Lenses

I have tested a number of lenses for Nikon bodies.
The choices I made for my uses are as follows:
(click a link for a short description)

(I will be updating this page as I have time)

Prime lenses
Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D
Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P
Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D
Nikkor 135mm f/2DC

Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 AFS/VR
Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 AFS/VR
Nikkor 500mm f/4 AFS-II
TC-14e & TC-17e teleconverters

Zoom lenses
Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS
Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D

Macro/Field lenses
Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro
Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D AFS/VR Micro
Nikkor 200mm f/4D AF Micro
 

Click here for a full review of the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS/VR lens.

Lens Kit Descriptions

As you become more experienced in the visual arts, you become more capable of seeing the various aspects of an image. You become more discerning when it comes to the elements of composition, the character of the color, the placement of the focused plane and depth of field, the level of detail, sharpness, and other characteristics of the image. Your standards become higher. Things that you used to be willing to accept are less acceptable as you become more sophisticated in your ability to 'see'. You notice things that you used to overlook. I'm sure you know what I mean, if not in this field, in another field in which you have a lot of experience. Lenses are designed to a standard, with a set of design parameters that include several capabilities that the lens designer has decided are important to the design and a level of performance in these areas that is capable of being achieved at the price point. To achieve some sorts of characteristics, compromises have been made in other areas. Generally, the high-end lenses have a more linear performance across a wider range of apertures than the lower-end lenses, which achieve their highest level of performance in a narrow aperture region and rapidly fall off in performance as you move away from that aperture region. Many lenses also have an optimum distance range where they tend to achieve their highest performance. To achieve high contrast, critical sharpness of small details, smooth focused-to-defocused transitions, optimal color fidelity, wide tonal range, a beautiful defocused region, etc., requires a high level of optical quality. To do all of this at a wide range of apertures, while offering a wide range of focal lengths at the same time, is extremely difficult. Usually, a series of performance compromises are made when offering focal length flexibility. The zoom lenses that exhibit the most linear performance to the highest standards are typically the narrow-range zooms, and the really high-performing ones cost quite a bit. Prime lenses are also designed to a standard... to achieve extremely high performance in all areas at a wide range of apertures requires very high optical quality which does not come cheaply. For instance, in some cases, the user's needs may not require extreme performance at the very widest apertures and closer distances, thus certain compromises can be made that allow the lens to achieve excellence at medium-to-small apertures and medium-to-long distance, with progressively lower performance in certain areas at closer distances and wider apertures, and this lens can be sold for a lower price than a lens that was designed with more linear performance to a higher standard of quality across a wider range of apertures, including the large apertures, and also including closer distances. So. What you must do is decide what level of performance you want to achieve, at what general distance range, and how much compromise you are willing to make in performance at various apertures (as well as the aperture capabilities which are important to you). For instance, what compromises are you willing to make to achieve focal length flexibility? My lens kit selections: Aperture Flexibility Short Focal-length Kit (Lenses that achieve high performance across a wide aperture range) 28mm f/1.4D, 45mm f/2.8P or 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro, 85mm f/1.4D, (with or without 135mm f/2DC) Focal-length Flexibility Short Kit (Zoom lenses) 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS, 35-70mm f/2.8D Depending on the situation, I select a mix of lenses, e.g.: 17-35, 28/1.4, 85/1.4; 28/1.4, 35-70, 85/1.4; 17-35, 45P or 55 Micro, 85; 45P, 85/1.4, 135/2DC; 17-35, 28/1.4, 35-70, 85/1.4; The 135/2DC is added to the mix as necessary (season to taste) You’ll notice that I have four lenses to choose from in the Normal range. This is a complex area (discussed in more detail below). The 35-70 zoom is a minimal compromise focal-length flexibility lens that is optimized for performance in the f/5 to f/11 range. While it has a closeup feature at 35mm that offers interesting possibilities, it’s not a great closeup lens. It is, however, a superb complement to the 17-35. The 45P is an unobtrusive little lens that yields excellent results between f/2.8 and f/11 at medium to long distances (it also does a very good job of closer work if you stop it down a little) The 45P has a similar character to that of the 85/1.4D. The 55 AIS Micro is a fully manual general-purpose lens from 1:2 macro distances out to infinity. It exhibits excellent performance at all apertures from f/2.8 to f/16. The 60 Micro is an AF lens that is optimized for medium aperture work at close distances (1:1 macro to 7 feet), and is often used along with the 135/2DC. I select the lenses that will offer me the most options for the shoot and flank the primary lens with complementary lenses that extend the options based on likely needs. Closeup lens kit 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro 200mm f/4D AF Micro The 55mm is selected when the Normal lens must be used for distant work as well as extreme closeup (1:2 macro), and aperture flexibility is required; The 60mm is used at close range (1:1 macro (4” in front of the lens) out to 6-7 feet), I often mix the 60 Micro with the 135/2DC to gain wide aperture isolation capabilities; The 200mm Micro is used as a single field telephoto/macro lens. It provides both aperture flexibility and flexibility of subject distance. Telephoto lens kits 85mm f/1.4D 135mm f/2DC   200mm f/2 AFS/VR 300mm f/2.8 AFS/VR 500mm f/4 AFS-II TC-14e and TC17e teleconverters These lenses all work very well at the wider apertures. The 85 and 135 are added to the longer lenses in situations where handheld short range wide aperture work is required in shadows or forests, etc. The 200mm f/2 AFS/VR is generally used as a shorter complement to either the 300mm or 500mm. It offers extreme subject isolation, fast focusing, teleconverter compatibility, and the ability to maintain higher shutter speeds when the light becomes difficult, at the expense of focal length “reach”. The 300mm f/2.8 AFS/VR is the most flexible single telephoto, offering high performance from f/2.8 along with high-speed focusing, vibration reduction, and teleconverter compatibility in a compact size. It gives the best compromise between reach and size, while allowing reasonable shutter speeds when the light drops. The 500mm f/4 AFS-II extends the reach while maintaining reasonable size and weight. This lens, along with the TC14e and TC17e teleconverters, can be carried into the field easily and can fill the frame with large subjects at great distance, or can be used on smaller subjects at distances that stay outside the fear radius of the subject. Used in conjunction with the 300/2.8 VR or 200/2 VR, you can shoot moving subjects at any distance and in any reasonable light. Thoughts regarding the 200-400mm f/4 AFS zoom vs. prime telephoto lenses There are some situations where having a zoom is infinitely preferable. When shooting sports in good light, or in certain wildlife situations where the subjects are rapidly changing distances, if your desire is to be able to consistently change your composition at medium apertures the zoom is unbelievably handy. When you shoot with a prime in situations like that what you need to do is mount a TC or remove it, or work with the focal length you have and alter your composition based on your focal length. Another situation where the zoom is a very good choice: let's say you want only one lens in this focal range, and you don't often need to shoot in lower light (or if you do, the subjects will be mostly static). Having the flexibility of the zoom may be better than having the prime-lens and TCs for you. Now, let's look at the overall situation and why I prefer the prime lens options. The 200-400 is a large lens (physically, it's the size of the 500mm), and while it does a pretty nice job at f/4 (esp. at 200mm), it requires stopping down to f/5-f/5.6 depending on focal length to reach what I consider the 'sweet spot'. To maintain ultimate quality at dawn or dusk (or into shadow), you will likely want to stop down a little, and if the subject is moving that means the shutter speed will be lower so you need to raise the ISO. Also, the lens is pretty large and heavy, and unless you're pretty strong you won't be able to handhold long, and the results will be marginal unless the shutter speed is pretty high. It's also a lot of lens to carry into the field -- the size is more of a problem than the weight is. It's tough to hike with it (the same problem as hiking with the 500mm), which means that you'll want to work from a pack, slowing down access to the lens. The 300mm, on the other hand, while not all that much lighter (about a pound), is a heck of a lot smaller. Based on my evaluations of the results of the 300VR with TC14e, it is about equal to the performance of the 400mm end of the zoom at various apertures, so there is no loss there other than the convenience of rapid focal length changes. It is one heck of a lot easier to pack into the field, much faster to access from a lens case, and it can be hiked with exposed (slung on a strap), allowing faster and easier access. You can get top -grade results at f/2.8, thus at 300mm you can gain 1.7 to 2 stops depending on your standards, with more isolation of the subject (if that is what you want to do). You'll have a higher shutter speed, and can stop action better... plus, you can handhold the lens much more easily with a higher-grade result. The contrast is higher, and detail resolution is as well. I consider the 300mm f/2.8 to be the most flexible telephoto, but of course you can't shoot the field of view at 200mm as you can with the 200-400, and you can't switch focal lengths as fast. You're trading ease of carry/use in the field, an extra stop+ to 2 stops, handholdability and additional isolation and contrast for convenience, speed of focal length changes, and the 200mm field of view when comparing these two lenses. The 500mm is the same size and weight as the 200-400 (bigger hood though), but doesn't have VR and really isn't a hand-holding lens at all. I've shot handheld with it a few times, but that really isn't a good way to use this lens. You need a LOT of light to do it successfully. What you're getting there is the ability to shoot at 500mm at f/4 cleanly, with high contrast, keeping your shutter speed and level of isolation high. The 200-400 can shoot at 560mm with the TC14e, but you really need to be at f/8 to get high grade results to my standards. That's two stops. Lots of shutter speed difference there. I can shoot at 700mm wide open at f/5.6 with a small reduction in sharpness and contrast, or stop down to f/8 and achieve excellence. I can shoot the 500mm at 850mm at f/8 and get high-grade results. That's one heck of a lot of reach, and AF speed and accuracy is still high with either TC. I don't mind working with two lenses. It's more expensive that way, but I can achieve excellence and good focal length flexibility with the use of TCs, while still keeping the isolation high due to the wider apertures I can use at various focal lengths. I do have to mount/dismount TCs. I can either work with the 300mm on one body handheld along with the 500mm, or the 300mm plus TC on the tripod and the 200mm handheld with or without TC on the other body, or the 200 along with the 500mm (this is why I got the 200mm, really... to use with the 500mm -- I can gain a lot of low light capability and can still shoot at ~300mm while carrying a short but stubby and heavy lens). I have a 135/2DC, which is a magnificent lightweight medium telephoto for use in a forest or other situations and is a perfect complement to the 300mm, but it can't be used with TCs and does not have AFS focusing. I like that lens a lot, but got the 200mm recently to see how it would be on a wildlife shoot (Alaska), and find that it is an excellent complementary lens for the 300mm (I already knew it would be perfect for use with the 500mm), allowing me to handhold with AFS and VR and use TCs for extended reach. Information to help you select your own kit   Lens Selection Analyze your Shooting Style Short Version   Long Version     Normal Lenses Zen and Telephotos     Closeup Lenses Lens Evaluations

My kits are selected for maximum flexibility in low-light, portrait, scenic, macro, tele-closeup and telephoto work. My field lenses were chosen for the ability to shoot at distance as well as extreme closeups -- flexibility is of utmost importance to me. I have decided after testing a large number of lenses that for the most part, primes are far more attractive to me than zooms even though zooms are more convenient. I have set up my kits so that I can cover the range with lightweight sets and the capabilities I need for a specific shoot, although that meant that the number of lenses is higher and there is less convenience. The performance achieved is far greater though.

I am pretty critical when it comes to detail retrieval and fine-detail rendition. When you are first moving to the SLR and assuming that you are using decent-quality lenses, until you start examining things carefully it is likely that you will be very pleased. When you look at the edges of the frame, or open the lens aperture up, or go beyond the 'sweet-spot' distance for the lens in question given a certain aperture, if you can start to see loss of fine detail or reductions in sharpness you might not be happy with that lens's performance at some point in the future. Some lenses have a high degree of flare in certain conditions. All have a 'sweet-spot' range of apertures and distance -- often the range changes depending on the aperture. Essentially, what I look for is contrast, sharpness, and most especially fine detail retrieval. While you can process for more contrast, and to a certain extent you can sharpen detail that is rendered, if the detail is not there you cannot pull it out of thin air.

Basically, I want a lens to perform it's function properly, to a high quality standard, within a range of apertures and distances that allow me to make proper use of the lens in the situation for which it was designed, and I'm willing to accept some reduction in performance when using the lens outside of that range. If a lens forces me into unacceptable compromises when I attempt to put it to it's intended usage, that annoys me. If I try to use it within an aperture/distance range that makes sense for the purpose I acquired the lens for, and the results are not satisfactory to my admittedly ridiculous standards, that annoys me too. I do of course expect lesser results if I'm trying to make a lens go outside its sweet spot, but I don't allow a lens that annoys me to live here :^)

What I've tried to do is give my evaluations of various lenses and some suggestions as to what to look for and how to make decisions on glass. You have to decide what sort of compromises you are willing to make. Everything is a compromise of one sort or another, and as long as those compromises fit within your needs, a lens will be a good tool for you.

Lens Selection

The Short Version

A few important thoughts come to mind when I consider the course I took through the sea of lenses... or at least I think they are the important issues that I would wish I had felt in my gut when building a kit from scratch.

1. don't consider extremely wide-range zooms, as few are even as good as the decent consumer-grade lenses, and a very few are quite expensive and as good as the better-grade lenses but with some compromise. Results from one of the mid-grade, medium-range zooms is generally far better, the better -grade medium-range zooms produce consistently superior saturation and detail.
2. consider starting with a 50mm prime and either a very good wide zoom (expensive) or a 24mm prime (inexpensive and generally the best WA focal length). Learning to use the perspective of a 50mm lens teaches composition very fast, plus it is useful in low available light and focuses quite close. The perspective is natural and the 50mm lenses are extremely sharp. Much the same could be said for a 24mm prime lens, but it is quite convenient to be able to compose with a wide angle zoom. All but the very best of the wide angle zooms are lower-performing lenses than the 24mm prime in almost all respects, and those expensive top-grade lenses only equal that performance (or are close).
3. don't skimp on a long lens. Instead, carefully consider how you are likely to use a long lens, and remember that heavy lenses are not easy to hold for long periods of time, requiring regular workouts or support devices. Average grade lenses will rapidly disappoint as you find their limits, and tend to not hold their value, so you'll want the best glass you can afford. If you carefully consider your needs, you can choose between a lightweight, fast prime set and a convenient, heavy zoom (and other relevant decisions, like price) with the long view in mind.

Zooms are convenient to be sure, but personally I don't think the best way to work is to cover the focal range with zooms. If zooms are your chosen tools, the way I'd work is with a wide zoom and a long zoom, but use a normal-range prime. The two that I would consider would be either the above-mentioned 50mm f/1.4 or a normal-range macro lens, depending on your needs (low-light or macro).

If you are a macro nut, and want to get the bee's-eye view, remember that the working distance at maximum magnification on a 60mm macro lens puts the element very close to the subject. Working with a ~100mm lens gives more working distance needed for insects, lizards and other small creatures that spook easily, and it is possible to hand-hold... unlike a 200mm macro telephoto that is difficult to control at anything under 1:3 hand -held in marginal light (although it really isn’t much problem in good light at somewhat lesser magnifications). Macro zooms rarely go beyond 1:4 or 1:3 due to limits in close-focusing ability and the performance near maximum magnification is generally poor on those zooms near the edges of the frame. One notable exception is the Nikkor 70-180mm Micro zoom lens, which is an incredibly nice tool but rather expensive.

Knowing the limitations of various types of lenses will allow you to select more wisely. Nothing works well in every situation, and trying to make one lens a do-it-all solution generally results in mediocrity. There are, however, some good general-purpose solutions.

Return to Top of Page The Long Version During the course of deciding on a lens set that would fulfill my needs, I owned and/or tested a fair number of lenses, including third-party lenses, both prime and zoom. Impressions of some of these other lenses might be of use to the person looking for a lens or lenses for use with a similar set of needs. I shoot scenic, animals, flowers, macro, and art primarily when shooting for my own uses, and anything from people to product when commissioned to do so. My choices have been made with these needs and ultimate quality vs. price in mind. General-purpose lenses Many people want a lens that can be used as a do-it-all travel or general-use lens. When I started with the D1, the first lens I chose was the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikkor, based on a recommendation from two people I respected. This lens has a fairly wide range, from medium-wide to short telephoto, and has a reasonably wide maximum aperture for a fairly bright viewfinder, however, images from this lens are soft unless the lens is stopped down to at least f/8. At f/11, the results are quite good, but of course the depth of field at that aperture does not offer much subject isolation. In addition, at the 24mm end there is significant barrel distortion, and I was never satisfied with the images taken at the 120mm end for a number of reasons. Another major detraction of this lens is the poor defocused character (the out-of-focus, blurred region highlights show dark centers and very bright edges, and these highlights are extremely distracting). From around 28mm to about 105mm, the lens does a fairly good job when stopped down to f/8-f/11 however. Nikkor makes a lens that is in that very range, the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5. This lens offers significantly better performance at all focal lengths and apertures, is a faster lens at the long end, offers a decent macro mode for those times when you want to focus closer, and overall is the general-purpose zoom that I recommend using to anyone who asks. While it is not up to the performance of the expensive AFS zooms, it has a wider focal-length range, is very light, and costs in the neighborhood of $325 making it in my opinion the ultimate choice for a general-purpose lens.   ‘Normal’ lenses The ‘Normal’ range is very difficult, as there are so many uses for lenses in this range and nothing does it all. I have rethought this range far more often than any other, and have tested lenses extensively. I hope the summary below helps you in your decision-making process... There are a number of options when it comes to ‘normal’ lenses (those that approximate the field of view of the human eye). Deciding on a prime or a zoom in this range is difficult -- the prime lenses offer exceptional performance and faster apertures at a lower price, but have distance or other limitations and of course are limited to a single focal-length. The better-grade zooms are much larger and heavier, slower-aperture, more costly, and for the most part have a different set of limitations. When I decided that the general-purpose lenses did not satisfy my needs for ultimate quality, I started looking at the Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8. I compared it to the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 and the Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D. The Tokina meters a bit underexposed in all but bright daylight, has a slight lack of contrast in comparison to the Nikkor lenses, and is a little undersaturated in color, plus the color balance is slightly off requiring that all images be color-adjusted in post-processing. It is quite soft at f/2.8 (more so than the 35-70/2.8D Nikkor), and the flare and ghosting when a bright light source is in-frame or just outside of the frame is heavy (this is improved by stopping down the lens). Both samples of the lens illustrated the same characteristics, and were ultimately sent back to the dealer. The Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D on the other hand, while not quite as detailed or contrasty as the 50mm prime, was very good in all respects. It is still soft at f/2.8, but not as soft as the Tokina. Contrast is excellent, and as long as the hood is used it is fairly resistant to flare and ghosting. The hood is less useful at the long end than it is at the wide end (a very good option for a hood other than the bayonet model offered for the 35-70 is the HN-24 metal screw-in hood, which does a better job without vignetting -- at least on the D1-series bodies). The 35-70/2.8D is well-built, with a metal barrel, a useful ‘macro’ mode that allows the lens to manually close-focus to under a foot at the 35mm end, and is fairly sharp and detailed when compared to most other zooms and many primes. The major detractions are the relatively narrow range and the push-pull zoom design (which you do rapidly get used to). It should be basically looked at as a very good 35mm f/2.8, a slower 50mm, and a 70mm in a pinch. I tested a new 35-70 during my recent excursion through the Normal-range, and after processing the images remembered why I sold this lens -- in comparison to top-quality primes and the very best zooms the lens is soft on finer details, it doesn’t resolve well at the 70mm end, and based on my standards it’s just-adequate at distance and less than that for closeups except at the 35mm end. Don’t get me wrong... this is a very good zoom (better than just about anything else out there in its range) but I’m getting really picky these days. The 45mm f/2.8P manual lens is very intriguing... it offers excellent detail and sharpness as well as extremely smooth defocused areas and good shadow detail-retrieval at f/2.8-f/5.6 at close-to-medium distance, and becomes increasingly mundane as you stop it down more or move beyond about 10-12 feet (best performance at distance is achieved at f/8-f/11). My brother-in-law bought me one in Japan (thanks Wabo!), and after shooting with the lens I have to say that for a subject that is inside 10 feet, which you want to shoot between f/2.8 and f/5.6, it offers similar character to that you get from the 85mm f/1.4D. The best performance is achieved with a subject between 3 and 7 feet at f/4 to f/5.6 if you are picky, but overall performance from f/2.8 to f/8 is really very good. It’s a bit soft at infinity as compared to the very best lenses, but considering the performance for a close subject this is acceptable (it reminds me in this respect of the character of the 28mm f/2.8 AIS, which is tremendously good for close subjects but a little soft at infinity). It is sharper at f/2.8 for close work than either of the 50mm lenses and way sharper than a zoom at distance. At f/4 to f/5.6 it is pretty darned near perfect. The 45mm f/2.8P makes a fabulous travel, indoor or street-shooting lens, and it weighs nearly nothing. The construction quality is exceptionally nice, and it comes with an NC filter and a neat inverted-bowl hood as well as a special lens cap that fits with the hood in place. The filter and hood nearly double the depth of the lens... this thing is teeny. A very unobtrusive and flexible normal lens. The smooth character and ease of use is attractive, and the ‘coolness factor’ is quite high. The 50mm primes (f/1.8 and f/1.4D) are exceptional performers -- the f/1.8 lens does a fabulous job from f/4 to f/11 and from 5 feet to infinity, and is quite good at f/2.8 and f/16. It is one of the best lenses available in the ‘normal’ range for medium-to-good light work, especially for infinity work. The f/1.4D is noticeably better at f/2 .8 to f/4, about equal at f/5.6-f/8, and a lesser performer at f/11. It can be shot at f/2 in a pinch as long as you don’t mind the edges and corners being a little soft. The 50/1.8 has a little less distortion, but the construction quality is annoying in my opinion (considering the quality of the optics, I guess they had to cut corners on the construction quality to sell it for under $90). The only real issue with the 50mm lenses, besides the fact that they don’t do as good a job close-up as they do at medium-to-long distance (and it’s a small problem given the cost), is that they offer a rather mundane field of view and perspective for most people (most folks (including me) would rather shoot either a wider or longer lens most of the time) but for the utmost performance at the least cost (and definitely for a single-lens outing) the 50mm lenses are among the best lenses you can put on the camera (I owned the 50mm f/1.4D for 2 years, finally selling it to gain flexibility). The 60mm f/2.8D Micro is without a doubt the sharpest and highest contrast AF ‘normal’ lens for close work, and under 7 feet I doubt whether there is a better lens made, but as you go beyond about 10 feet it gets progressively softer... although the results are quite good when shooting small apertures. It’s still better than many lenses at distance, but compared to what it will do for close-work (especially very close work) it’s character at distance is not in the same league. The 60mm Micro lens is sharper and offers higher-contrast at macro distances than the 105mm Micro, and compares in character with the 200mm f/4 AF Micro, but the working distance is extremely short. It’s best suited for static subjects when really close as the working distance is too short for insects and shy animals -- it’s a fabulous flower, plant and large subject field lens though, and it’s often used as a normal lens. If a single lens is desired for wide aperture work, extreme closeups and infinity as well, you may want to consider the 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro. You lose Matrix metering, aperture reporting, and AF, of course, but the focusing precision is tremendous, construction quality is superb, distance focus is every bit as sharp and detailed as close-focus is, quality at f/2.8 is exceptional, and the only reason why this wouldn’t be a perfect single-lens solution is that the focusing precision makes it slow to focus at any range under 2 feet (of course, that’s where you really need the precision), and there is too little focus-ring travel for adjustments between 7 feet and infinity, making medium-range focusing tricky -- plus of course it’s a fully manual lens. After going through the entire gamut of lenses that I considered as being up to my standards for quality, I finally ended up trying the 28-70 f/2.8 AFS zoom. This lens is very good when shooting between 1.5 feet and 10 feet, and is quite good at distance, although it is a little softer. Contrast is very high, although the lens tends to underexpose by 1/3-1/2 stop except in bright light so it is a good idea to compensate for that. The performance wide open, especially at 28-35mm, is softer than I like for anything detailed -- edge-performance and detail-retrieval doesn’t reach my standards until f/5. From f/5 to f/11 the lens really is the class act zoom lens though, and from 50mm to 70mm it does a fairly good job at f/4 as well. It is heavy (very), fat, intimidating, and very, very expensive, but the ability to compose from medium-wide to short-tele finally made me spring for the lens. The hood does a good job (it ought to -- it’s enormous), but the lens still has a tendency to flare in adverse conditions so you have to be careful shooting into the sun. I thought long and hard about this range, and tried everything else (testing each lens to death and owning both the 50mm f/1.4D and 35-70mm f/2.8D for quite some time before checking everything out again), but after considerable thought I finally decided that this lens had to be tried. It is a large, bulky, heavy, very expensive lens for its range (did I mention that this is like having a coffee can on the front of your camera?), and its AFS motor and the flexibility of focal-range allow you to get a high shot percentage, but the quality of those shots for the most part is well below the quality achieved with primes. It is without a doubt the fastest AF available in the normal range, and if what you need is rapid acquisition and the ability to frame in the Normal range with minimal movement, and you can shoot in middle apertures most of the time, it’s a good choice. Often, I’ll work with the 17-35 AFS and 85/1.4D for general use in this range, and when I need a single lens I’ll use either the 45mm f/2.8P for wide aperture work and as a general-purpose normal lens, or the 60mm f/2.8D Micro for field closeup work. More flexibility, less convenience, tremendously better results, except in those situations where the 28-70 really shines. As always, carefully consider your needs.   Return to Top of Page Closeup lenses You want: Control of depth of field at a wide range of focusing distances, yet within a very small area of focus (roughly between 1:1 and 1:3) you want extreme focusing precision, so you can place the depth of field zone where you want it (it is very shallow at these focusing distances);   High contrast, fine-detail resolution and edge definition at close focusing distances, with smooth subject/background transitions;   Flat field rendition (no or low distortions) across a majority of the frame within the target aperture ranges;   Flexibility of aperture with predictable quality of results;   Flexibility of distance of focus at a wide range of apertures for use as a standard lens. Remember that these lenses are primarily designed with optimizations for closeup work. The 200mm reaches 1:1 at 20" from the imaging plane. If you use the hood, that's about 10" in front of the hood. If not, add 2.75", making it about 12.5" from the front of the lens. The 105mm is about 7.5" from the end of the lens at 1:1 , and the 60mm is about 5.75". I use an HN-23 hood on the 60mm and that gives me about 4" at 1:1, but I don't use the 60mm in the field at 1:1 often -- usually between 1:2 and 1:4 when I'm shooting closeups with the 60. You can see the difference in working distance at maximum magnifications. The 60mm is a very high-contrast, flat-field lens for use at close distance to 3-5 feet. It excels at close work, and falls off in performance as you exceed 7-10 feet. As you go beyond the 7 foot range, focusing precision falls off because the lens has the gearing set so precision is highest at the closer end of the range. You also need to stop down the lens to the f/8 to f/16 region for best results at distance. It is without a doubt one of the sharpest lenses in the under 7ft. range, and the quality under 3 feet is exceptional. The lens does not have an exquisitely beautiful defocused region, so except when focusing really close with the background transition occurring significantly behind the subject it's a good idea to avoid highlighted backgrounds (they can get distracting). Defocused transitions are good. It works best between f/5.6 and f/16 at short-to-medium distances, f/8 to f/16 when really close or beyond 7 feet. As you open up the aperture you lose some sharpness at the edges and the quality of the near-subject defocused region becomes a noticeable part of the subject. It works quite well at wider apertures but not up to the standards of the lens's quality at middle apertures. The 105mm loses a little contrast and sharpness to the 60mm, gains a little more reach (~80mm at 1:1. The focal length reduces as you focus closer), and a little more working distance. The 105mm is a better lens if you are planning on shooting small creatures up-close hand-held. The reduction in contrast and sharpness is offset by the flexibility of working distance and a little extra reach in some shooting styles. Again, this lens is at it's best in the same general aperture ranges as the 60mm. The overall image quality is lesser than the 60mm , but flexibility is greater in the field. This may not be an issue in a controlled environment with fixed subjects, and in that case the better short closeup lens is the 60mm. The 200 Micro offers aperture and distance flexibility, exquisitely-smooth defocused transitions and backgrounds, a high contrast, extremely fine edge-definition and detail retrieval, and maximum working distance. You can shoot that lens from f/4 to f/11 with confidence, at any distance (stop down a little for edge -to-edge sharpness at distance). The detraction is weight, length, and cost. I chose to use the combination of the 200mm and 60mm Micros to give me maximum flexibility and quality at the widest range of apertures and shooting distances. The costs were high and I have to carry two lenses in some situations, although the 200 Micro makes an excellent single field-lens. Given a need for a closeup lens for product photography, you have a different pair of choices: if you need control over the plane of focus and perspective, using the tilt-and-shift capabilities of the 85mm PC Micro will give you this control. The lens requires stop-down setting and is complex to set up and meter with if you use the tilt/shift capabilities, so you have to be far more deliberate to work with the lens, but the results it yields are not achievable without the T/S capabilities. It's an expensive, specialized lens that happens to be designed with this particular usage in mind. In the studio, with inanimate objects that can benefit from perspective control and control of the focusing plane, it is invaluable. The other option for uses like this is the 60 Micro, which excels at close compositions of 3D subjects. You need to decide whether you require control over the focusing plane and perspective, then whether you are willing to give up some conveniences of use to gain that control. Hopefully you have enough information to decide what your best choice would be in a closeup lens. Return to Top of Page Analyze your shooting style, and select lenses that make sense for you. There are several situations in which I generally shoot. I walk a lot -- often 100-120 miles per month. There are times when I am certain as to which focal lengths I will need, and other times when I may run into anything. Carrying the whole kit with me is simply not an option due to weight alone, so I have set up my kits in a way that allows me to carry a variety of focal lengths in several different ways depending on the situations in which I might find myself. I attempt to draw on my experience shooting in different situations to allow me to choose the most efficient lens complement while carrying the least amount of weight. Over the course of a 10 mile hike at altitude, or even a 10 mile hike near sea level, keeping the weight down is a very good thing as I’m sure you know. Besides, you do sometimes have to carry food, water, and occasionally spare clothing so unless you enjoy feeling like a pack mule (been there...), planning for weight is a necessity. What I try to do is balance low weight (shooting and carrying weights) with quality in the ranges of aperture, distance, and focal length that I foresee needing for the shoot. What you should try to do is define your shooting needs in terms of absolute quality desired, flexibility (aperture, distance, focal range, size, focusing speed, etc.), budget, and other relevant areas. This will help you to define what sorts of lenses might be required. Then, if possible, try to specify a kit that will allow you to do as many things as possible with the least number of lenses. While zooms offer flexibility of focal length, they generally have limits re: focusing distance and aperture that may offset the advantages of focal length variability. Sometimes assembling a kit consisting of primes and zooms gives the most flexibility. For instance: while I tend towards primes for image quality and aperture flexibility, and will sometimes shoot a single focal length as an exercise, I generally try to select kits with three lenses or less to cover every possible shooting situation I might find myself in on a specific shoot. Occasionally, this requires four lenses, (e.g. the 17 -35, 85, 135 and 300 when I have to be ready for anything), but I try for three or less. I use a wide zoom in many situations and have just acquired the 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS/VR for a general-purpose long zoom -- this new zoom rivals the quality of primes. This gives me a two-lens travel kit at the expense of wide-aperture capabilities (by adding the 45/2.8P or 85/1.4D I could add the low-light capability). The AFS/VR will not replace the specialized primes in it’s range, but it will remove the need for carrying them in a travel/general -use situation where the typical shooting requirement is at medium-to-long distance (the primes I use in that range work best at close-to-medium distances and wider apertures). Carefully consider your needs... this will make lens selection easier. Return to Top of Page There are several ways to look at the telephoto situation in my opinion. you are shooting primarily at distance, yet require focal length flexibility and aperture flexibility, and are likely to be shooting at medium apertures primarily (f/5.6 to f/8, with occasional excursions to f/4 or f/11). you are shooting in lower light conditions fairly often, and will be primarily shooting wider apertures and medium distance, with occasional excursions to closer distances or medium apertures. you are shooting in the field, require extreme flexibility of focusing distance (you might shoot flowers or small animals one minute, and reach out for a bird, larger animal, or distant scenery the next), as well as flexibility of aperture — at very close or long distances you will likely be shooting f/8-f/11, but want the ability to shoot wider apertures over a fairly wide range of distances and still maintain quality. some combination of the above. The first situation above is perfect for the use of a telephoto zoom. These offer flexibility of focal length in a single lens, with top-quality results between f/5.6 and f/11 at medium-to-long distances, and progressively lesser performance as you open the aperture up. The 70-200 AFS/VR offers high-speed focusing and vibration reduction as well as very good performance with or without the TC-14e teleconverter (100-280mm f/4) -- in either case the best performance is achieved stopped down a bit. Defocused character at wider apertures is quite good in the AFS/VR. The earlier versions of the medium-telephoto zoom lens (AFS and AF -D, AF ED push-pull) as well as third-party options have one of more of the features missing, although the AFS version (with high-speed focusing motor) is quite good. The AF-D is without the focusing motor and vibration reduction, is a lesser performer at f/4 or at closer distances, but still focuses quite fast and works very well at medium-to-long distances between f/5.6 and f/11. The earlier 80-200 AF ED (push-pull version without tripod collar) that I tested tended to overexpose and had lower contrast. These zooms offer flexibility of focal length, at the expense of wide aperture and close-up work, a higher shooting weight, lower contrast in some cases and a tendency towards flare. This situation can also be covered with a short-telephoto and medium-telephoto prime lens set, which lowers shooting weight, improves performance in many situations and esp. at wider apertures, and generally improves shorter-range performance at the expense of single-lens flexibility. The second situation is perfect for a set of high-grade primes. The 85mm f/1.4D, 105mm f/2DC and 135mm f/2DC all work very well at wider apertures, allowing for shallower depth of field and higher shutter speeds. The 105mm is an excellent single-lens solution for this situation, and it really does do very well at f/2... better at f/2.8-f/8. The combination I use in this situation is the 85 and 135, as I need the ability to reach out to the subject in some low-light telephoto situations, as well as a short-tele for portrait and similar-range work, and sometimes a tool that can be shot in very low light at f/1.4 and provide top quality results in the center of the frame. There are a number of other choices in lenses in this range, including lenses that handle situation #1 above a little better than the very fast telephoto primes, at the expense of their quality at wider apertures (e.g. the 85mm f/1.8D). The third situation requires a specialized lens if you hope to do quality work in all situations. There are some zooms that offer closeup capabilities -- most are better at distance than up-close but are adequate for limited closeup work. Some primes that are designed for longer-range work also do a very good job for close -telephoto. You can also carry a closeup lens (diopter) to add onto your telephoto lens. Any of these options work (some better than others) for closeups, but there are a few specialized lenses that can do well in the field , in all situations. The Nikkor 70-180mm Micro zoom was designed specifically for this sort of work, and while it is excellent close-in, I found that it had some compromises when used as a standard telephoto at wider apertures, which made me decide to go a different way. The 200mm AF Micro allows me to have enough reach for many field situations that require a longer lens, yet still focus extremely close (1:1) while maintaining maximum working distance, and it is capable of yielding a clean image from f/4 to f/11 (and f/16 depending on focusing distance)... at the expense of focal length flexibility. When I am working with the 200 Micro I invariably carry the 60 Micro as well, which also focuses extremely close and allows me to have a shorter focal-length available at need (the 60 Micro is exceptional at close-to-medium range, but performance falls off at distance). Another option for a field telephoto that is capable of dramatic, lesser-magnification closeups is the 300mm f/4 AFS, which goes nearly 1:3 at it’s minimum focusing distance of 4.75 feet and does a very good job up-close. While the 200mm focal length is an excellent mid-telephoto range, the 200mm f/4 AF Micro is a specialized type of 200mm. It is a tool that is highly-corrected for close-work, and while it yields top-grade quality between f/4 and f/11 and at any distance between right-in-your-face (min. focusing distance = 20" from the film plane -- about a foot in front of the lens) and infinity -- the requirement for precision focusing at close range means that you have a slow adjustment of focus at closer distances due to the gearing, and a very short travel for adjustments at distance. This makes use at distance trickier, and also slows down overall focusing speed to the point where, even with the limiter, the 200mm Micro is no focusing speed-demon. It's a little slower than the 180mm f/2.8D prime, which is in itself no speed demon. What the 200 Micro will do is yield tremendous closeups out to about 10 feet with extreme focusing accuracy both manually (recommended) or via AF if you give it a little time to focus (and use the focus-range limiter appropriately). On the other hand, while the focusing is slower, it really does do a superb job that cannot be achieved with the zooms in it's range or the primes. It's the perfect field telephoto in that it can be used to reach out a bit for birds assuming you're not trying to track flight shots, then immediately do a telephoto landscape, then immediately do an extreme closeup of a praying mantis or something. It can be used for wildlife and water droplets, and nearly anything else that doesn't move too fast. For focusing speed, there are other tools. sometimes, I carry a mixed kit consisting of the 60mm Micro and the 135mm f/2DC to have the ability to shoot wide aperture close-range to medium-long telephoto, and extreme-closeup to medium-range at medium apertures with two lightweight tools. The thing is, with a telephoto you can get lenses that are designed for use at 10 ft. to infinity with extreme precision and quality, lenses that are designed for close-to-medium range work with extreme precision and quality, or compromise lenses in some respect. This goes for a lot of situations and telephoto focal lengths. Define your situation... you may find that a 70/80-200mm f/2.8 zoom is adequate for your needs assuming that you do a lot of your work at f/5.6 to f/11, and can accept some compromise in detail and sharpness as you open the lens up wider than about f/5 or focus near the minimum focusing distance (in the range of about 5-8 feet). Some lenses are capable of excellence beyond their primary range of design as long as you know how they work best. For high speed action and flexibility of focal length, a 70/80-200 is tough to beat. The new AFS/VR medium zoom is a truly spectacular lens -- assuming it is within your price range (see the review here). Personally, I am very spoiled by primes, and looked for a long time (several times) for a medium-telephoto zoom that I could accept. I am willing to carry specialized lenses that have a range of use outside their specialization. I learn the limitations and make decisions on what to carry based on my needs. There are certain situations where the primes are still necessary (see #2 & #3 above), but for situations described in #1 above as well as some field situations, travel, medium-range high-speed action, etc. the AFS/VR zoom is a fully-capable tool that has finally tempted me to give a good home to a medium-telephoto zoom. You need to decide whether being able to change focal lengths by zooming or adding a 1.4x TC is a better option for you than having lenses optimized for a situation. Do you need a field telephoto with a high-speed focusing system, or is close-focusing more important? Do you work at wide apertures often? Do you need rapid focal length changes more often? Are you willing to buy an expensive, high-speed zoom as well as a teleconverter to get reach and flexibility at the expense of wide aperture work and closeup work, or are you willing to work with primes? If you are going to need wide aperture capabilities *and* a long lens (300mm or greater) you had better be willing to spend some serious money though... the high-speed long telephotos are quite expensive. Return to Top of Page Lens Kit Descriptions: When selecting kits, I will first decide whether I am likely to need to shoot wide-aperture or not and then base my selection on the focal-length needs for the shoot. Sometimes, I will allow myself the option of shooting across the aperture range but at different focal lengths or distances. All lenses have a sweet-spot for aperture and distance -- some are quite wide and others are narrower. I try to mix lenses in my kit based either on similarity of character or flexibility within the needs of the shoot. One way to gain flexibility is with the use of zooms... this generally restricts what you can do at wider apertures as zooms tend to operate best at middle apertures. Sometimes, I will mix the wide zoom with the high-speed short or mid-telephoto for this reason, or the high-speed wide-angle with the telephoto zoom. At other times I will work with both the wide-angle and telephoto zooms, and plan on shooting middle-aperture work for the most part (the AFS/VR works very well at f/4, but the 17-35 is best from f/5.6 on). When selecting prime-kits, generally I will select lenses that are similar in character but widely separated in focal length, but sometimes it is useful to mix widely-variant lens designs (e.g.: sometimes I will carry the 60 Micro with the 135/2DC to get extreme-closeup to medium-range excellence at middle-to-small apertures, along with a wide-aperture telephoto). Again, it is a good idea to plan your lens selection based on the requirements for the shoot, but to give yourself as much flexibility as possible. Some favorite combinations include: 28mm and 85mm f/1.4D (with or without 35-70mm f/2.8D); 45mm f/2.8P and 135mm f/2DC; 28mm f/1.4D, 85mm f/1.4D and 135mm f/2DC   60mm Micro and 200mm Micro; 60mm Micro and 135mm f/2DC   17-35mm AFS and 85mm f/1.4D; 17-35mm AFS, 85mm f/1.4D and 135mm f/2DC; 17-35mm AFS and  35-70mm f/2.8D   200mm f/2 AFS/VR and 500mm f/4 AFS-II plus TC-14e and TC-17e; Favorite single-lens options: 28mm f/1.4D for a wide-angle that can be shot in nearly any light; 45mm f/2.8 for a lightweight normal lens that can be shot at any distance and aperture; 85mm f/1.4D for the optimum portrait lens and wide-aperture telephoto; 200mm Micro for a field lens that can be shot at nearly any distance and aperture; 200mm f/2 AFS/VR with TCs for a flexible, fast-focusing, stabilized lens that can shoot in any light; 300mm AFS/VR plus TCs for a stabilized general-use single telephoto lens that can be shot at a wide range of focal lengths, distances and apertures.   Tripod Heads     Acratech ‘prototype’ Head Acratech Ultimate Head