Good Nikon Lens?

Candid Arts · February 6, 2009

Ok. So I don't know Nikon's line up at all as I'm a die hard Canon guy.

Here's the situation. My grandma has a D40, the 18-55 kit lens, and 70-200 2.8 VR. She is thinking about getting a new lens and I'm trying to help her with some ideas. Obviously I suggested the 17-55 2.8 and 24-70 2.8, as well as the 12-24. Now, on these Nikon lenses there are a shit ton of letters and such in the descriptions of the lenses (EX: AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX). I have no idea what all the ED-IF AF-S DX stands for. Canon gives you EF (or EF-S), L and IS. That's it. What does all this stuff mean? I was thinking she might put to good use one of the 18-105, 18-135, or 18-200 as well. But I know these aren't the greatest peices of glass Nikon makes, but might be pretty useable for her. She hardly ever uses the 70-200 2.8 VR. But we got it so she (I) could shoot HS football in low light conditions. So I don't think she needs any of the previously mentioned lenses because she has the nice one, so why get a lens that convers the same focal length that isn't as nice? Right?

So I think I've narrowed it down to the 17-55 2.8, 24-70 2.8. I'm looking for good glass only here and obviously these are all great glass.

Anyways, some help on which ones will fit her body (D40) and have IS if available, and the better of the glass (like Canon has L glass, if Nikon has anything like that).

Thanks guys!

Matt518 · February 6, 2009

Nikon Lens Letters
On the right hand side, in the blue column:

http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm

Candid Arts · February 6, 2009

Sweet. Thanks. That is just ridiculous though. Way too much crap.

bandgeekndb · February 6, 2009

IMHO, out of all the letters I look for, 3 sets are the most important for a D40 user: AF-S, DX, and VR

AF-S: This means the motor for autofocusing is built into the lens. The D40 does NOT have an AF motor in the body, so the lens MUST have the motor for autofocus to work. The AF-S lenses will work on bodies like the D80 that have a motor so it's not a problem if the body is upgraded. BUT, lenses without the AF-S tag won't autofocus on the D40, D40x, or D60. For example, I just bought the "nifty fifty" which is Nikon's 50mm f/1.8D lens. Since it's not an AF-S lens, it doesn't autofocus on my camera. It works with the focus indicator though, so if I watch the little focus light carefully, it'll tell me whether I'm in focus.

DX: This is Nikon's crop format designation. This means the lens will show "vignetteing" on full frame cameras, such as the D3, the D3x, and the D700. So, unless she's upgrading to a D3x anytime soon, I think you're safe with these lenses. Do remember though, if you get a lens that isn't DX, you have to multiple the 1.6 crop factor into the equation. For example, since the 24-70 isn't FX (full frame), the lens becomes a 39-112mm lens, not a 24-70. When Nikon markets a lens as DX, such as the 55-200, they've made the lens specifically for crop format cameras, so no conversion is needed. Another example is the 70-200 she has now: On her crop camera, that is more like a 112-320mm lens.

Also, Nikon's form of Image Stabilisation (IS on Canon) is VR, short for Vibration Reduction.

As for ED-IF, I grabbed this from Nikon's website:

"Nikon's Extra-low Dispersion (ED) and Super ED glass help correct chromatic abberations, or optical color defects, caused when different light wavelengths do not converge at the same point after passing through optical glass. Calcium fluorite crystals were once used to correct this problem in telephoto lenses, but the substance cracked easily and was sensitive to temperature changes. So Nikon created ED glass, which offers all the benefits-yet noe of the drawbacks-of calcium fluorite-based glass. ED glass is now an essential element in NIKKOR's telephoto lenses, helping deliver stunning sharpness and contrast, even at maximum aperture."

I couldn't find literature on the IF part, but I'm sure someone else here can fill you in on that part of the letter jumble!

My recommendation would be the 17-55 f/2.8. It gives the immensely flexible zoom range of the kit lens, with the f/2.8 aperture for great indoor shots without pushing ISO or slow shutter speeds. I believe the 24-70 is a better option for full frame camera users (I only briefly looked at the lens, I'm remembering things I've read elsewhere in this forum.)

Good luck, hope I didn't overwhelm with the explanation here. It was interesting to do some of the research for myself as well; I had honestly forgotten what the ED meant.

~Nick

PS - She is really lucky to have you if you're buying her a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 - that lens is darn close to the cost of my meal plan here at school...for an entire semester! I'm infinitely jealous now

Candid Arts · February 6, 2009

bandgeekndb wrote:

PS - She is really lucky to have you if you're buying her a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 - that lens is darn close to the cost of my meal plan here at school...for an entire semester! I'm infinitely jealous now

Thanks for all the info.

and PS, I didn't buy her the 70-200 2.8, she did. I tried to get her to do Canon, that way when she bought lenses, I could use them. But for some reason we ended on the D40. I'm regretting letting it settle for this body now. As I REALLY want Canon's 70-200 2.8 IS, but can't afford it. She's lucky to have me to explain what all the lenses mean, how to use them, and why one is better than the other.

I know what you mean for the cost, I'm going to school too...same boat with my 70-200 that I want and can't have...

Pindy · February 6, 2009

IF is Internal Focusing, meaning the outer element doesn't rotate or move in and out—it's stationary.

cpallen · February 14, 2009

A note about the DX part....
The 1.5x focal length multiplier applies to all the 'cropped sensor' cameras regardles of whether the lens is a DX or not. The DX Lenses are made especially for the smaller sensors and won't work correctly (fill the entire sensor) on an FX or film camera. You can use a non-DX lens on a DX camera just fine though, although they tend to be a larger lens.

So a 50mm lens has the field of view of a 75 mm lens - it's still a 50mm lens though.

So hey, let me suggest the new, 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX lens that was just announced. It will be equivalent to a 50mm prime lens.

Courtney in Seattle

LifeandLens · February 14, 2009

my thoughts on Nikon Lenses
Hey Candid... I shoot Nikon and would love to share a few of my thoughts. I agree with the posts thus far, but there is no need to buy DX. You might consider standard glass that produces a "full size" image. That way if Grandma upgrades in the future to a camera with a FX (35mm equiv) sensor her lens will work. So, if you want to buy the best mid range buy the 24-70mm f/2.8.

But there is another consideration, size and weight. I shoot the Nikon D700 most of the time. It has Nikon's FX sensor. But I have a couple of really light DX lenses that I like to carry around with it to keep the size and weight under control. Obviously, when I shoot something that "really counts" I use my best glass. But when heading out and, while not planning to shoot, knowing I might find an interesting subject, I sometimes carry the Nikon 18-105mm DX lens. Now, those reading this might be laughing at this point. Why would a guy with a D700 shoot with "kit lens" DX glass? Well, my D700 automagically uses only a DX sized portion of the sensor and I get a 5.1 megapixel image that I might really like! And 5.1MP makes a very nice 11x14... or a little software magic and I can go 20x30 if I like.

So don't hesitate to buy the 24-70mm, it is a great piece of glass. But if grandma wants something light and small, I really like that 18-105mm. Let me knwo if you want more thoughts.

- Tom

Candid Arts · February 14, 2009

LifeandLens wrote:

Hey Candid... I shoot Nikon and would love to share a few of my thoughts. I agree with the posts thus far, but there is no need to buy DX. You might consider standard glass that produces a "full size" image. That way if Grandma upgrades in the future to a camera with a FX (35mm equiv) sensor her lens will work. So, if you want to buy the best mid range buy the 24-70mm f/2.8.

But there is another consideration, size and weight. I shoot the Nikon D700 most of the time. It has Nikon's FX sensor. But I have a couple of really light DX lenses that I like to carry around with it to keep the size and weight under control. Obviously, when I shoot something that "really counts" I use my best glass. But when heading out and, while not planning to shoot, knowing I might find an interesting subject, I sometimes carry the Nikon 18-105mm DX lens. Now, those reading this might be laughing at this point. Why would a guy with a D700 shoot with "kit lens" DX glass? Well, my D700 automagically uses only a DX sized portion of the sensor and I get a 5.1 megapixel image that I might really like! And 5.1MP makes a very nice 11x14... or a little software magic and I can go 20x30 if I like.

So don't hesitate to buy the 24-70mm, it is a great piece of glass. But if grandma wants something light and small, I really like that 18-105mm. Let me knwo if you want more thoughts.

- Tom

The 24-70 I think would be great, because of the f/2.8. Grandma's gettin up there in age, and might shake a little, so the faster shutter speeds would be nice. On the other hand, like you say, that extra reach and light-weight-ness of the 18-105 would be beneficial as well. However I'd like to get her going on some nice glass to compliment her already owned 70-200 f/2.8 (which I am entirely jealous of).

I'll be talking with her, lay everything out and see what she decides.

Is it possible to get some sample images from the 18-105? wide open...stopped down, 18mm, 105mm, etc...? I'd really appreciate that.

Thanks everyone!

two slow · February 14, 2009

This might be something way off from what you are looking at but, You might want to check out the 16-85mm. It isn't 2.8 but it is much lighter than both the 17-55 and 24-70 has a better zoom range and has VR, Nikon's version of IS. It isn't a pro lens but produces excellent images.
It is slower but even 2.8 needs help indoors. A SB-400 is a nice little flash that would help with indoor shots.

Candid Arts wrote:

The 24-70 I think would be great, because of the f/2.8. Grandma's gettin up there in age, and might shake a little, so the faster shutter speeds would be nice. On the other hand, like you say, that extra reach and light-weight-ness of the 18-105 would be beneficial as well. However I'd like to get her going on some nice glass to compliment her already owned 70-200 f/2.8 (which I am entirely jealous of).

I'll be talking with her, lay everything out and see what she decides.

Is it possible to get some sample images from the 18-105? wide open...stopped down, 18mm, 105mm, etc...? I'd really appreciate that.

Thanks everyone!

LifeandLens · February 15, 2009

16-85 and 18-105... both the same concept
Candid - the writer of the 16-85 post is thinking the same way I am, lighter, more compact, less shake... plus the 18-105 has VR which is Nikon's monikor for anti-shake (image stabilization for you Canon folks).

About some samples, i could post/send a couple. I am fairly "new" to dgrin. Would it be preferred to post the images or email them? Would they be smaller jpegs (75dpi) or full raw files?

- Tom

Candid Arts · February 15, 2009

smaller jpegs, roughly 1000 pixels on it's longest side is acceptable. And post them on the thread too please, as the images might help someone else later on down the road decide on a lens.

Thank you so much.

LifeandLens · February 16, 2009

Okay Candid... I thought I'd have time this morning to shoot some sample images for you... i did not. But I am posting this image as a sample of a image taken with a FX sensor camera (D700) using a DX lens (Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR G ED). As i said in my previous post, the camera detects the DX lens and adjusts the portion of the sensor to match the DX format and thus renders a 5.1MP image.

Why? I do this when heading out for "fun snapshot shooting" or when I really want to go light and compact. This lens is half the size of a 24-70, a fraction of the weight, and has VR.

This image was shot in NEF, then exported using lightroom to be 800px wode, quality 65, and 75dpi.

- Tom

Candid Arts wrote:

smaller jpegs, roughly 1000 pixels on it's longest side is acceptable. And post them on the thread too please, as the images might help someone else later on down the road decide on a lens.

Thank you so much.

Candid Arts · February 16, 2009

LifeandLens wrote:

Okay Candid... I thought I'd have time this morning to shoot some sample images for you... i did not. But I am posting this image as a sample of a image taken with a FX sensor camera (D700) using a DX lens (Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR G ED). As i said in my previous post, the camera detects the DX lens and adjusts the portion of the sensor to match the DX format and thus renders a 5.1MP image.

Why? I do this when heading out for "fun snapshot shooting" or when I really want to go light and compact. This lens is half the size of a 24-70, a fraction of the weight, and has VR.

This image was shot in NEF, then exported using lightroom to be 800px wode, quality 65, and 75dpi.

- Tom

That is a pretty good image. Great color, contrast, sharpness, etc... What are the specs of this image? I.e. shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focal length, distance from subject. Anything you can provide would lend a great tool in getting the perspective of this shot. ( I think that was entirely the wrong word useage there, but oh well, I hope you got my point...)

LifeandLens · February 16, 2009

image specs
1/640 second, f/10, iso 400, 18mm, matrix metering... shot with Nikon "standard" picture controls.

Candid Arts wrote:

That is a pretty good image. Great color, contrast, sharpness, etc... What are the specs of this image? I.e. shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focal length, distance from subject. Anything you can provide would lend a great tool in getting the perspective of this shot. ( I think that was entirely the wrong word useage there, but oh well, I hope you got my point...)

two slow · February 17, 2009

Heres a couple reviews to look at.
http://bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm
http://bythom.com/Nikkor18-105lensreview.htm

Fingertip · February 18, 2009

You sure to recommend DX on FX sensor?
I understand that DX glass on FX sensor is not as sharp as using glass built for the FX. I also tried FX glass on my DX and it was not as sharp either. Your thoughts?

LifeandLens wrote:

Hey Candid... I shoot Nikon and would love to share a few of my thoughts. I agree with the posts thus far, but there is no need to buy DX. You might consider standard glass that produces a "full size" image. That way if Grandma upgrades in the future to a camera with a FX (35mm equiv) sensor her lens will work. So, if you want to buy the best mid range buy the 24-70mm f/2.8.

But there is another consideration, size and weight. I shoot the Nikon D700 most of the time. It has Nikon's FX sensor. But I have a couple of really light DX lenses that I like to carry around with it to keep the size and weight under control. Obviously, when I shoot something that "really counts" I use my best glass. But when heading out and, while not planning to shoot, knowing I might find an interesting subject, I sometimes carry the Nikon 18-105mm DX lens. Now, those reading this might be laughing at this point. Why would a guy with a D700 shoot with "kit lens" DX glass? Well, my D700 automagically uses only a DX sized portion of the sensor and I get a 5.1 megapixel image that I might really like! And 5.1MP makes a very nice 11x14... or a little software magic and I can go 20x30 if I like.

So don't hesitate to buy the 24-70mm, it is a great piece of glass. But if grandma wants something light and small, I really like that 18-105mm. Let me knwo if you want more thoughts.

- Tom

catspaw · February 19, 2009

Fingertip wrote:

I understand that DX glass on FX sensor is not as sharp as using glass built for the FX. I also tried FX glass on my DX and it was not as sharp either. Your thoughts?

Can you reference where you've read that they are 'not as sharp' ? Or at least when using two comparable lenses. A $100 DX vs. a $1500 FX will obviously have a sharpeness issue....

LifeandLens · February 28, 2009

hhmmm puzzling
The FX glass on a DX camera should be FABULOUS as the DX camera is only using the center of the glass which should be the sharpest. I don't have an answer for this one.

Re DX glass on FX camera... yes the camera crops, but pixels and big and highest quality. Is it possible that your are trying to blow up the photos too big and are confusing pixelization with sharpeness issues.

I wish I had answers. There are some really smart posts at both BYTHOM and Bjorn's site that you may find helpful.

Let me know if you find something.

Fingertip wrote:

I understand that DX glass on FX sensor is not as sharp as using glass built for the FX. I also tried FX glass on my DX and it was not as sharp either. Your thoughts?

Art Scott · February 28, 2009

Fingertip wrote:

I understand that DX glass on FX sensor is not as sharp as using glass built for the FX. I also tried FX glass on my DX and it was not as sharp either. Your thoughts?

There should be NO difference in sharpness.....as long as the lens is focusing properly and is clean....as dirty lens can kill sharpness.......

Theonly thing that should be happening when putting a DX lens on a FX body is the FX body changing to DX mode and loseing MP's.......but you should still be able to get stellar enlargement is the photos are properly exposed and then properly processed and if uprezing is needed to get to the size you want run thru Genuine Fractals.......this all mentioned by LifeandLens in another thread also.............I have gotten fantastic 30x40" enlargments from a cropped 6mp file.................

Good Nikon Lens?

Comments