Nikon Holy Trinity

[hamlet]

If you want your lenses to withstand rough usage, then these are the lenses for you. They are built to outlive all your other equipment and shine in performance.

 

[D-B-J]

If you want your lenses to withstand rough usage, then these are the lenses for you. They are built to outlive all your other equipment and shine in performance.

I think my 85 1.8G is better @ 2.8 than ANY 70/80-200 @85 and f2.8. While I agree they are built like tanks, I don't think they will outshine all other lenses in perfomance.

 

[PaulWog]

24-85 mm f/2.8-4D make sense on a DX body?
I really like and use the 1:2 macro capability it has from 35 mm to 85 mm.
I use the lens on a D50 and a D200 - both DX cameras.

Yes the 2 AF-D lenses would be manual AF - except when on the Nikon D1, D1x, D1H, D2H, D2X, D2HS, D2XS, D3, D3s, D3X, D4, D4S, D50, D70, D70s, D80, D90, D100, D200, D300, D300s, D600, D610, D700, D750, D800, D800E, D810, D7000, D7100.

The only Nikon DSLRs ever made (so far) without an AF motor in the camera is a much shorter list - D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D3300, D5000, D5100, D5200, D5300 - All of Nikon's lower entry-level tier of compact DSLRs.

Well, a "holy trinity" is supposed to basically cover you from ultra wide to telephoto, basically 14-200mm full frame equivalent, give or take a few mm. Holy budget trinities on FX tend to be f4... so 16-35mm f4, any decent 24-XX f4, and a 70-200 f4. The regular holy trinities are comprised of f2.8 lenses. On a crop sensor, an f2.8-f4 lens is going to provide a depth of field equivalent to an f4.2-f6 lens. Not a really convenient aperture range to work with. One could say it's still a good lens and those apertures could be fine, but I'm not convinced that it would qualify as a holy trinity piece... just based on what I understand the holy trinity to mean (that is, a convenient range both in speed and in width&reach).

As far as manual focus goes, that's fine on FX. On DX, if we're talking about budget, then why would we list the D1, D1x, D1H, D70, D80, 90... etc. No one in their right mind should be picking up and shooting half of the cameras listed. If someone is on a budget, they'll likely be shooting with a D7000, D7100, D5200... something like that, depending on whether they're an amateur or not. If they have a D7000 or a D7100, then the list makes a fair bit of sense (albeit, I still don't think the 24-85 fits in a DX trinity bag). But if someone is shooting with FX, then the 12-24 I just don't think makes sense as anyone's go-to ultra wide angle... maybe I'm wrong on that.

Basically the short of it is this:
If a trinity is for DX, I think the 24-85 is kind-of an iffy choice, and if someone is on a budget, it could depend on whether they have a focus motor.
If a trinity is for FX, I think the 12-24 DX lens doesn't make sense.

I would think a budget DX trinity would comprise itself of the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, Sigma 17-50 f2.8, and then the same 80-200 mentioned (or Sigma 50-150).
I would think a budget FX trinity could range immensely more and would look like what you mentioned, save for the 12-24.

 

[4rum]

Read through a lot of this. Good solid information but I ams soooo out of my league here.... going to my room now ...

 

[480sparky]

Read through a lot of this. Good solid information but I ams soooo out of my league here.... going to my room now ...

You should be grabbing a camera and going out to shoot something instead.

 

[sonicbuffalo]

I had the Holy Trinity and they were great lenses. I sold them all and all of my Nikon gear to go full frame with a mirrorless Sony A7. My thoughts are such that the Trinity lenses are humongous and heavy. They take great pictures, and I hated to let them go. My problem is that I like to travel, and my wife and I are going to Germany and much of Europe next year. I didn't want to lug all that heavy gear around on jets, and walking to some great site seeing. I just decided that a A7 would give me much more flexibility. For those who want real top notch professional gear and don't mind lugging the gear, the Holy Trinity has no match. Great glass!

By the way, I bought all that glass used, but in excellent condition, so I didn't take a real beating when I sold it.

 

[hamlet]

If you want your lenses to withstand rough usage, then these are the lenses for you. They are built to outlive all your other equipment and shine in performance.

I think my 85 1.8G is better @ 2.8 than ANY 70/80-200 @85 and f2.8. While I agree they are built like tanks, I don't think they will outshine all other lenses in perfomance.

You say that now, but what if you find yourself in a zombie apocalypse with no running water or electricity? You are gonna wish you has your holy trinity then.

 

[shadowlands]

Since I'm poor, I did a "previous generation" type of Holy Trinity....

Nikon AF 20-35mm f2.8
Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f2.8
Nikon AF 80-200mm f2.8

 

[ruifo]

My Trinity is:

• Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G IF ED
• Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D
• Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD

 

[Vince.1551]

I love the 18-35 G lens. I find it sharper then the 14-24 anytime. It's one of the most underrated lens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JimMcClain]

A lot of interesting comments on these lenses. My biggest concern is sharpness of the lens. Neither of my current lenses will open up more than f/3.5 and that hasn't seemed to be a problem, so far. I think a couple of times I was hoping for slightly better, but because I make mostly landscape pictures, most of my pictures are in the f/7.1 - 11 range.

I'm hoping to get the D750. Only one of my lenses is an FX, the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G, so I had been thinking of getting either the 14-24 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8 soon after getting the D750 in order to sell my D5300 and my 16-85mm 3.5 DX lens to recoop some of the expense. I use the 16-85 more than the 70-300. It's a pretty good lens, but not as sharp as I wish it was. Neither is the 70-300, but replacing that lens will have to wait a while.

So, not a lot has been said about sharpness. That's a higher priority to me than cost (within reason). I was under the assumption that all of the lenses in the so-called Holy Trinity are sharper than just about any other zoom lens available from Nikon (and all the reviews comparing them with other brands like Sigma, et al, indicate the Nikons are all sharper).

Jim

 

[ruifo]

Jim, here is DxoMark ranking on the sharpest zoom lenses for the D610 sensor (as the ranking list for the D750 is not yet available). The ranking is based on Dxo sharpness rating, measured on P-Mpix (Perceptual MegaPixel), intended to express the resolution of which a combination of camera and lens is capable, being the maximum result for the D610 and the D750 24 P-Mpix, given its 24 mpix sensor.

Lens scoring versus Optical Metrics - DxOMark

1. 20 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR
   
2. 19 P-Mpix: Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM S Nikon
   
3. 19 P-Mpix: Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Nikon
   
4. 19 P-Mpix: Sigma APO 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Nikon
   
5. 18 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
   
6. 17 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II
   
7. 17 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
   
8. 16 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED
   
9. 16 P-Mpix: Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD Nikon
   
10. 16 P-Mpix: Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM Nikon
    
11. 15 P-Mpix: Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Nikon
    
12. 15 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
    
13. 15 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
    
14. 15 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED
    
15. 15 P-Mpix: Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM Nikon
    
16. 15 P-Mpix: Tokina AT-X 16-28 F2.8 PRO FX Nikon
    
17. 14 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
    
18. 14 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED
    
19. 14 P-Mpix: Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO HSM Nikon
    
20. 13 P-Mpix: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

 

[Vince.1551]

I think #18 is this non vr version (f2,8-f4) I think


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[goodguy]

Dont buy into all this Trinity titles, buy the lenses you need and will use.
For some prime lenses is the answer and for some zoom will be just fine.
To get top quality results primes cant be beaten, if a photographer doesn't want to compromise then primes are the way to go, all zoom lenses are compromise but the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 bring serious capabilities with a huge amount of flexibility (and size and weight LOL), not as good as primes but still very, very good performance.
At one time I was considering to go with primes but eventually decided to go with Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 and Tamaron 70-200mm 2.8 and I am very glad I did.

 

[astroNikon]

If you want your lenses to withstand rough usage, then these are the lenses for you. They are built to outlive all your other equipment and shine in performance.

I think my 85 1.8G is better @ 2.8 than ANY 70/80-200 @85 and f2.8. While I agree they are built like tanks, I don't think they will outshine all other lenses in perfomance.

yeah but the 80-200 is better from 80 to 84 and 86 to 200 than the 85