Buying Guide: The best lenses for Nikon DSLRs

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 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.

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.

You retards have no idea what a good lens is. The only lens you picked that was worthy of a "best" title was the 70-200 f/2.8 FL ED ... the rest was substandard junk, easily beaten by many other options.

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.

there's the list for tele prime lens ?

Not sure on the 60mm Macro or the Sigma 24-70 they rated, but that's just my personal preference. I'd spend a little extra and get the 105 Nikon macro, and perhaps a toss up between a Nikon 24-70 VR or if I was on a strict budget (around $1000) then maybe a Tamron 24-70 G2. Not to mention the nifty 50mm 1.8G is always a great lens and a must for almost any photographer (beginner to professional). Heck, if I could only have ONE prime lens, it would have to be a 50mm.

I am glad to see the Tamron 15-30 is still on the list (although this one was the G2) but it still shows that it's a good budget friendly option to the Nikon 14-24, also a great lens, but more expensive and no VR/VC.

But then again, just take what they said with a grain of salt. Use whatever you can afford and feel comfortable using. Same goes for both camera bodies and lenses. After all, it's the end result that matters, not what gear you used to get the shot(s).

On my Nikon D200 I am still very happy with the Nikkor AF.S DX 16-85 mm. Great allround lens!

There are silent and good Nikon FF prime lenses now as:
- Nikon 28/1.4 E
- Nikon 105/1.4 E

Picture of Sigma says 27-70 not 17-70 like Amazon and the review.

I thought about adding my two cents worth until I read all of the comments. DPReview, thank you for your article- thank you for trying to give folks some guidance in what is obviously a very personal choice. My compliments to the author and staff for doing what you think is best.
it must be hard some days to come in to work when all you read are comments of complaints and how wrong you are about this or that. Hopefully this comment will help your day go a little better.....

Useless article, for me anyway

I know this is all subjective but some very curious choices.

For DX the Nikkor 10-20mm is fine but forgot about the newer Tamron 10-24?

For FX prime money no object you pick a sigma 35mm??? what about the Nikkor 105mm f1.4E? In fact they are all 35mm?? why?
For FX standard zoom the Tamron 24-70mm is proven to be a better choice over the Sigma then you have the Sigma 24-105mm as a value choice but the again superior Nikon 24-105mm gets the travel with a value vote to an old Tamron.

Anyway thanks for the read :)

Around 3 years back I posted following information on 'Enthusiastic Level' lenses for Nikon DX DSLR and also briefed my reasoning for those lens selection. Some lens listed are Full frame lenses.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3987440

After those many years, here are changes for two selections ( in my opinion)

Portrait lens : Tamron 60mm f2.0

Mid- Range Telephoto Zoom : Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6E ED VR FX

Tamron 60mm f2.0 also work as short focal length macro lens.

Nikon 70-300 AF-P f4.5-5.6E ED VR FX has better VR functionality, silent VR and focus , fast auto-focus and sharpness at 300mm compared to Tamron 70-300 SP Di VC USD. Nikon AF-P 70-300 ED VR DX kit lens is inferior compared to AF-P FX peer.

Useful info for the few focal lengths considered.
But best lenses for Nikon selection? You must be joking. The best lenses aren‘t even on the list ...

No any Tokina?

"The Best"? Hardly. Fail.