Romans. NAC. Broadman & Holman, 1995.
Mounce does a fairly good job in this commentary on Romans, but does not deal in depth with most of the major issues in the book. It is a decent beginning commentary, but lacks in overall depth.
Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Moody Publishers, 1989.
Walvoord does an excellent job dealing with the text and the major issues in it. When there is a significant issue ("Seventy Weeks") he outlines the different views and then does an excellent job defending his own view. Great commentary!
Daniel. GEN. Banner of Truth, 1973.
Young does a great job in this treatment of Daniel. He is especially helpful in giving an A-millennial viewpoint on sections of prophecy (9:24-27).
Daniel. NAC. Broadman & Holman, 1994.
Miller does an exceptional job giving an overview of the different viewpoints, dealing with the text, and supporting his view in a short amount of space when compared to other commentaries. He is Pre-Millennial, which is evident in how he addresses Daniel 9:24-27. However, unlike the amazon reviewer states, he does not seem to omit numerous issues.
The Gospel According to John. PNTC. Eerdmans, 1990.
Carson does an amazing job in this commentary on John. If you can only own one commentary on John, this is the one to get. He is not overly technical, but still manages a great deal of depth.
Romans and Galatians. IronBC. Kregel Academic & Professional, 2006.
While it does have some good insights and interesting points, it will not help the Bible student grappling with hard issues and rarely addresses even what seem like basic issues in the text.
Romans: Righteousness from Heaven. PtW. Crossway Books, 1991.
While this commentary does not tackle the issues with the depth Moo and others, it does look at the book more from a pastoral side and less from a scholarly side. When taken in its proper genre, it excels, but one must remember that it will not deal with every issue in the text.
Daniel. WBC. Thomas Nelson, 1989.
Although other reviewers have already noted it, Goldingay's view on what is commonly believed to be prophecy is saddening. The fact that he denies the validity of the book as a whole makes this volume well worth passing on. To it's credit, it will usually deal with the different elements of the text. However, the conclusions, like noted by other reviewers, are quite liberal and hardly worth attributing merit to. Additionally, the format of the commentary is very confusing.
The Gospel according to John. NICNT. Eerdmans, 1971.
I have the older version and it is far more useful than most recent commentaries. Pair this volume with Carson's on John and you will be doing well. I think they complement each other, because often where one might not address everything the other one will and vice versa. Excellent commentary.
Revelation. 2 Vols. WEC. Moody Press, 1992.
The Book of Revelation is one of Dr. Thomas' strengths. In this commentary, the reader becomes aware of this fact rather quickly. While the commentary definitely has the feel of a more technical one, it is not unnecessarily complicated. Even with a limited knowledge of Greek, this reviewer benefited greatly from Thomas' discussions on the Greek text. He gives his own translation and does an excellent job with the Greek text. In his discussions of almost every issue, he notes varying viewpoints without prejudice. After discussing the views, he will reveal his view and why he holds to it. Unlike some commentators, he makes it clear which view he prefers. It is by far the best premillennial commentary on the Book of Revelation to date.
Daniel. HERM. Fortress Press, 1994.
The liberal nature of the commentary makes one wonder about the author and his views on Scripture as a whole. Granted it is far more readable than Montgomery's commentary, but that still does not make it a good commentary. If one wants a critical study of the text, then this will help. But that is all one will receive, because of the presuppositions that he approaches the text with.
Commentary on Daniel. Zondervan, 1990.
Excellent commentary. Miller and Walvoord are probably better overall commentary. Still very well done. It is probably better with some technical issues.
The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Eerdmans, 1996.
One of the most complete commentaries on Romans. It is detailed where it needs to be, but not overly so. Great buy, especially if you can only have one commentary on Romans.