Nikon lens choice again!!

Bearing the PFM mantra of prime lens being better than zooms in mind I embarked recently on a rather disheartening quest to replace my DX lens to use with a recently acquired full frame D600

Already having full frame 50mm 1.4 and a 70-300 VR Nikon lens I started looking at wide angle zooms to replace my Sigma 10-20mm DX (which had replaced a Nikon Nikon 10-24)

The first used “very good” Nikon 18-35 was faulty, but in comparison I was surprised to find a 2.8d AF prime to be no better. The “replacement” 18-35 was better still and gives superb results. I had ignored the 16-35 due to reports of “huge barrel distortion”, but was keen to see if the 17-35 2.8 lived up to its reputation. Unfortunately I have to report that it doesnt so for the moment the 18-35 is my wide angle mainstay

Reading great reports on the 28-80 I picked a very good condition “d” version up for £28 as a mid-range carry round and surprisingly found it lost out very little apart from perhaps speed and bokeh to the 50mm 1.4

To compare against my 70-300VR, I picked up a 105mm 2.5 AI (actually a hacksawed pre-AI), 200 F4 AIS (is actually an AI) and a 300 F4.5 AIS (again an AI) primes

My myopic manual focussing was off target but using viewfinder focus assist, I found the only one of the 3 to be superior to the 70-300 (also manually focussed) was the 300mm, the other 2 being noticeably softer and grainier

So I am now wondering if have I been a victim of poor quality (as well as mis-advertised) examples, or bought the “wrong” versions and why my findings are different to posters here and need some direction on where to go next. Your advice and guidance would be appreciated

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Nikon lens choice again!!