Having used all of the following lenses (often multiple samples),
I cannot resist adding my experience to Grover Larkins' useful
and valuable summary of performance. (Please see his summary in rec.photo.advanced for a description of the subjective rating system, and for lenses not rated here.) To his "O" through "5", I will add two more levels: "6" - darn near perfect lens, and "7" - perfect lens in every respect, all apertures, all distances, center-to-corner. You
will find no "6" or "7" in the list below, but I want to place real-world optics in the context of a scale running from completely terrible, unable to form an image ("0"), to absolutely perfect, able to form an image with no defects under any conditions ("7"). Any lens rated "4" or above is excellent, capable of fine, professional-level performance. Please remember that these are SUBJECTIVE ratings, not mathematical,
and that differences of 1/2 point are quite subtle. Smaller differences are included to try to differentiate quality among similar-performing lenses, but please DO NOT get hung-up on them (the area between "4" and "5" is crowded with many fine lenses). This rating system does not
allow for details of performance, like variations in sharpness with distance, or the particulars of wide vs. mid-aperture performance.
It is too general, but it is still a good rough guide to relative lens quality.
In this updated listing, you will find more notes on the outstanding
particulars of some lenses, and you will find some additional lenses
I had forgotten in my first listing. (BTW, I am a photographer, and
do use lenses, not just test them - but I am also an equipment nut,
and prefer to use fine lenses, the performance characteristics of which are familiar to me. Poor lenses can be used to make fine photographs, but how much more fun it is to use good lenses and not need to find
ways around their shortcomings!)
Hope this helps, AND DO NOT TAKE IT TOO SERIOUSLY! (photography
should be fun!): ^^^
LENSES: RATINGS: NOTES:
(NIKKOR, MANUAL-FOCUS, (number of samples tried,
unless otherwise noted) in parentheses)
- 6mm f5.6 -------------- 4 (1) (no TTL viewing, no accurate v.f., fits only on bodies with mirror lock-up, 220 degree [!] circular image)
- 7.5mm f5.6 ------------ 4 (1) (no TTL viewing, though the separate v.f. is remarkably accurate, fits only on bodies with mirror lock-up,
180 degree circular image)
- 8mm f2.8 -------------- 4.6 (2) (180 degree circular image,
excellent sharpness to edge of coverage by f11, not wonderful wide open,
equally good in B & W and color [6, 7.5, 8, 15mm f5.6 have built-in filters], physically large size)
- 8mm F4 Sigma ---------- 4.4 (1) (c. 165 degree circular image,
better in color than B & W, good wide open in color, compact size)
- 15mm f5.6 ------------- 3-4.8 (several samples, somewhat variable, very low linear distortion, even center to corner performance, very
even illumination [in common with all the Nikkor super wides, except
the 18mm's at wide apertures, and the 21mm], slightly yellow color cast compared with other Nikkors, best at f11-16, need to open 1/2 stop from
meter reading, corners improve slightly in B & W using yellow, orange, or red filter)
- 15mm f3.5 ------------- 4 (2) (poor corner performance in B & W)
- 16mm f3.5 ------------- 5.5 (3) (wonderful lens, can be used wide open, works well w. TC14A by f5.6 for a great people super-wide lens)
- 16mm f2.8 ------------- 4 (3) (works well w. TC14A by f5.6, 180
degree full frame image [slightly wider than 16mm f3.5])
- 18mm f3.5 ------------- 4.4 (2) (better in color than B & W)
- 18mm f4 --------------- 3 (2) (avoid this lens)
- 20mm f3.5, f4 compact - 2.8-3.5 (many samples, avoid these)
- 20mm f2.8 ------------- 5 (3) (design is same as AF)
- 21mm f4 --------------- 4 (3) (no TTL viewing [though the
separate v.f. is remarkably accurate], no linear distortion, some tendency to flare, extremely compact when mounted on the camera,
though will fit only on F, F2, [F3?] bodies)
- 24mm f2.8 ------------- 4.5 (many samples [one bad], design same as AF, needs lens shade)
- 24mm f2 --------------- 4 (1) (low contrast wide open)
- 28mm f4 PC ------------ 5 (3) (better off-axis performance than
28mm f3.5 PC - all of the Nikkor PC lenses will illuminate the
complete frame, even with the most extreme movement [beyond the recommended shift limit], but all require f16-22 to sharpen
the far edge of coverage [f8-11 is sufficient to sharpen the top
corners of a horizontal frame with full rise applied])
- 28mm f3.5 PC ---------- 4 (3) (better wide aperture performance
with no shift than the 28mm f4 PC, but off axis, it is not up to f4)
- 28mm f3.5 AI ---------- 5 (4) (good wide open, very even center
to corner performance)
- 28mm f3.5 non-AI ------ 3 (3)
- 28mm f2.8 early ------- 3.8 (2) (very resistent to flare)
- 28mm f2.8 AIS --------- 5 (4) (good wide open)
- 28mm f2.8 E ----------- 2.8-3.5 (of several tried, one good stopped- down, others poor - avoid these - the AF design may be the same)
- 28mm f2 --------------- 4.5 (many samples)
- 35mm f3.5 PC ---------- 3.5 (1)
- 35mm f2.8 PC non-AI --- 4 (3) (non-AI PC's fit AI cameras)
- 35mm f2.8 PC AI ------- 5 (3) (excellent to the corners wide open shifted up to about 3mm - the best performance of all the 35's at f2.8, good on TC14A with c. 5mm or less shift [effectively 7mm] when not stopped down beyond about f5.6)
- 35mm f2.8 non-AI ------ 3.5 (1)
- 35mm f2.5 E ----------- 4 (2)
- 35mm f2 --------------- 3.5-5 (many samples, somewhat variable, the best are good wide open, though all show illumination falloff at wide apertures, and have some tendency to flare with strong backlight)
- 35mm f2 AF ------------ 4.3 (1)
- 35mm f1.4 ------------- 4.5 (3)(good wide-open at mid-long distances)
- 50mm f2 --------------- 4.3 (several samples)
- 50mm f1.8 AIS metal --- 4.8 (many samples, very even center to corner performance at all apertures, good wide open)
- 50mm f1.8 E, AF-------- 4.5 (many samples, design is same as AF, usable wide open, no linear distortion)
- 50mm f1.4 non-AI ------ 3.8 (many samples, poor wide open, though excellent at middle and smaller apertures [wide apertures can be sharpened with a red filter in B & W])
- 50mm f1.4 AIS --------- 4.8 (many samples, design is same as AF, excellent short of corners by f2)
- 50mm f1.2 ------------- 5 at 4 to 15 feet or so, otherwise 4 (several samples, excellent center to corners wide open near optimum focus distance, with declining quality as approach infinity focus)
- 55mm f1.2 ------------- 3 (3) (avoid these)
- 55mm f3.5 Micro ------- 5 close, 3 infinity (several samples, noticeable field curvature near infinity)
- 55mm f2.8 Micro ------- 5 at infinity, 4 close (sev. samp., AF same)
(this lens tends to acquire oil on the diaphram leaves)
- 58mm f1.2 ------------- 3 (1, pos. defective, wide apertures poor)
- 60mm f2.8 Micro ------- 3 at infinity, 5.5 close (1 sample, pos. defective [soft at infinity at wide apertures, though excellent stopped down], I will check out another 60mm soon)
- 85mm f2 --------------- 5 (several samples)
- 85mm f1.8 non-AI ------ 5 (2) (very good wide open, flares easily with backlight)
- 85mm f1.8 AF ---------- 5 (1) (sl. better in corners wide open
near minimum focus distance than near infinity)
- 85mm f 1.4 ------------ 5 (4) (good wide open, floating element maintains good performance down to minimum focus distance)
- 90mm f2.5 Vivitar Ser I 4.8 (3) (flares easily near infinity, is the best of the macros have tried for magnifications near 2x, requires
skylight filter to match color with Nikkors)
- 90mm f2.5 Sigma macro - 4.7 (2) (odd center flare spot with some
converter-tube combinations - the acromat that comes with this lens is excellent and works well with non-macro lenses [Sigma acromat + 200mm
f4 Nikkor compact non-macro lens at f11-16 + TC200 or PN-11 makes a
very sharp macro combination for about 3-3.5X magnification])
- 100mm f2.8 E ---------- 4.5 (2)
- 105mm f4 Micro -------- 3.5 (2) (not great at wide apertures)
- 105mm f4 short mount -- 3.5 (1) (same optics as 105mm f4 Micro)
- 105mm f2.8 MF Micro --- 5.5 at infinity, 4.5 close (2) (the best center to corner performance at infinity at f2.8 of all lenses have tried 85mm and over [with the possible exception of the 180mm AF] -
this is a great aerial photography lens)
- 105mm f2.8 AF Micro 1:1 4.7 at infinity, 5 close (2) (too difficult
to focus manually near infinity - focus is too fast)
- 105mm f2.5 AI --------- 5 (several samples)
- 105mm f1.8 ------------ 4.8 (many samples)
- 135mm f3.5 ------------ 4.5 (2)
- 135mm f2.8 non-AI ----- 4.5 (3)
- 135mm f2.8 compact ---- 4.8 (4)
- 135mm f2.8 E ---------- 4.5 (2)
- 135mm f2 -------------- 5 beyond 10', 3 at minimum focus (3) (very sharp center to corner at f2 at mid to long distances, but there is
some very slight field curvature at infinity, performance is very poor near minimum focus at wide apertures)
- 150mm f5.6 Vivitar VHE enlarging lens (actually, a Schneider
Componon-S in Viv. clothes) on PB-4 tilt-shift bellows --- 4 (1)
(needs strong skylight filter to match Nikon color, provides the
35mm user with a mini long lens view camera of good quality)
- 180mm f2.8 non-ED ----- 4.4 (1)
- 180mm f2.8 ED --------- 4.8 (1)
- 180mm f2.8 EDAF ------- 5.7 (1) (this lens is SUPERB all apertures center-to-corner, all distances [even on short tube])
- 200mm f4 older -------- 4 (several samples)
- 200mm f4 compact ------ 4.5 (several samples) (can be great as macro -
see 90mm Sigma comments)
- 200mm f4 MF Micro------ 4 (2)
- 300mm f4.5 ------------ 3.4-4.5 (several samples, some variation)
- 300mm f4.5 ED non-IF--- 5 (1) (particularly good with converters)
- 300mm f4.5 EDIF-------- 4.8 (2) (good at minimum focus, and on tubes,
but not good with converters)
- 300mm f4 AF ----------- 4.8 (1)
- 300mm f2.8 EDIF MF----- 5 (1) (good with converters)
- 400mm f5.6 EDIF ------- 4.8 (1) (good with converters)
- 400mm f5.6 Sigma APO -- 3.4 (2) (decent, but not a great performer)
- 400mm f3.5 EDIF ------- 5 (2) (very good with converters)
- 500mm f8 mirror, early- 4.4 (3) (good with TC14B, performs better
near infinity than near minimum focus distance, rate film speed 1/2
stop lower when using this lens, there is a moderate center "hot spot" as there is with most mirrors [using the TC14 reduces this])
- 500mm f8 mirror, late - 3.8 (2) (very close focus, best performance near middle of focus range)
- 500mm f8 Tamron mirror- 3.3 (1)
- 1000mm f11 mirror ----- 3.5 (1) (it is very difficult to use a lens this long beyond a few hundred feet because the air qualities have a great affect on the image quality)
- 25-50mm f4 ------------ 4.4 (several samples)
- 28-50mm f3.5 ---------- 4.3 (2) (very sharp, but unusually high
field curvature near infinity)
- 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 ------ 4.4 (2)
- 28-135mm f4-4.5 Tamron- 4.6 (2) (very even performance center to corners at all apertures and distances except macro under about 50mm,
very slightly lower contrast over all than Nikon lenses, high linear distortion near long end, must be used with the large shade made for
it, needs skylight filter to match Nikon color)
- 35-70mm f3.3-4.5 ---- 4.2 (several samples)
- 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 MF -- 3-5 (many samples - this is Nikon's most variable-quality lens [sample variability is generally not a problem
with Nikkor lenses], a good sample is excellent at all apertures
center to corners except near infinity near 105mm, macro is excellent,
must be used with the short shade made for it)
- 35-135mm f3.5-4.5 MF -- 4 (2) (appears to cheat a bit in the
marked focal-length range, not wonderful wide open, but excellent
by mid apertures)
- 35-200mm f3.5-4.5 ----- 2-2.8 (two samples, both not good)
- 43-86mm f3.5 ---------- 2-3 (2) (avoid all versions)
- 50-135mm f3.5 --------- 5 (4) (non-rotating front, good wide open)
- 70-210mm f4 E --------- 4.5 (several samples, works well on TC14A)
- 70-210mm f3.5 Viv. Ser. I - 3.5-4.2 (3, some variability)
- 70-210mm f4-5.6 AF ---- 3.8 (1)
- 75-150mm f3.5 E ------- 5 (many samples, works well on converters,
is very good wide open and throughout its focus and zoom ranges)
- 80-200mm f4.5 --------- 4 (several samples, lower quality at long end than more modern Nikkor zooms in this range, but still very good)
- 80-200mm f4 ----------- 4.5 (one sample)
- 80-200mm f2.8 AF non-D- 5 (1) (performance under about 8' at 200mm
goes down, becomes poor at min. focus at wide apertures - otherwise this lens is wonderful even wide open, performs very well on TC14C, well 14B
[the length and mass help me hand hold this lens down to 1/60 at 200mm -
something impossible for me with the 200mm fixed, or 70-210mm])
- 80-200mm f2.8 Tamron -- 4.8 near infinity, 3 close-focus (1)
- 80-200mm f2.8 Tokina -- 4.8 near infinity, 3 mid distances, very
poor at close-focus (1)
- 100-300mm f5.6 -------- 5 (sev. samples, unusually low distortion
[slight barrel to 135mm, then no distortion to 300mm], good wide open)
- 100-500mm f5.6-8 Cosina 4.4 (one sample, very good to just over 400mm,
is decent at 500mm - size and slow speed are its drawbacks)
- TC14A ----------------- 4.8 (2) (short lenses only)
- TC14 and TC14B -------- 4.8 (4) (long lenses only, except with tubes on front of converter for macro work)
- TC14C ----------------- 5 (2) (long lenses only, this unusual converter is darn near perfect on some lenses, and out performs the
excellent TC14B on all lenses they will fit, except the older 500mm
f8 mirror) (The 80-200mm f2.8 with the TC14C by f4 is as good as prime lenses, and betters the excellent 100-300mm f5.6 at similar apertures)
- TC200 and TC201 ------- X (4) (works very well on some lenses,
adequately on some, and poorly on some - is excellent for increasing
magnification in macro work when using small stops)
- TC300 and TC301 ------- 3.5-4.5 (3) (results vary with particular
lens designs, works best with 300mm f4.5 ED non-IF, and maybe worst
with the 300mm f4.5 EDIF - both good lenses on their own)
In general: Nikkor lenses are well matched in terms of color rendition, contrast, and freedom from flare (only the very oldest designs flare
easily with strong backlight, and only the 35mm f2 design remains in
the line); the fixed focal-length Nikkor lenses 35mm and under perform
very well center-to-corner at all distances by f5.6 (some do well wide-open); the 50's perform well by f2, except the f1.2 near infinity; lenses 55mm and over perform well even wide-open (and show no linear distortion), except that non-IF lenses in the 85-180mm range without floating elements have reduced quality of performance near minimum
focus distance at wide apertures; the zooms generally have remarkably good close-focus performance at focal-lengths over about 50mm, very
good center-to-corner sharpness from f5.6 (some are very good wide-open), and remarkably uniform performance throughout their zoom
ranges at mid to long distances.
I have tried many Vivitars, Sigmas, Tokinas, etc., and the less said, the better about most of them, though there were a few decent and a few good lenses that I have tried, listed above. I have also tried some other camera manufacturers' lenses, which makes me appreciate the general high level of design and the sample-to-sample consistency of Nikkor lenses.
Consider all of the above to be copyrighted material (1995 -
David Ruether) which may be used freely for non-commercial purposes.
PLEASE do not e-mail me for specifics on lenses!
Hope this helps.