Talk:List of Nikon F-mount lenses with integrated autofocus motor

First Version
Mainly used D40/x/D60 Club Wiki: List of Autofocus-Compatible Lenses to create this list. This page is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows copying and editing.

Changed and expanded.

Hopefully there are authors that help to complete this list. Wispanow (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What about non-zooms?
Almost every item in the list is a zoom. Are there really so few non-zooms in this category? 72.229.58.135 (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at telephoto + macro. Wispanow (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

F-number notation
Should the F-number notation be changed from "1:xx" to "f/xx"? Because I think that "f/xx" is generally more widely accepted and recognisable than "1:xx".  [SCΛRECROW] CrossCom 2.0 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. I had the 1: in mind, but f/ is more common. Thanks for adding lenses. The new 24mm is probably especially for the D3x. (As a detail-peeping megapixel-fan i am desperately waiting for the D700x.) Wispanow (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. (There are rumours that there will be a new FX format DSLR, but we will see.) I'll change the notation, unless you are in the process of doing so.  [SCΛRECROW] CrossCom 2.0 12:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be glad if you will do the work. Wispanow (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger. Done.  [SCΛRECROW] CrossCom 2.0 12:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lens review - Price/Performance ratio
Some guys asked me, which lens i recommend. Data comes from a not realized project and are mostly measured with Kodak 14nx and D300, partly with added teleconverters to increase resolution. Generally:
 * 1) Fixed lenses are normally better in image quality then zooms and have always the top position - with the Nikon 14-24mm and the 70-200mm 2.8 VR II as remarkable exceptions.
 * 2) There are NO cheap (below $2000) Supertele lenses with good image-quality (i haven´t seen anything about the new Sigma 50-500mm OS yet). Try the Nikon 70-300mm VR with Nikon TC-E II/III or Kenko Pro 300 DGX Teleconverters instead (C-D image quality with 1.4x, D- image quality with Kenko 2x). Or the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR II with the Nikon Teleconverter TC-20E III (not really cheap, but B-C image quality and variable). Cheapest supertele with satisfying quality is the Nikon 80-400mm D VR. Acceptable quality delivers the Sigma 80-400mm OS. Additional: 4 Ways to 400mm.
 * 3) Super-wide lenses have mostly poor image quality - with the Nikon 14-24mm as the most remarkable exception.

Chosen Image Quality Categories

 * Sharpness:
 * A image quality: At an aperture of max. f4: >24 MPixel resolution borders and >48 MPixel resolution center
 * B image quality: At optimum aperture (around f5.6, maximum f8): >16 MPixel resolution borders and >36 MPixel resolution center
 * C image quality: At optimum aperture (f5.6-f8, maximum f11): >8 MPixel resolution borders and >24 MPixel resolution center
 * D image quality: At optimum aperture (f8-f11): >4 MPixel resolution borders and >12 MPixel resolution center. Minimum 1 MPixel in the corners.
 * F image quality: At optimum aperture (f11-f16): Quality not fully satisfying for 4"x6" (10x15cm) prints or a XGA 1024x768 screen (not zoomed).
 * Vignetting and chromatic aberration valuated too, but seen of minor importance.

Lenses with exceptional or very good Price/Performance ratio

 * Nikon 70-300mm VR: B image quality at a low price. A Must for high quality DX or lightweight FX shooters. >200mm: C quality.
 * Nikon 18-105mm VR DX: B- image quality at a very low price. The highest quality "Super-zoom" (27-158mm), and one of the cheapest too.
 * Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 VC Di II: B image quality at a low price. A- image quality for non-VC version. Good for indoor available light photography. Gives D3 feeling to D5000/D90/D300 owners.
 * Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR II: A image quality at a medium price. Outstanding but not cheap.
 * Nikon 18-55mm VR DX: C- image quality, only interesting if bought in a package with a cam at a extremely low price.
 * Nikon 55-200mm VR DX: C+ image quality at a very low price. Extremely low price achievable in a package with a cam and the 18-55mm VR DX.
 * Nikon 14-24mm: A- image quality at a medium price. Outstanding but not cheap.
 * Sigma 70mm 2.8 EX DG Macro: A+ image quality at a low price. No AF-motor.
 * Nikon 50mm 1.8D: A- image quality at an extremely low price. No AF-motor.
 * Nikon 35mm 1.8G: A- image quality at a very low price.
 * Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR Micro: A-B image quality at a low price
 * Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro: A image quality at a low price
 * Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro: A- image quality at a low price
 * Nikon 60mm 2.8G: A- image quality at a low price
 * Nikon 85mm 1.8D: A- image quality at a low price. No AF-motor.
 * Nikon 24mm f/2.8D: B+ image quality at a low price. No AF-motor.
 * Nikon 28mm f/2.8D: B+ image quality at a low price. No AF-motor.
 * Nikon Teleconverter TC-20E III: B image quality with A+ lens at a low price
 * Kenko Teleplus PRO 300 AF DGX 1.4x und 2.0x: C+ image quality with A+ lens at a very low price.

Remarkable Lenses with good Price/Performance ratio

 * Tamron 28-300mm VC: C image quality at a low price: Far better than the Nikon 24-120mm VR. >200mm: D- quality.
 * Tamron 18-270mm VC Di II: C- image quality at a low price. >200mm: D quality. Heavy chromatic aberrations (use Nikon C-MOS sensor correction), lack of contrast, but quite sharp (better than the old Nikon 18-200mm VR).
 * Nikon 18-200mm VR II DX: C image quality at a low price. Not measured by me.
 * Nikon 16-85mm VR DX: B- image quality at a low price
 * Sigma 18-50mm 2.8-4.5 DC OS: C+ image quality at a very low price. Not measured by me.
 * Nikon 200mm 2.0 VR: A+ image quality at a high price
 * Nikon 300mm 2.8 VR: A+ image quality at a very high price. Not measured by me, but by friendly professionals i trust.
 * Nikon 400mm 2.8 VR: A image quality at a very high price
 * Nikon 600mm 4.0 VR: A image quality at a very high price
 * Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 DX: B-C image quality at a low price. No AF-motor. The highest quality Ultra-wide for DX.
 * Tamron 11-18mm DX: D+ image quality at a very low price. No AF-motor.
 * Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG: D- image quality at a low price. The widest FX lens. C- image quality at DX.
 * Sigma 10-20mm 3.5 DX: C+ image quality at a low price
 * Nikon 10-24mm DX: C image quality at a medium price
 * Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5: D- image quality at a extremely low price. No AF-motor.
 * Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4: D+ image quality at a low price. No AF-motor.
 * Nikon 18-35mm 3.5-4.5 D: C image quality at a low price. No AF-motor.
 * Nikon 16-35mm VR: B image quality at a medium price
 * Nikon 20mm f/2.8D: B- image quality at a low price. No AF-motor.
 * Nikon 50mm 1.4G: A- image quality at a low price
 * Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 AF Di LD Macro A17NII: C image quality at an extremely low price. >200mm: D+ quality.

Remarkable Lenses with full satisfying Price/Performance ratio

 * Nikon 200-400mm 4.0 VR: A-B image quality at a very high price. Good contrast and generally nice images, but only B sharpness.
 * Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 DX: D image quality at a low price
 * Tamron 10-24mm Di II: D- image quality at a low price
 * Sigma 80-400mm OS: C+ image quality at a low price. Only D+ quality >300mm.
 * Nikon 80-400mm VR: B image quality at a medium price. Only C quality >300mm. No AF-motor.
 * Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G: A-B image quality at a medium price
 * Nikon 24-85mm 2.8-4: B image quality at a medium price
 * Nikon 18-200mm VR DX: C- image quality at a low price. Only D+ quality >130mm.
 * Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8: C image quality at a low price.

Annoying / disappointing lenses

 * Nikon 24-120mm VR: F+ image quality at a low price. Together with the 70-300mm D by far the worst lens Nikon has produced in the last 2 decades. Usable for 4"x6" (10x15cm) prints.
 * Nikon 70-300mm D and G: F+ image quality at a extremely low price. Usable for 4"x6" (10x15cm) prints.
 * Sigma 18-200mm DC OS: D-F image quality at a low price
 * Sigma 50-500mm: C image quality at a medium price. Only D quality >300mm. Only D-F quality >400mm.
 * Sigma 120-400mm OS: C image quality at a low price. Only D-F quality >300mm.
 * Sigma 150-500mm OS: C- image quality at a low price. Only F+ quality >300mm. Only F quality >400mm.

Not reviewed but probably interesting

 * Sigma 50-500mm OS: new lens
 * Sigma 8-16mm: new lens
 * Tamron 70-300mm VC: new lens
 * Tokina 80-400mm: No VR, no AF-motor, but cheap.

Lenses not listed are mostly valuated as not interesting because other lenses giving better price/performance ratio. Wispanow (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While people may find this useful, this list probably doesn't belong here per NOT and NOT. Consider moving this to your user page.  SCΛRECROW CrossCom 04:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although you are right, that this is a sort of useful essay with original research, this is not an article, but a talk page. And it relates to the article. Though it belongs here.
 * It is not planed to make an article about that, because its original research. I planed to built a domain with reviews about lenses and cameras. But it will take a lot of time and work, to earn money with that. So i stopped it. But some people asked me not to throw away the work done. So here is a summary.
 * Additionally it helps here more than on my user page, which is not the place where i want it. Hope you can accept that. Wispanow (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem. Just a suggestion. :)  SCΛRECROW CrossCom 11:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say thanks for putting this here - I'm constantly referring to it to help my used lens buying choices. Many reviews don't take price into account, and the D600 + D800 sensors have changed the game on resolution, if not value-for-money ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

18-200
18-200 VR and 18-200 VRII are optically identical and have identical MTF charts, so it is strange to see different image quality values assigned to them. --One half 3544 (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My Data is nearly two years old. So i did not measured the new VR II. One reason i started the project was that i noticed differences between MTF data by manufactureres, independent reviewers and even between those independent reviewers. Additionally i see until today, nobody gives a clear overview of the quality of lenses. My measurements showed that Slrgear.com and Dpreview can nearly always trusted, and Photozone delivers mostly correct data. As you can see, i am focusing mainly on sharpness, as new Nikon cameras correct most chromatic abberations, and other errors can be more or less easily corrected, too (But high vignetting is annoying).


 * Now to your question: You are right, Nikon publishes the same MTF charts and the same number of lenses. The difference is hidden in a single line of the press announcement: "Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) adopted" !!!


 * Refraction always takes place at the surface of lenses. So if you change the surface - and Nikon thinks its SIC is working - you are changing the refraction. Due to the 16 lenses "monster" even slightest changes in refraction will need a new calculation of the whole lens, if you want anything more than something i call F quality. Its like playing a billiard-ball over 12 cushions (lens groups). Therefore:


 * 1) So also the lens looks mechanically identical, it is surely an absolutely new optical construction!
 * 2) Also i have not measured this lens by myself, i have viewed a lot data to be sure that there are not only changes, but improvements. See for example Slrgear: and, a reviewer which delivers reliable data.
 * 3) Don´t trust MTF charts from ANY manufacturer. In best case it can give some rough ideas about the lens. Wispanow (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Original 18-200 has both VRII and SIC. See official tech specs for original 18-200 and new 18-200. The only difference is the addition of zoom lock.--One half 3544 (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) adopted". That does mean, that one or some of the 16 lenses had no SIC or different SIC coating. I try to recognize reality, and measurements say that this lens is different, improved. You are free to present your own measurements. Take special care of the area above 100mm. Wispanow (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikitabled
I've introduced a sortable wikitable for the lenses, with the idea that it may be easier for users to parse without the colors/underscores/whatever to communicate attributes. We can change it around as needed, or delete it if people don't like it. The reason for sorting is so that people can decide what they're interested in. That is, once filled-out, there will be a list of all makes, all models, all attributes, and a user can sort on whatever they like. If they don't care about the make, they can sort on length, or type, or attributes, date range, or even whether we've provided an image. Comments? - Denimadept (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Due to a request to not develop this table in the article, I've moved it to User:Denimadept/List of lenses. Please contribute there.  I very much welcome help in doing this!  The columns are not in concrete, the data is incomplete, etc..  If you feel it's worth doing, please help.  If you don't, please say so on the sandbox article's Talk page.  This was originally brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography. - Denimadept (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the table. I think it is worth doing.  There are two features that could be added: whether or not it has a distance scale and whether or not it has a metal mounting ring.  (The first is more important than the second.)  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

zoom vs. prime
I like the idea of the table, but if that isn't going to happen, I think that the subsections that have both zooms and primes (such as "wide-angle") should be subdivided accordingly. That is:

Zoom

 * AF-S DX 10-24mm 3.5-4.5G ED
 * AF-S DX 12-24mm 4G IF-ED
 * AF-S 14-24mm 2.8G IF-ED
 * AF-S 16-35mm 4G ED VR
 * AF-S 17-35mm 2.8D IF-ED
 * AF-S 18-35mm 3.5-4.5G ED

Prime

 * AF-S 20mm 1.8G ED
 * AF-S 24mm 1.4G ED
 * AF-S 28mm 1.8G

Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

✅ Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Underscores?
What do the underscores that are not links indicate? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If they don't indicate anything, they need to be removed. If they indicate something, then it needs to be changed to something else so they won't look like links to articles.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

recent changes in section titles
1. Why is the number of lenses by each maker needed in the section title?

2. Since this number changes, I think it is a bad idea to put it in the section title, because if another article links to the section title, and the title changes because a new lens is introduced, that will break the link. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

When did these lenses appear?
When did these lenses first appear? I assume it was in November 2006, along with the D40. This should be in the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigma lenses without "HSM" in this list?
Some of the Sigma lenses listed here don't carry the "HSM" designation indicating some kind of hypersonic auto-focus motor in the lens. I'm not particularly familiar with Sigma lenses for Nikon, but have there been Sigma lenses with (other types of) in-lens AF motors not indicated by the HSM designation? If yes, the lens names in the list are probably incomplete. If not, some of the lenses marked with "???" don't seem to belong here and should be removed. I hope someone more familiar with "Sigma for Nikon" can sort this out. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with some of them, but not all of them in general. I believe the ones marked with "???" do have the motor, even if HSM isn't in the name, but I'm not certain.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's exactly what needs to be checked. ;-) At least for "Sigma lenses for A-mount", all lenses with built-in motors ever produced by them carry the HSM designation, without any exceptions. I just don't know if this can be translated to "Sigma with F-mount" or not.
 * In case there would be Sigma lenses for F-mount with built-in motors but without HSM designation, how can they be distinguished from lenses with screw-drive AF? If there are several variants under the same name, we should try and research the actual model or part numbers (as I did for the Tamron lenses, already). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone added these Sigma lenses in there before I had anything to do with this article and I'm not familiar enough with them. But, for instance, the first one with "??" is the 800mm, and Sigma lists it as "HSM". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Nikon F-mount lenses with integrated autofocus motor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/60vYLTlKn?url=http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-lens-chart to http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-lens-chart
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126044434/http://www.kenkoglobal.com/teleplus.html to http://www.kenkoglobal.com/teleplus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)