I'm in the market for a new lense or two. After reading quite a bit of information on this site and many others I still have questions about lens quality. Over and over I read that "primes are better than zooms." But if I look up various lenses at www.photodo.com, the MTF values for the lenses of interest, the zooms certainly are on par with if not beating the primes. I'm interested in Nikkor primes/zooms such as the 70-200/2.8D, 105/2.8 Micro, 180/2.8 and 85/1.8.

So what is the catch with MTF ratings by photodo.com?

It seems for the money and based on the MTF ratings, the best bang for the buck is the 70-200/2.8. The 105 and 180 rate equal or less than the 70-200. The 85 is a better lense judged by the MTF rating.

And for the purpose of discussion, lets leave out the Micro aspect.

Is there another objective way to "measure" the quality of lenses. Lets not go near the sample variability issue! 8-)

Thanks... Dan McCarty

-- Dan McCarty (dmccarty@us.ibm.com), January 22, 1999

Answers

this is a harder to answer question then you think.

MTF isn't the best judge (though it's probably as good as any other) take the 105 macro for instance. it works best as close focus distances. 99% of MTF charts are made at infinity focus. i'm not surprised that the 105 macro was "only" as good as the 70-200 at infinity. if they did an MTF at closest focusing distance the 105 macro would blow them all away.

actually, i use price as my "pre-buy/test myself" guide. it's as good as MTF for judging.

all these lenses you mention are very good. trying to differentiate among them based on MTF is futile. buy the zoom if you like the convience, buy the primes of you want the teeeeny bit of better performance they'll give.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), January 22, 1999.

That's a problem I've been struggling with for more then 20 years. I used to rely on Modern Photography's resolution tests but found that to be too one dimensional. I've used Popular Photography's SQF and field tests but I've had concerns about advertising slanting their objectivity. Now this MTF rating from photodo.com It looks good but I already have a problem with two of their test results. The nikkor 50mm f1.8AF and the 60mm f2.8DAF. They give the 50mm a 4.4 and the 60mm a 4.2 Though this seem minute my own tests with Fujia Astia differs upon observation with a 10X loupe. Only at F2.8 are these two lenses even close except the 60 is sharper in the corners. After that the 60mm clearly is sharper then the 50mm.

The following only is applicable if you have a good local camera store nearby.

This is what I did the last time I wanted to check out a lense. It's not scientific but it will help. Take your camera loaded with good slide film(100 or lower) to a local camera store and if they have a demo of the lense your interested ask if they'll let you try the lense on your camera and take a series of pictures at different f stops and distances. Oh and take a flash with you also. Most camera dealers will usually allow this providing you stay in the store. Develope your slides evaluate them. You might want to take some of the shots with your own favorite lense for comparison. The results might surprise you. A less expensive lense may give you better results then expected or a expensive lens may not give you as good of results as you would expect. Either way it will save you from high expectations of a lense that cost you an arm or a leg or it may show that the $1000 or higher lense is everything you expexted of it.

Remember it's not always the published tests that will refect what will satisfy you. We all see pictures a little different from each other. It's what is pleasing to your eye not the friend down the street that matters.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), January 22, 1999.

I suspect most of my use is focused at infinity and when in the long focus lengths, max'd out. I do mainly landscapes, try to get pictures of wildlife and want to do some micro stuff. My 35-70 will do some limited micro which I'm playing with and have not decided if I want to spend money on the 105 micro. The 200 micro would be better but I don't think I can justify the expense. I can sorta justify the 105 since I can use it for micro and landscape but I still need a lense in the 200 range hence the 180. BUT, the MTF rating on the 180 lense is not that good.

The 80-200 has its oft stated zoom advantages and based on MTF numbers a qualitative edge, for the most part. Sooooo, if MTF is to be believed, the most bang for the buck is the zoom.

If'n the AF-S 80-200 was priced for mear mortals that would be an even bigger advantage since the E converters would work and help in wildlife shots. I was hoping to be able to use a TC to hold off getting the 300/4 since I'm wondering if Nikon is going to upgrade the lense.

I have looking into this very heavily for a couple of weeks and still cannot decide! I'm hoping that someone can really praise or condemn the photodo.com MTF numbers.

Thanks... Dan McCarty

-- Dan McCarty (dmccarty@us.ibm.com), January 22, 1999.

i'll openly condemn them for you. not that i think they do them wrong, or try to mislead, but that i think their usefullness is marginal. it's only one sample (though you said not to mention that) they are at one focus distance, they aren't at all apertures, etc. it's one data point in 30 that needs to be considered.

you're on the right track when you make forays into deciding based on usage, cost, etc. MUCH more important then sharpness since ALL these lenses are VERY GOOD OR BETTER. now if you had a 28-200 on your list, that wouldn't be the case. but every single lens on your list is a great one.

get the zoom. you can put a good closeup lens on it for your first attempts at macro. if you really get into macro, then get a dedicated lens for it.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), January 22, 1999.

I got this from David Reuther's webpage at http://www.fcinet.com/ruether/articles.html . David has one of the most extensive reviews of Nikkor lenses on the web (he tests everything himself). BTW the complete SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors) - version 5g is at http://www.fcinet.com/ruether/slemn.html .

The sample I tried of the Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D with rotating tripod socket and separate zoom and focus rings was a surprise. In addition to the excellent optics of its two AF predecessors (unchanged - which provide excellent sharpness to the corners even wide-open everywhere but near 200mm and near minimum-focus [the two conditions taken together]), handling qualities were even better. Normally I prefer one-ring telephoto zooms for ease and speed of use hand-held, but the two-ring design on this lens places the rings in just the right locations, and focusing is lighter and easier than with the one-ring design. Nikon has nearly perfected this lens, I think. (Now only if it were good for macro... - though I have heard that it is more than decent for macro work with the Canon 500D 77mm achromat added, so maybe Nikon now does have the perfect fast short tele zoom...;-) BTW, this lens is really first-class on the Nikkor TC14C converter from about f4, nearly as good on the TC14/14B, acceptable on the modified-to-fit TC20E (very good at the middle and short end of the zoom range by about f5.6, but not great at the long end on that converter), and surprisingly good on the TC16A. It is not good on the TC200/1, was not tried on the TC14A, and does not fit the TC300/1 or TC14E (though that one can be modified to fit). For comparison, the Nikkor 180mm f2.8 EDIF AF is a hair better at infinity-focus at f2.8 (and really excellent to the corners), considerably better in the 5-6 area than the zoom at 180-200mm at wide stops, and is still good at wide stops on a short tube (though not wonderful on long tubes). The 180mm is sharp over much of the frame area when on converters + short tubes for macro work, but edges are softer with any macro gear I added beyond a short tube, including achromats (though an achromat alone also can give good sharpness with this lens). Neither this lens nor the 80-200 is a good high-magnification macro lens ... And only the TC14A seems to work well with this 180mm for distance work, which doesn't make it a very long lens. Otherwise it is darn near perfect - one of the best of the Nikkors (as is the 80-200mm f2.8).

I don't usually snag such big quotes from other peoples pages, but I thought that this info would be valuable.

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@pgh.nauticom.net), January 22, 1999.

Sean, I think you right about buying the zoom and then the 105 at another time if needed.

It just seems that the evaluation of the lenses should be a bit more scientific instead of the comments that "this is a really sharp lense!" Don't get me wrong, I WANT to hear any comments, but the same critique of the MTF numbers applies to the testimonial. Its sharp at what apperature? Focus at infinitiy or close?

I think all of the lenses are good ones. At first I was going to get the 105 micro but then started thinking about the zoom to replace the the 70-210/4-5.6 that came with the body.

Part of my problem is I can articulate reasons to buy the zoom OR the 105/2.8 micro and the 180/2.8. GRRRRRR... Maybe I should just get the 105 and the 300/4! 8-)

I'm going to have to make a decision on which way to go soon. Very soon or the wife is going to kick me out of the house! 8-)

Thanks... Dan

-- Dan McCarty (dmccarty@us.ibm.com), January 22, 1999.

Geoffrey, I have been to David Reuther's webpage, many, many times! Very useful. But of course his opinions just make the decision more difficult! 8-) I have to stop going to his site! 8-)

It seems that using the existing TCs with the AF 80-200/2.8 looses AF and some metering. This concerns me enough that I'm not sure that a 1.4 TC would work for me on the lense. It sounds like the AF-S would work but thats out of the ball park price wise. But Reuther's opinion is enough to cause me to consider the option.

Thanks... Dan

-- Dan McCarty (dmccarty@us.ibm.com), January 22, 1999.

Dan, Get the 80-200 zoom. Unless you planning to blow up to 24 inch by 36 inch you are not going to discern much difference between those lenses. You won't be dissappointed. It's an execellent lense. If you want scientific numbers I would put more stock in Popular Photography's SQF test's then I would in the MTF. The January 1999 edition has a list of the last ten years of lenses they've tested. Also you can find testimonials by pro's who have used this lense on the Web. The rest is up to what information you've assimilated from all this.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), January 22, 1999.

Gary,

Thanks for the Popular Photography reference. I'll check it out.

I just have to sit, think and make a decision. I don't think I'll can make a bad decision with these lenses. I think the worst I can do is spend a little more money than I would like, price/performance wise. I may just buy the 105/2.8 micro and see what happens with prices and models. It seems like Nikon is introducing new lenses and bodies that just happen to interest me the most at the moment.

Thanks... Dan

-- Dan McCarty (dmccarty@us.ibm.com), January 22, 1999.

My recommendation would be to go with the 105 and the 180. The 85 is too close to the 105 and with the 105 you get the ease of macro without having to resort to other attachments like tubes or close-up lenses. The 180 AF-D EDIF is probably one of the sharpest lenses ever produced by Nikon. My next lens purchase will definitely be the 180, I have read every MTF rating for this lens that I could find and it seems to have a great reputation. For the type of work you do (landscapes, nature) you can't go wrong with these two. The 105 is also an excellent lens for portraits as well.

-- Ron Stecher (stecherr@vafb5a.vafb.af.mil), January 22, 1999.

Ron,

As I read people's responses it is helping me focus my options. It seems that the MTF numbers while not perfect are useful. Good.

Another way to look at this is where do I want to be lense wise down the road. I have a 24/2.8 and a 35-70/2.8 that I really like. I need some lenses in the 80-200 range and I want the 300/4 with a TC 1.4.

I want to hold off on the 300/4 for a while this year. The lense has not been updated since it was release in the 80's and I'm wondering if Nikon is going to update it to an AF-S. Sure would be nice to get a D lense and the TC 1.4E to work with the 300/4.

I was hoping that I could use the 80-200 zoom with a TC 1.4 to hold off getting the 300/4. But that does not seem to be optimal unless I get the AF-S 80-200 and the TC 1.4E. Yet another but, that combo is out of the budget. I could get the current 80-200/2.8 AND the 300/4 for the cost of a new AF-S. Maybe that is what I should do! 8-)

I think I'll just wait, maybe getting the 105/2.8 since it will be usefull even with the zoom, and see what happens price and product wise.

Thanks to everyone for their time and opinion. It is very helpful. Dan

-- Dan McCarty (dmccarty@us.ibm.com), January 22, 1999.

Dan, It sounds as if you're leaning toward the 105MM and you can't go wrong with that lense either. If your interests lie in close portraits and the world of macro that should be the lense you get. The 80-200 will not match it in the macro arena but will be very very close in close portraits. The 180mm is very good also. I had a MF back in the 80's and it never let me down. I did take a few test shots with the newer one thats out. It's still a sharp and contrasty but not superior to the 80-200 at the same focal length(12 feet to infinity) except in the minimun focusing distance the 180mm appeared to have the edge. But it still comes back to what your primary uses will be. If you don't mind taking time to change lenses unless you have more then one camera body(that's how I did it in the 70's and 80's before zoom lenses improved). Then you should stick with the prime lenses. It's not just what we tell you is a good lense you have to believe and have confidence in it. Your confidence in your equipment is very important. So go with your gut feeling just as long as you've just eaten. Too bad you don't belong to a camera club where you get a chance to see what some of these lenses and cameras can produce.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), January 22, 1999.

Dan, Here's my suggestion: you're interested in Nikkor lenses, and if you live in or near a big city, these are widely available for rent from pro shops. So why not rent the lens or lenses you're interested in, do some shooting and some hands-on testing of the sort that would be meaningful to you, representative of the kind of photography you will use the lens for, and make your decision on that basis? I think it would be a much sounder basis for your decision than reading MTF or SQF numbers in some data sheet or lens test.

-- Dave Kemp (Kempda@worldnet.att.net), January 23, 1999.

I think I have decided to get the 105/2.8 micro. That will get the most use for the areas I'm working in at the moment and will double as a good all around lense. I'll just wait on the 80-200 to see what happens with the price on the AF-S lense. But I think the 80-200/2.8 is the right lense for me to buy.

After the conversation in this forum and paying attention on HOW I was taking pictures yesterday afternoon helped me reach a decsion.

I live in a fairly large metro area, the Durham/Raleigh/Chapel Hill area of North Carolina, aka The Triangle. BUT, there just are not any retail stores except Wolf and Ritz. I don't know of any place that will rent camera's in the area. 8-( I was in a really good store in Stuart Florida over the holiday and really made me jealous to have one here.

Thanks for the info. Dan

-- Dan McCarty (dmccarty@us.ibm.com), January 23, 1999.

I have all four lenses under consideration, and I would rate the 180 ED as best -- in fact the best under-$5000 lens that Nikon makes; the 105 next, which is stunning despite not having the magical ED glass; the 80-200 ED next (yet probably more often used than the first two); and the 85 f1.8 as a complete waste of money. I also have the 300 f2.8, and would rate it about equal with the 80-200 in quality -- excellent but not insanely great like the 180 and the 105. Sue bought me the 105 for Christmas two years ago as a "bug and flower lens"; turns out it is my favorite child-portrait lens, capturing baby and child skin perfectly. I never have gotten around to using the macro capability. The 180 is my favorite adult portrait lens, although its length makes for some tight head shots or long working distances at times, especially with more than one subject. But the light! Did I mention I mainly photograph people? You won't be disappointed with the 105, and the macro function is just gravy.

-- Mark Hubbard (hubbard@humboldt1.com), January 28, 1999.

I just ordered the 105/2.8 Macro. Five minutes ago! 8-)

Taking pictures of the sunset last night brought home the need for a lense in the 200mm or 300 mm length to fill the frame with the sun. But this 105/2.8 cost me, not only the price of the lense, but a short ski trip for the wife! I forgot to factor that into the price/perfomance equation or I would have gone for the 80-200 zoom! 8-)

Thanks for the info. Dan

-- Dan McCarty (dmccarty@us.ibm.com), January 28, 1999.