🤔 ALL NIKKOR LENSES: The short review. Part 1

🤔 ALL NIKKOR LENSES: The short review. Part 1
IF YOU LIKE THESE VIDEOS, YOU CAN MAKE A SMALL DONATION VIA PAYPAL LINK HERE: www.paypal.com...
(paypal email: [e-mail])
PATREON: / angryphotographer
Join me on INSTAGRAM at: / officialangryphotographer

[@Notblind808]

"The lens is the answer to a question nobody was asking." Not only good advice, but ALWAYS fucking amazing one liners.

[@herbmailey2779]

Absolutely Brilliant - "Crustier than a Petrified Turd" I choked on my coffee PMSL!!

[@phillyBeats]

I give an A+ on all your lens recommendations! Ive got the 80-200mm 2.8d, 105mm DC, 60mm 2.8d, 35-70mm 2.8d, 20-35mm 2.8d and 135mm 2.8ais!!! Purchased all of your recommendations and couldn't be happier!

[@mikedeloye8060]

The answer to the question that nobody was asking priceless and you wonder why I watch you everyday

[@debbricault9350]

I could watch this over and over ... probably my 10th time watching. And yes, I do have a life (I can multi-task). My personal favorite is the thrashing of the 24-120m f/4.

[@flynnleonel2658]

You probably dont give a damn but does someone know of a trick to log back into an Instagram account..? I stupidly forgot the account password. I appreciate any tips you can give me.

[@elishaedison3807]

@Flynn Leonel instablaster ;)

[@fotomats8651]

The 24-120 F4 VR is also the Kit-Lens for the new D850 and it's awesome!

[@Zuko_plays]

You saved me. 50 1.8D, 85 1.8 G, 70-300 VR.

[@scljr1987]

Replaced my 50 1.8D with the Tamron 45 1.8 what a lens!! glad I did

[@tubularificationed]

The stabilized Tamron SP primes have horrible bokeh though ;)

[@scljr1987]

So far I am very pleased with all my Tamrons (all new style) Very sharp and pleasing bokeh. To each his own I guess. If it produces a good image for the individual then it works : )

[@tubularificationed]

Let me apologise if I was a bit too harsh with the bokeh. "horrible" is exaggerated. I remember bokeh example pictures which didn't satisfy me, when I was evaluating one of the SP primes for myself. Tip: Good bokeh doesn't show off if your forecround object is only an arm's length away. Every lens is kind-of-good then, event the cheapes kit zoom ;) Try simulating people photography with serious distances to the person (one which is appropriate and typical for the focal length in question). Wider-angle means eg. a full-body motiv like in fashion photography. Look out for just those example pictures (which are much harder to find then the usual close-distance ones, where a flower petal is photographed, or something small on the desk in front of the camera).

[@kzr83]

Ken, great summary, thank you, and I'm loving the analogies -- LMAO! ^_^

[@chirag4]

"Crustier than a Petrified Turd" ; Stephen Hawking in a basketball game ; Dead smashed lizard in a door jamb ; LOOOOOL

[@quicktastic]

I was skeptical when I bought the 200-500 because it seemed so cheap that it had to be awful. I couldn't resist giving it a shot. I have loved it. I got some eagle shots with it that were pretty amazing. It's the first zoom lens I think I have ever liked.

[@lamwp8634]

Your comment at 10:35 "Here is another awesome lens 70-300 G lens, give it an A" is absolutely true though it may sound casually commented without much thought since you were doing the review quickly. I must say it delivers sterling performance that I can never forget. I was shooting with D5100 the two painters on the gondola repainting the external walls of a hotel. They were at 4th storey, about 50-100m from me. I zoomed in 300mm. In post processing, I couldn't believe what I saw - one of the painters actually had a cigarette sticking out from his mouth! I did not notice this while shooting. The lens full description Nikkor 70-300 1/4.5-1/5.6 G VR, made in Thailand for viewers who may want to buy. I bought it used almost four years ago. I use it mainly for sports and action, and far away subjects. The VR really works.

[@TNMYcFan182]

I'm dying XD this is fantastic.

[@chrngeo]

I’m amateur photographer and I agree with your opinion for Nikkor 16-35mm and Nikkor 18-105mm on my D7000, Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 G which is excellent on my D7000 but have some (to a lot) distortion on my D750. I disagree with Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 G which I find it better than my older (not autofocus) Nikkor 50mm F/2 AI (from my old Nikon FM) and it cost me new, only 230 euros. If I hear your… craptasticly craptastic comments well, the whole part I list is... Nikkor 10=24mm DX the new Tamron is cheaper and it’s better made! Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 DX sucks. Distortion issues vignetting issues, not that sharp Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 way overpriced, has been superseded by the Tamron Nikkor 14-24mm amazing lens get an A+. I still would recommend the Tamron 15-30mm Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 EDIF is the herpes of optics! I would not recommend in any way. Nikkor 18-35mm G really lightweight, it’s sharp, tougher than woodpecker lips! Epic tits! A+ Nikkor 16-80mm sucks. With the 16-85 are useless as the Pope’s testicles! Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 EDIF for DX absolute tits, Absolute finest value for your camera period. A+ Nikkor 18-105mm another piece of crap Nikkor 18-55mm crap plastic lens with this crap plastic mounrt. Craptasticly craptastic! Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR garbage lens. Crap. Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 EDII another piece of crap. Nikkor 18-200mm VR II it’s a good lens, B+ to an A. Nikkor 18-300mm absolute turd lens useless as an 80 year old hooker. Total garbage lens. Nikkor 24-85mm G series VR. Absolutely the cat’s ass, great glass, great stuff. Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6 DX lens piece of total crap. Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D series, not to be confuses with the G series, it’s a piece of crap. Nikkor 24-120mm f/4 it’ s horrible, it’s abysmal, it’s obnoxious as the bright purple butt of a baboon! Nikkor 28-300mm it’s actually a really good lens. A to A+ its awesome! Nikkor 24-70mm VR. It’s a piece of crap. Get the old 24-70mm f/2.8 it’s sharper, A Nikkor 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 VR II another piece of a total crap. It sucks. F- Nikkor 55-200mm EDIF the older, even crappier than the new one. Nikkor 55-300mm another total piece of crap. Nikkor 70-300mm G series an awesome lens! Absolutely excellent! Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 D series, the toughest woodpecker lips! Built like a tank, made in Japan. Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR III A to A+ but I don’t recommend buying it’s obnoxiously expensive. Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 crap, overpriced junky miserable piss ass waste of money. Nikkor 80-400mm this lens is a pile of poo. F- screw that lens entirely. Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 VR II overpriced, it’s junk, total piss waste! Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 VR it’s just awesome! The cat’s ass, the bee’s knees etc Buy it! Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 it sucks. Nikkor 20mm - listen closely - f/2.8 absolutely sucks ass. Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 G awesome, absolutely epic, A+ lens. Nikkor 24mm f/1.4 G epic A+ Nikkor 24mm f/1.8 G epic A+ Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 D I give it a B it’s a good lens, it’s cheap and dirty and fast and small. Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 G B+ it’s good, it’s not awesome. Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 D it’s Ok gets another B. Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 G awesome gets an A+ Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 G epic, awesome gets an A+ this is the FX version. Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 G for DX it gets a B but it’s really really cheap. Nikkor 35mm f/2 D series, gets an A+ it’s really old but it’s incredible perfect design. Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 G it’s awesome but for me it’s a B instead of a B+ Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 D it’s an A and I started an A+ I mean it’s really really cheap. Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 G special edition, there’s no way in hell you should buy that lens. Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D series, its tiny, it’s lightweight, it’s really really cheap, it’s awesome! Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 G B+ to A a specialized lens with incredible bokeh, perfect for DX portraiture. Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 G it’s pissy, total waste of money, I give it a C- Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 G awesome, it’s sharper, it renders better, it’s a better lens. Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 D the epic tatas of the lenses for portraiture. Epic absolutely awesome. Nikkor 200mm f/2 it costs more than a good used Chevy. Don’t like it. I hate it. I give if an F. Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC the best portrait lens on planet Earth. Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC A+.

[@axmarr8132]

Stephen Hawkins at a basketball game? Dude! Too soon bro! Lmao😂😂😂😂

[@gabrielg1003]

Awesome EPIC summary! A great video to update my Ken's recommended lenses to buy file... that didn't disappoint me yet! (Refurb. D7100, 70-300, 17-55, 80-200, voigt 58, 135 f/3.5, D700). Many thanks!

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

I have slammed the 80-200mm f/2.8D for its poor sharpness focused at headshot distance and at 200mm f/2.8. While I have not changed my opinion on portraits, I find this lens useful for focus stacking stopped down to f/8. Its old focus ring is directly correlated to distance, making it easy to use unlike the newer G or E series lenses, and a hell lot better than the Sony G Master lens that uses focus by wire.

[@chirag4]

thanks for the valuable tip and info. even though i am a non-nikon guy.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

use the 80 200 on ugly people, its natural soft-focus

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Nikon can rename the lens 80-200mm with built-in frequency separation. LOL

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

You're right, and it's not for sports either. However, besides focus stacking I also use it at f/11 to get the sun stars. I didn't know about it before I bought the lens, and its sun stars are pretty pleasant looking.

[@paullittle8343]

"craptastically craptastic" I love it

[@seyranmammadov4988]

Ken, you should definitely continue your short review series💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼

[@Capcity44]

My favorite portrait lens is the 180mm f2.8. The colors, the subject isolation and more than enough sharpness. I prefer it over either of the DC's (I own the 105mm F2). Images convert beautifully to black & white. That lens shoots sunshine, butterflies, and rainbows.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

too true

[@russellwright9961]

Which version of the 180 F2.8 are you referring to?

[@isarcat1]

Really? Even better than the 135 2 DC? -- which I actually prefer over the 105, sorry Ken. Maybe because I've worked so hard learning how to use it right.

[@NickHey]

I'm gonna get this lens brochure and replay this video to write down good and bad lenses to get :)

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

hehehe!!!!!

[@thomas_tam]

The best video of all time.

[@frankiecalabro2617]

I’m dyin laughing about the 200mm f2 comment!!! Makes one wonder where he gets all his money from... what a waste. I think you were perfectly correct that it’s all about making money when you click their links they get a kickback... and that lens would be a very substantial one for sure . On your recommendation I got the 180mm... wow what a beautiful portrait lens!!!

[@shafhamid83]

I've got the 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 vr used since August 2017. Got it together with a new D7200 at that time. Since then I've been saving up to get a better mid range zoom and I finally got the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 vr which you've been praising as the best mid range zoom Nikon ever produced Now when you mentioned that the 24-85mm was the best mid range zoom, I was expecting it to be really good. The sharpness and contrast coming out of my D7200 for tbe 24-85mm was indeed good to great but comparing it to the crappy 16-85mm, it was not great by much. It is still better but the difference was not night and day I did a lot of test shots comparing focal length and aperture of the two where applicable and I can say from an IQ wise, casually comparing the two, you can't tell which is sharper. In terms of contrast, yes the 24-85mm is better but again not by much. Where the 24-85mm wins is definitely the aperture as it goes down to f4.5 at 85mm vs f5.6 for the 16-85mm therefore faster Now when you say both the 16-85mm and 16-80mm (which I have never use) suck and are crappy, why is it so? Is it solely because Nikon has priced them ridiculously expensive for what they are? Optically I don't think they're that bad at least for the 16-85mm. Do you secretly love them or are you trying to bring their used price down by saying shit about them?

[@helmutlotti1032]

Hi Ken! Thank you for this video! One question pls. Which lense would you recommend for astro photography (milky way)? A prime or a zoom? Thank you for your kind answer.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

prime.....its all about coma, however some zooms are used by others like the tamron 15 30

[@helmutlotti1032]

Can you recommend something wider than the 20mm F1.8?

[@davedemarco1743]

Nice job on the short review, very helpful. Thanks Ken

[@BraderGeoYT]

I own a d7200 & d5300(my first camera that's still working), mounting my 17-55dx 2.8 gives great output on both of those cameras.

[@codyl1992]

I don’t know why, but it’s so funny when you talk about the 18-140 and say “umm, garbage lens, no!” “Crustier than a petrified turd”. 😂😂😂

[@ravelg]

"the herpes of optics..." hahaha!

[@MrGWoodle]

Your catalog is too old for the AF-P DX 18-55 VR kit lens, AF-P DX 70-300 VR, AF-P 10-20 VR ? AF-P over the older AF-S?

[@_Corndawgg]

Wouldn’t get DX lenses, if you upgrade to full frame your lenses are paper weights

[@fredbrackely]

So many great quotes for t-shirts lol!

[@abhishekdparmar]

I have 24mm 2.8 Af How it compares with 18-35mm

[@jaymccloud676]

Great video Ken!

[@takashi0352]

It is a guide for the camera Christmas list for me!!!

[@RichardBO9]

Great. I bought a 16-35 just yesterday for my d800. I did this because I want to use filters, and there aren’t any good options for the 14-24 or Tamron 15-35. 😐

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

whoooops

[@isarcat1]

Honestly, I have one and I love mine. Yes, it has issues, but if you know how to use it, it's really versatile and actually sharp. Maybe I got lucky, who knows. That said, I know other photogs who like it.

[@RichardBO9]

Well, after using this lens a little, it’s not horrible, but I wish I hadn’t talked myself out of the 20mm 1.8G. The zoom seemed like it would be more useful. It has issues below 20mm so what’s the point. Oh well, live and learn. 😬😐

[@hazybrain7]

Gotta disagree with Ken on this one, I've bought a hell of a lot of lenses on his recommendations, but the output on the 16-35 is just fantastic for my tastes, sharp, but also the colors are amazing. Yes it's overpriced but I got mine used for a good price and I'm keeping it, great for screw on filters. which all the 2.8's are a pain in the ass... Just my 2 cents, and I use most wide angles at F8 and slower anyway.. who doesn't ?

[@josephmarcucilli8045]

10:18 - Hey, I used to own that lens (it came with my d3200 kit). It was a ok lens to get started, but the autofocus motor sounded like it was held together by rubber bands. Great review overall.👍

[@chargerGT1990]

24-120 user reporting in. Bought it in kit with the D750. I mean I know it's not the sharpest lens, and it has quite bad distortion. But it was big step up from the D3200 with 18-55, than the 18-105. And waaaaay better than the shitty apsc canon stuff i use for my job. Also have a 105 2.8, at least that got B+, it's a nice lens imo.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

its ok if you dont have a broader view of awesome glass :)

[@chargerGT1990]

Unfortunately I don't. But I'm doing my best to start building a decent set of lenses.

[@jimmyhinAK]

The Herpes of optics I can respect that!

[@philbraithwaite1316]

Got a 70-200 F4 and happy with it Ken. It was a second hand (mint condition) purchase. It's damn sharp and it's not as heavy as a house brick in the backpack. That's why I bought it. Will be interested to see what you think of the new Tamron 70-210 F4?

[@mautsukuda]

And is the 50 1.8G really THAT bad? It only has 6 elements in it right?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

its just not so great

[@onthemoverealestatephotogr9655]

I actually love my 50mm 1.8G...but I’m no expert.

[@fabriziocuollo4331]

Hello Sir, could you please explain better why you do not suggest the 50mm f1.8G? I'm new to photography and I'm learning stuff on the web, many reviews site tell that this is a very sharp lens. So then, what are the negative points of that lens in your opinion? Thank you, you're the best on youtube. I like your attitude, keep up the great work you make.

[@mautsukuda]

I think the Tamron 28-300 PZD is just as good and smaller and slightly lighter.

[@richardharvey1732]

Hi Ken, so far so good, seven lenses mentioned, five of them no good at all, two very good indeed, begins to make me think that my decision to stay with Fujifilm was a good one, given that I don't have your experience or resources to work my way through so much rubbish just to find what comes with fujinon lenses pretty much across the upper price range!. You didn't say whether the worst lenses are also very cheap, tho' some pricey ones are nasty. Cheers, Richard.

[@scottwanstall3449]

Dirty as an old naked man in a trench coat outside a kids school xD

[@lensineer]

Have to go and buy used lenses next time I am in the US.... if your prices are correct they are WAY cheaper than in Europe!!!

[@rickvenables7648]

Wow, you really crapped all over the Nikon F4s. I agree with you on the 24-120... I have that lens and pretty much always grab the much cheaper and lighter 24-85 VR. I love my 16-35 for landscapes, but conceede the distortion at the wide is pretty inexcusable (albeit easy to fix) - I do like that you can use filters. But what fault could you possibly find with the 70-200? It is easily as sharp as any 70-200 2.8, the VR is incredible (Tamron good), and it doesn't focus breathe the like the 2.8 VRII and both Tamron versions.

[@banditkiddy]

Hi Ken, Derek here in Scotland. When you recommend the 24-70 2.8 do you mean this one, Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G IF-ED And the other one you recommended, is this it ? Nikon AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED VR If not which one is it please. PS im a newby and watching your vids and following your recommendations.

[@ninoliberatore1491]

Ken if you could find the f4 200-400 mm nikon at the right price , is it worth it thanks

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

for $600 or less......

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

I would buy 10 copies if I see a store selling it for $600

[@scljr1987]

Love it all!

[@ryanstark2350]

It looks like Nikon have made too many balls ups. I've been looking at longer focal length lenses and due to Nikon's balls up with these lenses allowing Canon to take over, it means there are numerous good long focal length Canon lenses second hand. I'm only interested in Nikon's old manual lenses to adapt even if some of these new ones are excellent. No aperture control? That is simply a way to cheapen manufacture. I don't like it. Fuji have that right.

[@terryrobinson4197]

Any funnier i'm gonna have to buy man nappies. Love it

[@dakzer55]

Yepp definitely more fun reviewing Nikon lenses 😂👍. Your recent Fujifilm reviews are credible, but way too serious 😆

[@rolandrick]

13:47, 200-500, I have it and it is not sharp. Specially at 500mm and at distances >40 or >50 meters or so. Had it already sent to Nikon twice to fix it. First time they returned it with a broken VR switch and somehow nothing was fixed at all (Nikon Switzerland). Second time the VR switch was fixed and the AF did no longer hunt that much. But at 500 mm at distances wider than those 50 meters, it’s like then lens wears glasses to see UNsharp. The Fujinon XF100-400 makes WAAAAAYYYYY better images on X-T2 and X-H1

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

defective copy

[@CameraMystique]

I have heard comments on this specific lens that you need to keep buying and returning it until you find a good copy. Bad copies are frequent. Usually the second is the lucky one. For others, the third. The best method is to have relationships with a local photo store that has enough stock, go there with your camera and laptop and try 4-5 copies and buy the best one. Another method is to rent a copy at the same time you buy one. There's no variations of these lens, it'll either be bad or good. But there are small variations among the bad ones. So, check the copy you bought against the copy you rented. If they perform exactly the same, they are both good. For this specific lens, I'm planning to buy three copies from different stores and rent one at the same time and compare them and send back the worse ones. It'll cost me $200 more in total (postage and rental), but it would cost me a lot more to discover defects down the road and depend on crappy Nikon service. I lost more than 20 hours in total and about $400 last year from two AF lenses that I didn't check immediately when I received them against another copy.

[@rolandrick]

Yeah, thanks for reply. That describes quite well the problem I am also facing.

[@bilalvoh]

ok so 28-300 or 70-300 and what should be the right price to pick them??

[@salforca]

😘loving your review Ken! Did you put your hands on the 28mm 1.4E ? Any good?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

yes i have, and i dont own it for good reason... :)

[@salforca]

Theoria Apophasis which is... ?

[@Bpjames]

Dumb question here, but why do own 6 of the 180mm. Besides the obvious quality of the lens for use, do you consider it an investment for future sale?

[@deingewissen_official]

Because he Ken

[@wasabi4alhazza]

Hi Ken Tamron 35mm 1.8 or the Nikon 35mm FX 1.8 G Which has better bokeh? Thanks

[@RodrigoAReyes95]

You destroyed the 35mm 1.8g fx lens before and now it gets a A+? What?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

the 35mm 1.4 G gets an A+ , not the 1.8G FX

[@RodrigoAReyes95]

Theoria Apophasis 15:21 after you gave the A+ to the 1.4 you said the 1.8g FX gets and A+ too

[@bobbarnes6713]

Looks like I should only use my !7-35mm 2.8 while wearing surgical gloves! lol had mine 6 years and love it! Although it has been in for repairs once at 550$ for sticky zoom ring!.

[@crxracer805]

Frogs don't have fur...

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

you dont get the expression

[@rachelg7371]

lol

[@indraneilbiswas]

lmao @ stephen hawking at a basketball game.

[@robert79051]

I know you shoot Nikon just wish someone would do something like this for canon

[@danieldelorme4021]

Ahaha! I love these efficient videos! :D

[@Madmikeedc]

What’s the best 35mm for D7100? Nikkor 35 1.8g fx vs 35mm f2d or Tammy 35mm, thanks

[@anonymousfellowindian]

If there was a doctorate on camera lenses, you would have got it decades ago.

[@davidm2189]

What about the 35 -70mm 2.8 D (with the macro yellow line) ? I have the 24 to 85 G 3.5-4.5 (no vr) is good as the vr version?

[@stephenjones7917]

I might get the 70-200 f/4 anyway. He says why others suck. But not this one. What r his reasons?...

[@dsrtfitphotography4310]

No, no, I have to disagree with you (for once) on the 18-35mm - it is not very sharp. It's OK when shooting subjects up close. It is not sharp when shooting landscape, anything above F8 is quite soft (of course there's a possibility that I have a bad copy). Nikon 14-24mm, or Tamron 15-30mm, I agree with you.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

its a travel lens, i said that.

[@rustinroy9911]

what about the older screw drive 18-35? Is it optically the same as the newer one?

[@jp3576]

Tell that to an eighty year old Jon.

[@JuanLopez-oz9kh]

Ken, what was this a Non sponsor Tamron ad? lol also, ebay profits just went up 10%

[@ChristerJohnUyChEUSLS]

will you try the new Tamron 70-210 f4?

[@CaptainLouis]

18-55 af-p VR is quite something. You sure you tried it ? ;0

[@RodrigoAReyes95]

No comments yet?

[@vangestelwijnen]

Do you have any of these lenses btw? You didn't mention it.

[@jp3576]

And thank you for the run down.

[@scottmcinnis8583]

how is the new version of 180

[@LK.]

What's a good deal for the 135 F2 DC? I've seen them for around $800-$900

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

$650

[@onthemoverealestatephotogr9655]

I love my 50mm 1.8G...

[@sven-olafrogowski6096]

Hi, i love your channel cause you recommended the tokina 100mm M, I bought it and it's freaking awesome, and everyone is like ohhh noo why didn't you choose the tamron 90mm its got ultrasonic drive you stupid !#/!@ hell i love it. Now i want to buy a Telephoto for wildlife and Portraits in equal Parts. I could get my hands on the tokina atx 340 AfII 100-300 f4 for 300 bucks. Did you ever test it? Im Kind of on a Budget and pictures of the nikkor 70-300 vr G i saw were looking good til 180mm but not so good at 300. Otherwise i will look for the AF 80-200 ed push pull or the 300 f4 ED. Hope you could help me out. Have a nice Day.

[@Avphoto3444]

my 70-300 needs to get fixed it vr motor is wrecked and the focus is weird and it starts shaking at about 135 mm which is where i shoot shoot it

[@nilankasampath4624]

thanks

[@arthurspooner6082]

you tell it as it is.

[@ARSAnalog]

14:23 Stephen Hawking just died less than a month ago... so, did you considere this?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

yes, and i despise him

[@ARSAnalog]

Theoria Apophasis but who puts a corpse on a basketball court?

[@mattgranger6044]

wonder who you were mentioning at 19:33

[@BareERaws]

I wouldn't have made the connection unless you commented XD

[@eoghanhennessy15]

Aren't you an American now? wink wink

[@fernandoopoka8269]

35mm 18.G FX A+??? whaaaaat you said that lens suck before.

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

its very cheap and nice......i dont own teh lens cause i both dont like it and i have countless far superior 35mm lenses (zeiss, 35mm 1.4G ....etc.) for most people it being good and very cheap its a good lens...............i hate it myself yes.

[@damianc80]

Omg your hilarious hahahaha

[@scottmcinnis8583]

you talk highly of 24 to 85 there are two versions a 3.5 and 2.8 besides stop differences????

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

the old version sucks

[@trygveklingenberg8256]

For once I shall have to disagree. I bought the first G-version in 2001 (I think) and it has travelled with me around the globe ever since and has provided excellent images all the time. I bought another two copies in 2006, - and they are still as good. The newer VR version provides very similar image quality (D3, D4, D850) and I dont need VR. So please sir, could you explain why you think the old version sucks...???

[@rydaug79]

18-35 G is great but not tougher than woodpecker lips

[@Andy205ro]

Do a best of the worse nikon lenses

[@jamessurber853]

Did you pass up a lens at 4:00?

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

no

[@azaelmartinez305]

Is the 17-55 2.8 Tamron it's on sale for $180 good vs $500 for the 17-55 2.8 Nikon.