Buying Guide: The best lenses for Nikon DSLRs

Dear Sir,
I am somewhat taken aback by your listings, as it needs pointing out that Sigma and Tamron lenses focus inaccurately on Nikon cameras, and Sigma lenses focus in the opposite direction (being designed for Canons) and that is why the Art lenses have those AF adjust softwares and apparatii.

Further the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR replaces the 24-70mm Nikons (I've had two and returned them) and is a better travel zoom than the 24-120mm lens because it is half the weight and has a LOT less distortion, and it has image stabilisation to boot.

For pro-level reportage it has no peer, if you get a good one, and is a fraction of the weight of the faster pro zooms, none of which are F2 anyway.

Your list appears to be for people who enjoy spending money online, rather than for people to whom photography is their prime means of personal expression, as there is not a word, either, about the host of very good fast sharp manual focus and AF-D lenses available, both new, and secondhand,

Sincerely

Hey you at DPreview, you are out of your mind by recommending Sigma 10-20 F:3.5. I have that garbage for half of week and I am going to returned by monday. It is really bed lens...wery bed. How come you did not recommend Tamron 10-24 model B023 made in 2017. It is the best lens among few lenses for Nikon DX...the best. It cost more, but give far more (in IQ), than any other of similar focal length. How the hell you make such mistake....or hard to believe that you do not know little bit more...Grrrrr...

"APS-C cameras have smaller sensors, which appear as smaller rectangles reflected in the mirror."

And all these years I thought the mirror reflected the focusing screen...
In a traditional SLR what do you see reflected in the mirror? The film strip? That would make for great pictures.
Who writes these things?

I recommend buying a really inexpensive older used DSLR, and preferably one made by the less popular makes, because they'll be the cheapest. Then buy a wide ranging variety of used lenses for that mount. Don't sweat the details. Just set yourself upon a learning course of trial and error by working with your range of lenses. This will give you an informed and accurate sense of your needs and of what features and lenses you prefer the most. If your interest takes and your enthusiasm and ambition persists (for many erstwhile enthusiasts it does not) you'll be much better prepared to spend more of your money on the latest gear with much more confidence.

Remember, Jean Claude Killy did not learn how to play the piano with the latest professional tennis racket. Learning curves dictate that we all must drool before we can crawl.

No problem with most of the selections.

However, I do find it absurd to pick a single prime focal length to represent all primes. You should have at least 3 choices for prime: wide (in the 14-24mm range) , standard (35-60mm), and telephoto (70-105mm). The beginner would begin to see how the application dictates the prime lens choice.

For telephoto lens, I disagree with the 70-200mm choice. Over the years I have owned multiple 70-200 lenses including two Canon lenses and currently the Nikon f/4. They end up being my least used lenses because they are not long enough (especially on FX). Currently there are multiple 100-400mm and 70-300mm lenses that are better options for beginners. 70-200mm is a great length fro a photojournalist, but not for a beginner.

Finally, I found it curious that there is no great UWA option for FX. Canon has the 11-24, Sony the 12-24, but Nikon is stuck with just a 14-24 and no strong 16-35mm f4? A little sad.

If you were a new photographer buying a lens, I'd advise you away from so many of your options. The fact you are offering advice blows my mind.

FX
Standard zoom - Your primary pick was the Sigma 24-70, Value 24-105, and Money Nikon 24-70. Most thing's I've read show the Tamron beating the 24-70. Even if this isn't true, the inclusion of the 24-105 doesn't make sense here.

Telephoto zoom - Your primary pick is an F4??? Why? Any of the F2.8's should be a best pick. Maybe an F4 could be the value option, but surely not best.

Travel zoom - Here you list only the Nikon 24-120 and do not mention the Sigma 24-105. Your standard zoom and travel zoom listing is all sorts of confused.

As to the 18-140 Nikkor I don´t agree at all, it´s by far the worst lens I have, unsharp even with live autofocus, and unreliable focussing in SLR mode. My 18-200 was sharper without really being convincing. They are just not good enough for current sensors. However, the 16-80 is very good and reliable in any situation (maybe I´m just lucky), very pleased with that. The 35 is ok but rather dispensable if you have the 16-80 - ist´s just nor as sharp as some say and has no stabilisation obviously. I hardly ever use ist, its only advantage is small size, rather academic for me given the mere size of the D500.

Nikon 20mm 1.8G is a must for wide angle primes. It is optically a very good lens for it's price IMHO;)

Inane, webshop inspired, comparison.

Sorry.

In the he travel zoom category you should list the 18-300 f6.3 nikon instead of the f5.6. It is lighter, smaller, cheaper and a bit better optically all quite important for a travel zoom.

Very little love here for Nikkor F1.8 G lenses. You only list the 35mm. Why not the 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, etc?

I think DP Review is credible and this article aims at beginners who are normally lost, trying to understand what's best for them. In that sense I find this article a bit "irresponsible". It over simplifies some very complex, expensive and subjective choices. Many (if not all) choices and statements are disputable

It bothers me that a lot of people who don't know any better will follow your recommendations. A lot of your choices are odd and ill advised!

Some of the choices strike me as odd. The 60/2.8 Micro may be a nice lens, but for actual macro shooting, you want a longer lens. The Sigma 14-24/2.8 is not on the list even though it's arguably a better lens than the Nikkor (at a lower price). And the suggestion of the Tamron 70-200/4 rather than the (cheaper) Nikon 70-300 AF-P, I'm not sure. 200 is not very long on FX.

I own A D750 and three lenses but none on your list.
Why the 35mm prime over the 50mm?
I would say the 105mm Macro is of much more use than a 60mm.
I think the Nikkor 28-300 renders many lenses obsolete on your list.

I own 16 lenses, and none of them are your top picks. And only two are your "alternative choices"
Must be doing something wrong... I'll go ask my customers what they think ;-)

On a serious note: saying "which lens is best" without considering application or field of photography is a bit silly to begin with.

The expensive Tamron 18-400 should be on a list of worst possible lenses for Nikon. It’s extremely soft at all lengths and apertures, especially the long end, which is barely good enough for a small smartphone screen.

The Nikon 70-300 AF-P is vastly sharper, a fraction of the price, and could be cropped to match 400mm and still be much better.

The Tamron 18-270 was bad enough, what’s the point of buying a 24MP camera and putting a junk lens on it that can’t resolve 2MP. If you must avoid changing lenses at all costs, a 1” superzoom camera would be a better option.

The Nikon lenses referenced here are optically superb but, boy, what dated-looking exterior designs...

Something to consider with third party that many need a USB dock for future compatibility and the most likely need to spend time fine tuning the AF at multiple distances and/or focal lengths. Also there are some quirks in compatibility.

Thank you for this.
I find ot very useful.
I know there’s a lot of alternatives tp discover and I am sure a lot of readers will have their own opinions.
I just need some orientation. I enjoyed that.
Well structured too

Not so sure what to think about that aticle, feel pretty happy not owning any of the lenses, 60mm macro is a bit on the short side and I doubt my Sigma 150mm is much worse, no 50mm for standard prime? No 85mm either? And my 70-200 Tamron 2.8 is the best 70-200 imho - best close focus distance, sharp and much cheaper then the Nikon. Hm, Dpreview, I think you can do better - this looks more like a list for newcomers, would have expected to meet a couple of more prime recommendations here.

This would, probably, be the highest controversial, ever, post from DP

A good list. I own a couple of the listed lenses, the Tamron 35mm and the Nikon 70-200mm f/4—one of the sharpest lenses ever. I would add to the list the Tamron 85mm f/1.8; like the 35mm, it's superb, even sharper than the 35mm and blows the Nikon 85mm away.

For the 24-70mm, I chose the Nikon f/2.8 without VR. I use it mostly for landscape and decided to forego the VR to save nearly $600 over the VR version listed above; $2,300 is just too much for me. It's incredibly sharp! I previously owned the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 but found that it wasn't as sharp, but very nicely made.

Add to the list the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5, a great value and a few hundred less than the 16-35mm with VR, and sharper. And finally, add the Tamron 150-600mm G2—a fantastic lens, even hand-held you can get great shots at 600mm.

The best lens often has to be the best lens at the best price with IQ the first priority—we can't all be John Koerner, who is obviously a self-important snob with a pocketful of cash.

Very good list indeed. Maybe added a chipper alternatives to this.
50mm f1,8 G (an excellent performer with low price), 35mm f2,8 AFD also cheep and good lens.