One of the photography terms I dislike is “the holy trinity lenses.” It doesn’t raise my hackles quite like “nifty fifty” does, but it certainly suggests a fantasy of expectation. I just need the holy trinity, then I can finally start taking professional photos!
The idea behind the holy trinity of lenses is indeed a useful shorthand that refers to three zoom lenses that will handle most needs for photographers covering weddings and events. Three zoom lenses that can be found in the bags of many photojournalists. Three zoom lenses that when bought bargain grade stand a good chance of having sloppy zoom rings, oily apertures, squeaky focus motors, and surface finish that sandpaper can only approximate. These are lenses that go into war zones and press conferences.
Let’s take a look at the recent history of the holy trinity of lenses for Nikon users, since that’s all I know about. You’ll find similar items in the Canon and Sony worlds. Technical information can be found at Roland’s Nikon Pages, the best resource in the Solar System for finding the right lens hood to fit a 50mm Nikkor H·C. I have divided the following sections into rough eras based on certain camera introductions, but you’ll find much overlap in the real world. Why, I remember seeing a fellow shooting the 35-70mm on a D1H back in ’05; of course in those days a nickel would get you two sodas, a hot dog, and a pretzel at the county fair, and…
F4 Era (1988-1995)
AF Nikkor 20-35mm 1:2.8 D (1993)
AF Nikkor 35-70mm 1:2.8 D (1987 non-D, 1992 D)
AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8 D (1987 non-D, 1992 D, 1997 New D)
The 20-35mm was the first fast wide-angle zoom Nikkor, providing a range of focal lengths in one lens. Performance is said to suffer compared to the primes.
The 35-70mm is a compact fast normal zoom. It has a few quirks: the front thread rotates during focus, and the macro mode disconnects the autofocus gears. It’s a fun push-pull zoom that I’ve been able to use a few times. Wide open, it is a bit hazy, but edges are sharp, and bokeh at 70mm close shots is lovely.
The 80-200mm originated as a supersized manual focus lens in the late ’70s before appearing properly in 1982. The autofocus versions are much more svelte. The 1987 and ’92 versions are push-pull lenses. I’ve used the ’87 version a few times, and even on a high-end body the elements are slow to move for focus. It has a highly configurable focus limiter to help, but better performance comes in the later versions. I used a ’97 version many times over the decades, and that copy looked good even wide open. The ’97 version is notorious for its flimsy AF-MF switch that can break even without being abused. Most copies probably have hairline fractures on this part if they haven’t broken completely. Despite that, you’d find it in camera bags all over the place. It was hard to beat for the price. Even with the AF-MF ring broken, the lens would still work, but take care not to let the innards slip the wrong way, or that small-town daily you shoot for will have to fire two reporters to afford a new used lens with a slightly less broken AF-MF ring.
F5 Era (1995-1999)
AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1:2.8 D (1999)
AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm 1:2.8 D (1999)
AF-S Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8 D (1998)
The holy trinity gains in-lens focus motors, which provide quiet autofocus. I get a sense that the timing wasn’t quite working for Nikon in the ’90s, because these would have been killer as part of the F5 launch in ’95. For want of a nail…
A transitional period in the late ’90s, as Nikon is looking toward a future of ones and zeroes. The 17-35mm is designed with digital sensors in mind: more of a straight-line light path at the exit pupil for better coverage on the sensor. It thus serves duty as a “normal” zoom on APS-C sensors, acting like a 25-50mm f/4 lens on the D1 and D2 series.
The 35-70mm sees a massive upgrade in the 28-70mm, which is certainly a good deal more massive. The extra wide angle coverage is a big help and will pair nicely with the 17-35 for close event coverage. The focus motor may wear out; it’s a pretty common issue a quarter century later. Wide open at 28mm, image quality is OK. Not as sharp as the later versions, but there is a bit of veiling softness that can be lovely.
The AF-S 80-200mm had a short run. It’s on my list to try some day if I get a chance. The tripod foot and lens hood were both larger than the AF 80-200mm, which was an important consideration when comparing lenses on the sidelines at football games in those days. Faster autofocus performance is also a big deal here — I found the AF 80-200 (new D) to work pretty well, but slower in certain dark gyms.
D1 and D2 Era (1999-2007)
AF-S Nikkor 12-24mm 1:4 G (2003)
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1:2.8 G (2003)
AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8 G VR (2003)
The early digital era brings a bag of worms for Nikon: APS-C sensors. The 1.5x crop compared to 135 format is great for making that 200mm f/2.8 act like a 300mm f/4, but not so good when 28mm now feels like 50mm. If you were bringing a 17-35mm in, you were in decent shape for normal coverage, but 17mm turning into about 25mm is a big loss on the wide end.
The 12-24mm provided a close fix on the wide end (about equivalent to 135 format 18-36mm f/5.6). I cheaped out in those days with a Tokina 12-24mm, and had a lot of fun shooting wide landscapes. At the end of 2025, B&H still sold the Nikkor 12-24mm new. Not bad after more than 20 years.
The 17-55mm provided a similar fix at the normal end. About equivalent to 135 format 28-75mm f/4, this was a more useful set of focal lengths compared to the 17-35mm. I tried a used copy recently, and the focus motor still worked just fine, although the aperture blades needed a bit of CLA — they were slow to open up from f/22. Performance on that copy was iffy from side to side. Perhaps it had a gravity-ground issue at some point that knocked things out of alignment. Image quality from reviewers was generally positive in those days. One of the choice Nikkors for APS-C cameras in 2025 is the AF-S 16-80mm f/2.8-4 E (about equivalent to 135 format 24-120 f/4-5.6).
The 70-200mm was on every photographer’s wish list. It added a stabilizer, and with that Nikon was fully matched to what Canon was offering, and thus there was nothing left for photographers to argue about. I remember chatting with another photographer at a rodeo a couple years after this lens came out. He had one, and complained that the VR function was useless. My considered opinion was that he was perhaps a fool to expect magic because we were shooting night rodeo, and if you think a lens stabilizer can fix motion blur within the frame at 200mm and 1/100 second, I have some NFT artwork to sell you. This lens remains useful for APS-C cameras, but is less strong at the edges on 135 format cameras. A partial fix would appear in 2009.
D3 and D4 Era (2007-2016)
AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm 1:2.8 G (2007)
AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1:2.8 G (2007)
AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8 G VR II (2009)
The dawn of the 135 format era for Nikon came in 2007 with the D3, and with that Nikon was fully matched to what Canon was offering, and thus there was nothing left for photographers to argue about. With a great big sensor comes the need for some great big holy trinity updates, and they arrived about the same time as the D3. It was also around the mid-2000s that I started seeing the “holy trinity” phrase on the internet forums. It was truly a dark time for discourse.
The 14-24mm was an interesting update to the 17-35mm. A 3mm gain at the wide end, but an 11mm loss at the long end, this was quite simply focused on being a super-wide angle zoom. Compare the overlap between the 17-35mm and 28-70mm (and the 12-24mm and 17-55mm). These days the focal lengths are simple butt joints: 14-24mm and 24-70mm. I find the overlap preferable, but there you go. The lack of overlap would later be solved with the 16-35mm f/4, but that’s part of a different, less holy trinity. The 14-24mm has a giant curved front element, and no easy way to mount filters on the front. It remains in the F-mount lineup in 2025.
The 24-70mm introduces a more useful focal length range compared to the 28-70mm, and in a more svelte package. I’ve used one of these many times over the years, and a good copy will be a solid workhorse.
The 2009 revision of the 70-200mm cleans up edge sharpness compared to the 2003 version, but the big loss was the focal length. The optical design uses focus breathing, which means that at close distances, the long end is no longer 200mm; it’s less than 150mm. A partial fix would appear in 2016. But this version has one thing that new one doesn’t: a zoom ring near the mount!
D5 and D6 Era (2016-2025)
AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm 1:2.8 G (2007 … no change? No need!)
AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1:2.8 E VR (2015)
AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8 E VR (2016)
The 14-24mm remains in the lineup as a strong contender, but watch out, because something fun is on the horizon.
We find a new version of the 24-70mm, now with an electronically actuated aperture ring. More importantly, it has a stabilizer, which is almost as important for weekend photographers as having two memory card slots in the camera. With a stabilizer now in the lens, Nikon was fully matched to what Canon was offering, and thus there was nothing left for photographers to argue about. Word is that this version is sharper across the frame, but not quite as crisp in the center. We’re talking small degrees here. I would happily use either version.
With the Z mount quickly approaching, was Nikon too late in introducing another version of the 70-200mm? With endless screams about focal length breathing emanating from the internet forums, Nikon obviously had to do something. I think many of these mid-2010s lenses represent the early shift toward the principles that would come in the Z mount lineup. Word on the street is that this 70-200mm has much in common with the 2020 Z mount version. Having used that very Z mount version, I’m sure I would have no issues with this F mount version. However! Putting the zoom ring way out front is a disaster. It’s a serious compromise of good handling technique. I’ve had the same issue with the Tamron G2 70-200mm. These are all fine lenses, with little to ask in terms of optical quality, autofocus speed, and build, but they are just not comfortable to handle.
Z9 Era (2021-Present)
Z Nikkor 14-24mm 1:2.8 S (2020)
Z Nikkor 24-70mm 1:2.8 S (2019)
Z Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8 S VR (2020)
With a whole new lens mount comes a whole lot of new lenses, many of which take advantage of the shorter flange distance and larger mount diameter.
The 14-24mm loses the massive curved front element and lo, comes with a lens hood doohickey with filter threading. Extra large 112mm filters needed, but you’re all set out of the box. It even has a slot for gel filters around back. I’ve had a chance to use this, and it produces beautiful results.
The 24-70mm update is shorter than the earlier F mount versions, at least at 24mm. When zooming in toward 70mm, the front of the lens extends in a grotesque display reminiscent of much cheaper zooms. I’ve encountered this behavior in the Tamron G2 24-70mm, and don’t like it on that lens either. On the other more important hand, image quality is superb from edge to edge at f/2.8. Although my experience with the 2007 era 24-70mm leaves little wanting, I find this version to be a little bit more crisp in the fine details. So, the optics are great. The stabilizer also goes away in the Z line, but the 135 format bodies all have stabilizers at the sensor, so call it a wash. Will Nikon find anything to improve in six years?
Finally, the 70-200mm, as mentioned earlier, essentially takes the 2016 version and puts on a Z mount. The optical design is different, but the results I’ve seen from my use of this lens are just great. Any softness found in the old 80-200mm designs just isn’t present. As with the 24-70mm update in 2025, there is hope for handling improvements in the next iteration of the 70-200mm. But for anyone who spent the money on this version, it feels quite insulting to think that the only way to get the zoom ring in the correct spot will be to spend … three … thousand … dollars! Incredibly insulting.
Post Z9 Era (Post 2025)
Z Nikkor 14-24mm 1:2.8 S II (coming in … no, let’s predict something better!)
Z Nikkor 14-35mm 1:2.8 S (bring back overlapping focal lengths in 2027! I’m calling it!)
Z Nikkor 24-70mm 1:2.8 S II (2025)
Z Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8 S II (coming in 2026 or 2027?)
Where do we go from the Z9 era? Why, the sky’s the limit for the 70-200 line! I say that in the wake of the 24-70 II, which drops weight and internalizes the zooming movement. Who’d have thought that photographers enjoying their 2019 24-70mm lenses would so quickly find themselves jealous of the new model?
How do you improve the 2020 70-200mm? I’m going to make a silly prediction: built-in teleconverter. Though it’s truly dangerous territory, because I expect a baseline 70-200mm S II to be up at the $3,000 mark. Adding a teleconverter would probably make Nikon think they can charge $3,600 and we’ll line up like cultists. All right, at this focal length range and aperture, a built-in TC just isn't as useful as putting one in, say, a Z 200mm 1:2 S. Now that would be a good addition!
How Has the Holy Trinity Changed?
A short list of notable changes. Optical designs change in small and large ways, including coatings.
AF 20-35mm 1:2.8 D
AF-S 17-35mm 1:2.8 D (Wider wide end, internal focus motor)
AF-S 14-24mm 1:2.8 G (Wider wide end)
Z 14-24mm 1:2.8 S (Mount update)
AF 35-70mm 1:2.8
AF 35-70mm 1:2.8 D (D distance encoder)
AF-S 28-70mm 1:2.8 D (Wider wide end, internal focus motor, switch to 2-ring zoom/focus design, larger size)
AF-S 24-70mm 1:2.8 G (Wider wide end)
AF-S 24-70mm 1:2.8 E (Stabilizer, more precise aperture control)
Z 24-70mm 1:2.8 S (Mount update, size reduction at 24mm, stabilizer removed)
Z 24-70mm 1:2.8 S II (Size reduction, switch to internal zoom)
AF 80-200mm 1:2.8
AF 80-200mm 1:2.8 D (D distance encoder)
AF 80-200mm 1:2.8 D (Switch to 2-ring zoom/focus design, tripod foot)
AF-S 80-200mm 1:2.8 D (Internal focus motor)
AF-S 70-200mm 1:2.8 G (Wider wide end, stabilizer)
AF-S 70-200mm 1:2.8 G II (Optical formula adjustment)
AF-S 70-200mm 1:2.8 E (Optical formula adjustment, more precise aperture control)
Z 70-200mm 1:2.8 S (Mount update)
When Will the Holy Trinity Change?
Let's take a quick look at the timing between releases. Knowing the timing will help us predict when the next iteration of our favorite focal length range will appear. Pretend that tsunamis, financial crises, and civil unrest are not factors. Also ignore things like early/late year releases that skew the numbers. This is a broad view.
Wide Angle Zoom: 1993, 1999, 2003, 2007, 2020 …
+6, +4, +4, +13
Normal Zoom: 1987, 1992, 1999, 2007, 2015, 2019, 2025 …
+5, +7, +8, +8, +4, +6
Telephoto Zoom: 1987, 1992, 1998, 2003, 2009, 2016, 2020 …
+5, +7, +5, +6, +7, +4
Are There Other Holy Trinities?
Yes! The creative photographer should always look for strong lens combinations to set their art apart and explore new visions. For example:
Z 20mm 1:1.8 S
Z 24-120mm 1:4 S
Z 100-400mm 1:4.5-5.6 S VR
This holy trinity is a fine set of lenses that will handle a variety of landscape photography needs. Note the inclusion of the fast 20mm, perfect for night sky photography.
Z 24mm 1:1.8 S
Z 50mm 1:1.8 S
Z MC 105mm 1:2.8 S
This holy trinity is a set of reasonably small lenses that will cover many general needs, plus closeup work. The 105mm is a good replacement for the classic manual focus 105mm 1:2.5, though oversized in comparison.
Z 35mm 1:1.8 S
Z 50mm 1:1.8 S
Z 85mm 1:1.8 S
Z 35mm 1:1.2 S
Z 50mm 1:1.2 S
Z 85mm 1:1.2 S
Z 35mm 1:1.4
Z 50mm 1:1.4
Z 85mm 1:1.4 (coming in 2026?)
Yes, a trinity of trinities in three traditional focal lengths. For event coverage, any of these will be excellent, and just think: you could mix and match maximum apertures! This collection of S and non-S line lenses makes for interesting additional analysis to consider how the Z line will evolve.
What is your preference for a trio of primes? Personally, I prefer 28mm for my wide angle, and 105mm for my short telephoto.
I hope the point is clear that a well-chosen trio of lenses can open up certain creative opportunities without creating an overwhelming amount of weight or decision paralysis for the photographer. Researching past work and determining which focal lengths may be most useful for your future projects will help plan specific purchases.
Is There an Unholy Trinity?
The Devil’s Lenses are shrouded in myth and mystery. Tread warily if you research this topic. For example:
AF-S Fisheye Nikkor 8-15mm 1:3.5-4.5 E with FTZ adapter
Z 24-200 1:4-6.3 VR
Z 180-600 1:5.6-6.3 VR
The enthusiastic photographer may think it a good idea at the time when packing for that day hike, but this is a ridiculous range of focal lengths to carry in the field. And consider that the vital rectilinear 14-24mm range is completely absent from this collection. Unforgivable.
Next: The Holy Duality
