Have your say: Best prime lens of 2019

Idiot, they were released in late December 2018, so exactly when would they have been tested, far too late to be included for a 2018 lens award and clearly should be in the 2019 group.

Well, telephoto designs don't have the UWA size advantage wide angles have. So that it is a little lighter is already a victory.

That it is the sharpest lens lensrentals ever tested (for all systems and all focal lengths) and has outstanding close up ability is just the icing on the cake.

And while the GM 24mm is currently the best 24mm lens there is still room for improvement.

No, I didn't vote for any unicorns that nobody will afford.

@Mathew
But don't tell me you don't like unicorns

Yeah, that 135mm f1.8. GM is pretty sweet. On the short list for sure. I really want to try out the new Tamron glass too. And I'm honestly really surprised I'm saying that! But Tamron SP G2 is absolutely not the laughingstock Tamron of years past. I really love the Pentax 50mm f1.4 Star (also as Tokina Opera for Nikon and Canon) also.

@3pgrey, I like reviewing unicorns when they're sent to me with insurance to cover them, but other than that, no thanks.

Much of what I do revolves around having as few pieces of gear as possible that are truly high-value, because I often leave that gear outside overnight, or shoot in terrible weather, other nasty conditions, ...and on top of that, I'd like to have three or four cameras set up at once, for timelapse and vlogging work. So, one "ridiculously expensive" body and lens is enough for me; the rest of it can be mediocre or downright cheap, in case it gets smashed on a rock.

Nobody likes seeing a unicorn smashed on a rock, even if it's insured. :-P

@Aegon, it's all about which lenses are your real workhorses, and which lenses are just "filling in the gaps". For certain types of work, I'd much rather have a trio of Tamron 2.8 FE zooms and a set of GM primes. But for other types of work, I'd happily go all-out and lug around the Sigma 14-24 2.8 DN, or a name-brand 70-200 2.8 if that's what suited the job best. Although the Sigma 70-200 2.8 Sport is just nuts, if you've got a monopod or tripod gimbal to support it. Hoping to get it on the A9ii soon for some fighter jets and birds.

@Matt:
Yeah, like I've mentioned to you previously, i was surprisingly impressed with the Tami 24-70mm f2.8 G2. I've never liked the 24-70mm f2.8 Nikkors' bokeh so I've never owned one. I've loved my 24-120mm f4G ED VR Nikkor in its place. But the Tami is awesome in every way. A bit much zoom and focus ring resistance. Smooth, not sticky at all, but not "flickable". Wanna talk about a tough decision! Geez, the extra stop up to 70mm, or the extra 70-120mm range... If only that Tami went to 120mm!

So you like the Tami 70-200mm f2.8 G2 more than the Nikkor VR2? And do you like the Sigma Sport even more?

Just as I've dismissed Tami up until now, so have i Sigma. Tami proved me wrong in every way with that G2. But I'm still not buying it with Sigma build quality. Tami G2 build is really really nice for plastic. Better than Nikon's. Frankly, i don't care at all that it's not metal. Please fill me in on the Sigma Sport, and Art. Thanks. 🙂

Lol, and yeah, be good to your unicorns! 🦄😉

The Tamron high-end lenses are great, and if it's price not weight that are a concern, the 24-70 and 70-200 G1/G2 are incredible. Not to mention the legendary 15-30 which is one of the best bang-for-buck astro-landscape lenses too.

However, it all depends on what you shoot. Unfortunately for myself, I shoot a little bit of literally everything, from weddings to extreme action to landscapes and nightscapes and timelapse. So for example I'm loathe to lug around any front-heavy flagship-grade 2.8 zoom for 14+ hours at a Hindu wedding.

Since I only have 460 characters left, I'll say this: I've reviewed all of the Tamron and Sigma zooms that have come out lately, both the big heavy Tamron 2.8's and the ultra-light (Sony FE only, for now) 2.8's.

And, honestly, they're all incredibly good. Each serves a specific purpose, though, and they're optimized for exactly what you'd expect them to be optimized for. I'd be absolutely happy with any of them.

BTW, yup, I love "high-grade plastic" too!

@Matt:
Thanks for the input.

Well, I'm asking about the Tamis not for weight or price. I already have the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8G VR2 and the 200-500mm f5.6E. Love 'em both! But I'm so impressed with the Tami 24-70mm G2 that I'm considering the 70-200mm G2 and the 150-600mm G2 as replacements for my Nikkors.

I use my 70-200mm almost exclusively for intimate live performances, and my 200-500mm mostly for surfing (pretty much at 150m-250m distance) at 500mm (600mm would be really nice), but also for animals.

What do you think?

When you say "intimate live performances", the first thing that comes to mind is, probably, extreme corner sharpness doesn't matter at all for you; you're far more likely to care about extreme low-light autofocus reliability.

In which case, IMO, native lenses still work the best. Having said that, the Sigma 70-200 Sport and Tamron 70-200 G2 are so close to Nikon's VR2, or better, that I'd say it's a coin toss. The real champ in extreme AF reliability is apparently the "E" 70-200, which I haven't tested yet, unfortunately.

Bottom line: You're probably fine with the VR2. Ask yourself: is it letting you down at all, WRT autofocus or sharpness?

The second thing that comes to mind is, UGH I hate lugging around front-heavy 70-200's for more than 6-8 hrs straight; which is why I'm very, very excited about what Tamron is doing with their lightweight series of FE lenses, and I can't wait to try out the 70-180 2.8 on a Sony A9ii for event photography. (Hopefully eventually on Z/RF, too!)

Regarding the +200mm range, I think you're definitely going to find that Nikon's AF still offers the snappiest, most responsive and reliable overall experience. The Tamrons and Sigmas are very sharp, but there's still a small %% difference in overall AF reliability, as well as random glitches, especially when it comes to the "big gun" lenses.

Personally, when it comes to those super-telephoto beasts, I'd say, rent and find out for yourself if the AF reliability is up to par for your own personal shooting style.

@Matt:
Thanks again. Yeah, like I've previously mentioned, corner sharpness doesn't mean much to me. Well, unles it's distractingly bad. At this price point I'd venture (ruh roh...) that no lens has corners I'd find objectionable. It's hard to find any fault with the VR2. I too have never shot the E. Meh, I'll stick with my VR2 rather than chance non-OEM. I do notice that occasionally my 24-70mm G2 hunts full-range in situations i consider easy for AF. At least it blasts through the whole range quite quickly.

I love my 200-500mm f5.6E. But at 500mm at/near infinity i get a bit of softness. F8 takes care of that. I was hoping for 1) 600mm, 2) equal sharpness at all focal lengths and distances, 3) faster than f8 with uncompromising (without going dedicated prime) IQ. If Tami could do that, I'd be on it!

Continued...

Though, i dunno. It does bother me that it focuses backwards (for Nikon). I was so stoked that the 24-70mm G2 zooms and focuses like a Nikon. I'm really surprised Tami didn't carry that over on the 70-200mm and 150-600mm G2. That's gonna costs shots...

The Tami DX 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 VC zooms and focuses Nikon-appropriate. And VC! And speaking of sloppy corners, my Nikkor DX AF-S 10-24mm f3.5-4.5G has AWFUL corners! There's a lens I'll trade out. I had the Nikkor DX 12-24 f4G, but it's not wide enough. What do you think of the Tami DX 10-24mm VC?

I compared all of the APS-C options ~5 years ago when they were still cranking them out a lot, and the Nikon 10-24 is a bit sharper than the Tamron 10-24 for sure. Since you're likely to care about edge/corner sharpness on such landscape-oriented lenses, I'd say the Tamron is one o the lowest-performing options, since Tokina and Nikon and Sigma are all so good at that ~10-12mm APS-C range.

If you want insane sharpness and don't mind f/4 or 12mm, the Tokina 12-28mm f/4 is just flawless. Even on a D5300, (No AA filter, 24 MP) it was bitingly sharp right to the corners, like it was hungry for even more megapixels... Then of course there's the Tokina 11-20 and 14-20, depending on if you need those apertures or focal ranges. The Nikon 10-24 is a solid performer, but only if you're stopping down to f/8-11 like most landscape photographers will likely be doing. The Sigmas are all a bit middle-of-the-road, except the 18-35 which is just exceptional, but not truly ultra-wide by any means.

@Matt:
Thanks. But shoots. I think my Nikkor 10-24mm is really weak in the corners. It'd be shot indoors a lot so wide open i need sooome corner sharpness. Oh well. Thanks though...