knowledgeable guy, but you repeat everything a dozen times which makes your vids far too time consuming to watch to get to the point. If the point of this vid was the letter "G" it would take you 5 full minutes to state it.
+Databyter yes, due to PTSD from years of abuse actually , .......i mention that 'issue' of repetition in another video.
apologies
No worries, the truth is, that it's worth it in the end, and we appreciate the effort. I need questions answered, and my sin is impatience. But really, it's great to have knowledgable free advice and recommendations. Thanks bro.
you're so funny. I want a wide angle, and im not sure that 20mm is wide enough on a crop sensor. not to vex you, but the 20mm Sigma art lens has a much better rating then the Nikor 20mm you suggested???? is that B.S too? thank you
tokina 11- 16 mm :)
You cant put a front filter on the sigma. You can with the Nikon. I have 3 1,4''s but I shoot mainly at 2.0 due to DOFthey are very close at that aperture . Don't think about the tokina 11-16 unless you want to shoot at f8 and upI am getting the Nikon 20 1,8 ... I think it will be the ultimate landscape lens
We'll i am going to miss a few till i get back from spending time at the VA so keep the good work rolling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh and remember each image is a time machine but also a lie of the truth
well, im going on a photo shoot, so ill be gone too for a while
have fun, relax, make light your bitch and we'll be here to critique your work when you get back :)
ill whip her into shape, or make her.
Theoria Apophasis
one quick one AI or AIS 105 2.5?
oh hell, whichever is cheaper and in best shape!
no doubt