Having used all of the following lenses (often multiple samples),
I cannot resist passing on my experience with these lenses in the
form of a brief discussion of the general characteristics of Nikkor
lens performance by lens groups, a listing of SUBJECTIVE performance
quality numbers for the lenses used (with the number of samples used
of a particular lens), and notes about the characteristics of
individual lenses that are not covered by the above. If you have
used any of the lenses listed, I hope that you will be able to
combine that experience with what is offered here to get a good idea
of how any other lens listed here performs.


In general: Nikkor lenses are well matched in terms of color
rendition, contrast, and freedom from flare ("Flare" used here
refers to a spreading or spilling of diffuse light into or across
an image - it does not refer to well-defined reflections of the lens
aperture caused by small bright light sources. Only the very oldest
Nikkor 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 well center-to-corner at all distances by f5.6
(some perform well wide-open); the 50's perform well by f2 (except
for the f1.2 near infinity); lenses 55mm and over (except the 58mm
speed lenses) show no linear distortion and perform well wide-open
(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.

The SUBJECTIVE lens evaluation numbers are:
0 -- unable to form an image
1 -- very poor image quality, a "pop bottle bottom"
2 -- low image quality, usable for snapshots
3 -- fair image quality, perhaps very good at one or two apertures
4 -- very good to excellent image quality at most apertures, a
fully professional-level lens, but with some limitations
5 -- excellent image quality, with minor limitations
6 -- near perfect lens with hard to detect shortcomings
7 -- absolutely perfect lens in every respect

(These numbers may be compared with those in Grover Larkins' useful
and valuable summary of lens performance. His list includes a few
short Nikkors and many long Nikkors that I have not covered, plus
many lenses of other brands.)
You will find no "0", "1", "6" or "7" in the list below, but I
wanted 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 with few
reservations. 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 number 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. Use the general notes on
Nikkor lens performance and the notes with particular lenses to get a
better overall understanding of how a particular lens performs.
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, physically large and heavy
[6, 7.5, 8, 15mm f5.6, 16mm f3.5 Nikkors have built-in filters])
- 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 ------------- 3-4.5 (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,
good in color)
- 16mm f3.5 ------------- 5.5 (3) (wonderful lens, can be used wide
open, works very well w. TC14A by f5.6 for a great people super-wide)
- 16mm f2.8 ------------- 4 (3) (works very 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)
- 20mm f3.5, f4 compact - 2.8-3.5 (many samples, variable)
- 20mm f2.8AIS, AF ------ 5 (3)
- 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) (unusually resistent to flare)
- 28mm f2.8 AIS --------- 5 (4) (good wide open)
- 28mm f2.8 E, AF? ------ 2.8-3.5 (of several tried, one good
stopped-down, the others were poor - 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
Nikkor 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 --------------- 3.5-4.5 (many samples, somewhat variable,
the best are good wide open, though all show illumination falloff at
wide apertures, and have some tendency to flare w. strong backlight)
- 35mm f2 AF ------------ 4.3 (1)
- 35mm f1.4 ------------- 4.5 (3)(good wide-open at mid-long
distances, even illumination wide-open)
- 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, 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, though illumination fall-off
shows until about f4)
- 50mm f1.4 AIS, AF ----- 4.8 (many samples, excellent by f2
[short of corners])
- 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 at edges as
approach infinity focus)
- 55mm f1.2 ------------- 3 (3)
- 55mm f3.5 Micro ------- 5 close, 3.5 near infinity (several
samples, noticeable field curvature near infinity)
- 55mm f2.8 Micro MF, AF- 5 at infinity, 4 close (several samples)
(this lens tends to acquire oil on the diaphram leaves)
- 58mm f1.2 Noct -------- 3 (1, pos. defective, wide apertures
poor, though performance excellent by f5.6)
- 60mm f2.8 Micro ------- 3 at infinity, 5.5 close (2) (poor at
infinity at wide apertures, though excellent by f8)
- 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 achromat that comes with this lens
is excellent and works well with non-macro lenses [Sigma achromat +
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 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, 52mm
filter size, lens press-fits into a BR-2a ring to add a Nikon mount)
- 180mm f2.8 non-ED ----- 4.8 (1)
- 180mm f2.8 ED --------- 5 (1)
- 180mm f2.8 EDAF ------- 5.5 (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 a macro lens - [the best for about 3X that I have used],
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 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 f3.3-4.5MF, AF- 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)(yuck!)
- 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 declines, becomes poor at min. focus at wide apertures -
otherwise this lens is wonderful even wide open, performs very well
on TC14C, well on 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 f4])
- 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 > 135mm, then no distortion > 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, works well
with most lenses it fits that are 200mm and shorter)
- 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 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) (long lenses only, except
with tubes on front of converter for macro work, 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 alone])

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. (The cheaper lenses in the Nikon line are optically
fine [unlike those of another major brand], though they may be
mechanically lower in quality than the mid and high priced lenses
in the line.)

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!

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.