Wide Angle
| Maker | Focal | Sharp | Color/ Contr |
Dist | Build | Handle | Value | Overall |
| Nikon | 10-24 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 4.1 |
| Sigma | 15-30 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3 | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | 3.6 |
| Sigma | 12-24 | 2/4* | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 5 | 4 |
| Tokina | 10-17 | 1/3** | 3 | 1/3** | 4.5 | 3 | 4 | 3.7/4.4 |
| Tokina | 11-16 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 5 | 4.3 |
Standard
| Lens | Sharp | Color/ Contr |
Dist | Build | Handle | Value | Overall |
| Nikon 18-55 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | 3.2 |
| Nikon 18-105VR | 3.5 | 4 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 4 | 4 | 3.8 |
| Nikon 18-135 | 3.5 | 4 | 3 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.6 |
| Nikon 18-200VR | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4.5 | 4 | 3.9 |
| Tamron 18-270VC | 4 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4 | 3.8 |
| Nikon 24-70 AF-S | 5 | 5 | 3.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 3 | 4.3 |
| Sigma 18-50/2.8H | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.2 |
| Tamron 28-75 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | 4.5 | 4.1 |
| Nikon 35/1.8 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 4 | 5 | 4.4 |
| Sigma 30/1.4 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 4.2 |
| Nikon 50/1.8 AF | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 5 | 4.1 |
| Nikon 50/1.4 AF | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 4 | 4.1 |
| Nikon 50/1.4 AFS | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.3 |
| Sigma 50/1.4H | 4.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 4 | 4.5 | 4 | 4.4 |
Telephoto
| Lens | Sharp | Color/ Contr |
Dist | Build | Handle | Value | Overall |
| Nikon 55-200VR | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3 | 4.5 | 4 | 3.7 |
| Nikon 70-300ED | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3.6 |
| Nikon 70-300VR | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 | 4 | 4.1 |
| Nikon 85/f1.8 | 4.5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.1 |
| Nikon 80-200/2.8S | 5 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4.6 |
| Nikon 70-200/2.8V | 5 | 5 | 4.5 | 5 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 4.6 |
| Nikon 180/2.8AF | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 |
| Sigma 70-200/2.8S | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4.2 |
| Sigma 120-300 | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 5 | 4.3 |
| Tamron 70-300M | 3/4*** | 3.5 | 2/4*** | 3 | 3.5 | 3/5*** | 3.1/3.9*** |
Notes
* Notable difference in sharpness when stopped down. First number is sharpness wide open, second is stopped down to f8-f16 range. Numbers averaged for overall rating.
** Unique lens. Where two values are listed, the first is for use as a wide-angle substitute while the second is for use as a fisheye.
*** Macro zoom. Where two values are listed, the first is for use as a standard zoom while the second is for use in the ‘macro’ range.
8 responses so far ↓
1 bruno // Sep 22, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I don’t think Nikon has a 24-70VR. You probably meant AFS
What’s the “Dist” column?
2 The Sports Photo Guy // Sep 23, 2009 at 4:04 am
DISTortion. And yes, I keep forgetting the 24-70 doesn’t have VR. For what Nikon charges, it damn well should have it, though!
3 Gabe Navar // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:31 am
I am not sure what to do. I want to shoot soccer. I bought my first real camera a d90. I also went with a 70-200 lens, but I went with a Tamron for the price. Should I return it for the Sigma? I can’t get the Nikon 80-200 with AF-S. I am not to comfortable yet buying this stuff used. I want to use a 1.4 TC to help with the distance. I have heard some issues with the Tamron lens and Autofocus. Looking for some help.
4 The Sports Photo Guy // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:58 am
Well, the Tamron 70-200/f2.8 is not a lens I have any experience with, but the newer version has gotten some pretty good reviews from the general photography press.
If you’re looking for a 1.4x TC to use with the Tamron, go for the Kenko Teleplus 300. It’s identical to the Tamron 1.4x SP (Kenko makes this TC for Tamron) and it’s a little cheaper.
5 Alex Hamilton // Feb 25, 2010 at 8:52 pm
I have just taken a couple of steps up the DSLR ladder from Pentax entry level DSLR to aD300. I intend to continue family and general photography with a ‘walk around do most things well’ zoom (I thought Nikon 18-200 VR) , but want to concentrate more on my aviation photography (mainly Airshows and occasional air to air, for which I thought Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR) I really am pushing my budget with all this hardware but I guess I believe in the maxim ‘you gets what you pay for’. Do you think these lenses give a fair balance for the job I will give them? Also, I have had good results at airshows with shooting bursts of shots through a particular angle an aircraft is passing after studying the light, display line and obstructions etc. How much effect does the memory card have on frame rate. Reading your very useful comments and testing makes me think the limiting factor in all this is the writing speed of the card, not the camera. I will probably shoot in JPG but will adopt any technique that gets me more useful shots for my job as an aviation artist.
Many thanks
6 The Sports Photo Guy // Feb 25, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Air-to-air is something I’ve not done, although I love my 18-200 for “air-to-ground” use (I often fly in a Baron or Mooney at 6,000-8,000 feet for work). I would think if you have room to maneuver a 70-200 it would be an excellent lens, although one of the new 70-300 VR lenses might also be excellent and easier to maneuver (and a lot easier on your wallet).
As for cards, they are the limiting factor to a point. Any of the cards earning a ‘B’ grade or higher are good for JPG shooting, in my experience, although if you’re like me and frequently rely on settings that drop the buffer size down to 12 frames or so (like Active D-Lighting), you’ll want those ‘A’-grade cards.
7 George Tirajoh // May 3, 2010 at 11:24 am
I am interested in getting back behind a SLR and taking pictures again. I am looking for a good all around lens or lenses to compliment a Nikon D 300 s I have just purchased. I am interested in taking both indoor and outdoor photos and prefer to work with natural light and indoor flash. What are your thoughts on the Nikon AF-S 18-200 VR II for a general all around lens. What are the issues I need to consider for indoor photography – I am thinking that outdoor should not be as tricky. Also I will need to find a good flash – I have noted your suggestions and open to your suggestions. Primary subject matter for shooting will be social and family gatherings of people and place.
Although I would like to stick to Nikkor lenses I am open to others as many Nikkor lenses are expensive. In short do you recommend I get the 18-200 zoom for a first lens or should I look into the Sigma version to save on cost and get a good mid range zoom 35-70 with a f2.8 – thanks.
8 The Sports Photo Guy // May 8, 2010 at 6:30 pm
The Nikon 18-200 (I) has been my walk-around lens for the past four years. Recently the zoom action got jammed, so I’ve sent it back to Nikon. Meanwhile, a great Mother’s Day rebate deal (extra $20, for total rebate of $100) on the Tamron 18-270 with optical stabilization has tempted me to try that lens out. So far, I like it, though I’ve hardly used it. A full report later. But the Nikon should be a safe bet.
The old 35-70/f2.8 just doesn’t cut it on modern DSLRs any more. Personally, I don’t think any of those older lenses are sharp or distortion-free enough for 12MP and larger sensors. (My treasured 85/f.8, a gem on film and early DSLRs, turned into a complete dog on the D300). Nowadays you will really want a digital lens that starts at 18mm. My choice is the Sigma 18-50/f2.8 HSM Macro. Not a lot of zoom range, but extremely sharp and minimal distortion. Nikon’s 24-70/f2.8 is sweet but awfully expensive.
Leave a Comment