Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Top 10 Nikon lenses
#11
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1305835013' post='8633']

Actually, that page is linked to below every lens rating ... the "What does this mean" link <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' /> Maybe we should rename it ...



-- Markus

[/quote]

Duh <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />

!!!
#12
[quote name='IanCD' timestamp='1305834629' post='8632']

Photozone.de is located in Germany and locally the word "average" means just that - reads: "average" is in between of better and worse. So this is strictly different compared to the more popular anglo-american-style meaning of the word where an "average" is equivalent to about as bad as it gets.

[/quote]



I was born, and lived in America, for 43 of my 45 years, and "average" always meant in between the best and the worst to me. Even when talking about products. Maybe this is a generational thing, but I never noticed "average" meaning "about as bad as it gets. It is common to say that something is "only average", but this is usually in reference to the fact that there are other choices that are better than average. Maybe some non-Americans only "think" that Americans believe that "average" is equivalent to "about as bad as it gets". This is the same as the misconceptions that some Americans have about Europeans, including Germans. I also had misconceptions, but after living here with open eyes and an open mind, I have become less ignorant.
#13
We might be looking at the difference between marketing speak here. For example, typical marketing categories are "good, better and best". They're going to finder it hard selling something called "below average" than "good". Another marketing speak example might be food portion sizes "medium, large, extra large", as "small" doesn't sell. Also remember that "average" is a moving target. As things get generally better, then by definition the average does too. The average level of today isn't the same as the average of the past, so there can be a disconnect if that is not considered.



On the question if Germans (as a generalisation) are more technically demanding, I'd have to say yes. In my day job I frequently have to provide support to other Euro-zone countries, Germany included. For sure the test labs in Germany pay far more attention to detail than those of other countries.



Side note, my trip to Saarbruecken didn't happen in the end... maybe another time.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#14
Nothing German about it (the rating language).



The difference with the english photo press (mags) is: Their reviews and tests are crap, and their ratings should not be trusted (in general, of course there might be exceptions).



About the "german" ratings:



The German photo magazin "Foto Magazin" has, for decades, used the most laughable ratings ever.

Every lens would be at least "gut".

Most mediocre lenses would get "sehr gut".

The real "good" lenses would be called "super".

The lowest rating I have seen would have been for some really crappy colour film, which then would get the rating of "noch gut".



Example: Tokina 24-200mm f3.5-5.6 AT-X.

"In all focal lengths, it shows a clear brilliance loss from center to edge. Stopping down brings a bit of improvement."

"Light fall off towards the corners wide open at the wide end is very high, in mid and long end still visible."

"24mm, clear barrel distortion, tele clearly pin cushion distorted."

"Colour cast": Clearly warm (yellow).

"At tele, very high veil porblems"

"Zoom with many achilles heels."



Rating: Sehr gut....
#15
I don't tkink publishing a top 10 list could be effectively used for decision making. Because;



- this makes things "popular", nothing more...

- everone might have his/her own top 10 (based on photographic styles, camera format etc...)



But publishing a database including quantitative test results (in addition to existing reports) could be quite useful. Actually what I was doing before can be compared to what IanCD does, but it takes a lot time I have to say... And also I was inserting charts including the MTF results of comparable lenses. This kind of information is valuable I guess... at least I felt so (as a guy who is really obsessed when it comes to quantifiying something).



Serkan
#16
We are really quite far away from the thread now <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' /> ! The poor guy never got any answer! But I agree with those who say that a top 10 is impossible, without at least several parameters to use in making the list. Not practical. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> So Derron, restate your question pls with enough parameters to make it possible; what type Nikon camera? What do you want to take pictures of? Zooms or primes? Inexpensive or expensive? APC or FF? Those are just a few.
#17
Top 10 best lenses is not possible unless you indeed specify what they are best in.



My top 10 (silly, since the criteria need to be more defined), not necessarily in any order:



1. Nikkor AF-S 200-400mm VR

2. Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f2.8 (sharpness, not other attributes)

3. Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm f2.8

4. Nikkor AF-S 200mm f2 VR

5. Nikkor PC 85mm f2.8 micro

6. Nikkor AF-S 24mm f1.4

7. Nikkor 55mm f3.5 micro (1st gen. pre-AI)

8. Nikkor ultra micro 55mm f2 (for the sheer impracticality and impressive design of it)

9. Nikkor AF-S 600mm f4 VR II

10. Nikkor AF 70-180mm Micro
#18
Hello Everyone



Thank you all for your input - very much appreciated!



You are all correct in your statements regarding how difficult/impossible it is to define some of these things ultimately, so therefore I should apologize for not including enough information in my original post.



I think that I made a mistake by saying "Top 10 Nikkor Lenses", because it seems to me that would imply that being a "Top 10" there is a BEST lens sitting right at the top of the list above all other lenses in the numer 1 position - for that I apologize, of course there is no such thing because we have different lenses for different applications.



So with that in mind please allow me to try & expand on this somewhat, here goes -



I would love suggestions for lenses in the following categories, no Top 10 lists, just maybe "3 Must Have" lenses for each category, maybe with a brief bullet point or two descibing why a particular lens is good for it's application. To make it even more comprehensive or laborious depending on your perspective we could break it down into "cheap lenses that are good", "medium cost" & "high-end expensive" lenses.



Maybe a final, useful group of lenses could be something like "6 Lenses that every Nikon owner must have to cover all situations" ?



I suppose that could be split between DX & FX... But for my purposes here let's stick to DX lenses.



So what I'm looking at is great, sharp, crisp lenses for a Nikon D7000 DSLR (DX Body), doesn't matter if they're Autofocus or Manual.



Herewith Suggested Categories:



- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon lenses for portrait, wedding and low-light photography

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon lenses for general-purpose, everyday photography and kit lens upgrades

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon wide-angle lenses for landscape and architectural photography

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon lenses for insect, flower and general close-up (Macro) photography

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon telephoto lenses for action, sports, wildlife and portrait photography



Thanks again everyone, Take Care!



Kind Regards



D
#19
What you are probably looking for is right here:



[url="http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm"]http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm[/url]













[quote name='Derron' timestamp='1306359443' post='8815']

Hello Everyone



Thank you all for your input - very much appreciated!



You are all correct in your statements regarding how difficult/impossible it is to define some of these things ultimately, so therefore I should apologize for not including enough information in my original post.



I think that I made a mistake by saying "Top 10 Nikkor Lenses", because it seems to me that would imply that being a "Top 10" there is a BEST lens sitting right at the top of the list above all other lenses in the numer 1 position - for that I apologize, of course there is no such thing because we have different lenses for different applications.



So with that in mind please allow me to try & expand on this somewhat, here goes -



I would love suggestions for lenses in the following categories, no Top 10 lists, just maybe "3 Must Have" lenses for each category, maybe with a brief bullet point or two descibing why a particular lens is good for it's application. To make it even more comprehensive or laborious depending on your perspective we could break it down into "cheap lenses that are good", "medium cost" & "high-end expensive" lenses.



Maybe a final, useful group of lenses could be something like "6 Lenses that every Nikon owner must have to cover all situations" ?



I suppose that could be split between DX & FX... But for my purposes here let's stick to DX lenses.



So what I'm looking at is great, sharp, crisp lenses for a Nikon D7000 DSLR (DX Body), doesn't matter if they're Autofocus or Manual.



Herewith Suggested Categories:



- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon lenses for portrait, wedding and low-light photography

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon lenses for general-purpose, everyday photography and kit lens upgrades

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon wide-angle lenses for landscape and architectural photography

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon lenses for insect, flower and general close-up (Macro) photography

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon telephoto lenses for action, sports, wildlife and portrait photography



Thanks again everyone, Take Care!



Kind Regards



D

[/quote]
#20
[quote name='Derron' timestamp='1306359443' post='8815']



- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon lenses for portrait, wedding and low-light photography

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon lenses for general-purpose, everyday photography and kit lens upgrades

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon wide-angle lenses for landscape and architectural photography

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon lenses for insect, flower and general close-up (Macro) photography

- Recommended Nikkor / Nikon telephoto lenses for action, sports, wildlife and portrait photography



[/quote]

APS-C



Short portrait zoom:

- Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. compact, affordable and good.

- Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 HSM and Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 as more expensive and most expensive alternatives.



Long portrait zoom:

- Nikon 80-200mm D. Very nice optics and build quality for a reasonable price.

- Tamron 70-200mm f2.8. Nice optics, ok-ish build.

- Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR, VR II as very good but expensive alternatives, offer image stabilization.

- Sigma 70-200mm OS HSM, optically least impressive, but price wise interesting if IS is a must.



Portrait lenses:

- Nikon 85mm f1.8D. Very affordable good portrait prime.

- Sigma 85mm f1.4 HSM. When f1.8 is not enough, or Nikon 85mm f1.4 G, but very expensive.

- Tamron 60mm f2 Di II macro, for when you want a lens at the shorter end of the portrait range.



Wide angle:

- The usual suspects.... Sigma 8-16mm for when you want WIDE, Nikon 10-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm f4-4.6 or Tokina 11-26mm f2.8 for when you do not need that wide or don't like protruding front elements.



Macro (insects):

- Sigma 150mm f2.8 HSM macro

- Tamron 180mm f3.5 macro

Both awesomely great macro lenses.

- Nikon 200mm f4. Also very good, but very expensive.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)