If you buy it and like it then keep it, otherwise return, either way is cool with return policies today!
If you buy it and like it then keep it, otherwise return, either way is cool with return policies today!
Yea I need about 200mm for the runway stuff. I could always rent too the 70-200 or just suck it up and buy it. I just hate long zooms.
Short zooms are for event work which is like people having cocktail hour usually around 28 or 35 mm lenses. The long zoom is for runway . Totally different shooting venues. I do many types of shooting so certain lenses are used for certain things. Fashion 85-110 range usually fast lenses and than there is the very wides for corporate interiors and equipment stuff. Of course some blend into each other but basically I hate zooms with a passion. Some love them, myself I always in 35mm liked primes and usually it was like 24, 35, 85, 200 or 135. Than extra lenses like a 21mm and a macro in the mix. This time around trying to cut the numbers both in cost and amount of glass. I may have no choice in the matter , see what happens when the Nikon comes in and how much i can throw at this. Frankly i would rather take my tech cam and ride into the sunset. I'm dead serious after 36 years of this I want to get out of this area and concentrate on other photography altogether. Commercially I want to get into Architecture in the worst way more than I have in the past . Just like to change gears here.
What the Sigma 150 f2.8 does have is a very good image, fairly light and well balanced for a lens with it's longer focal length, decent focusing speed, combined with superb performance in the macro range (which I realize Guy won't be using it in this range). In a pinch, it can do well with Sigma's 1.4x (and I'm generally not a fan of teleconverters).
I think one of the reasons people have mentioned this len's good performance is they are comparing it to Nikon's 180 f2.8 which is highly thought of. I found with multiple samples of each, that the Sigma easily outperformed the Nikon 180 and has both the advantage of using it as a superb close focusing lens as well as the ability to extend it's reach in a pinch. With that said, the Nikon 180 also doesn't have the acuity or clarity of the nano coated lenses.
Bottom line is which lens is the Sigma 150mm being compared to and how it will be used, which will determine how much one favors it over other lenses or visa versa.
Last edited by D&A; 1st March 2012 at 04:04.
D&A: You have it spot on!
Guy: I certainly recommend the following for you: 24 prime or 14-24.
85 prime, 200 prime and call it a day :P
Thats what I would like but a 200mm prime is a little out there. Seriously I could rent that 3 or 4 times a year too. The 180mm would be perfect just not sure how it would hold up but for its use its only a 11x14 max print too. But yes what I want is the 14-24,35, 85 and 200 ish. I may just have to suck it up. I just did my taxes and life looks a little brighter. LOL
Funny thing about that 200 prime (the 200 f2 VR and VRII lenses), is that those that purchase and use it (including myself), marvel at it's brilliance and image making capacity at the highest levels. At first glance it seems compact enough (save for the hood that gives the impression of a larger lens)...but after some time, a large percentage of these individuals eventually sell the lens. The reason being is simply the physical "mass" of the lens is deceiving and although hand held shots are possible, the sheer weight of lugging it around and hand holding waiting for an expected shot, gets tiresome after a time. This has happened even to those who are used to carrying heavy lenses. The mass of this lens is dense. So if its going to be held for long periods of time in this manor, use some of the guidance of previous owners and think before you leap in purchasing one.
Last edited by D&A; 1st March 2012 at 04:03.
Dave, I agree with that regarding the 200 f/2. It is a fantastic lens but it gets heavy to lug and shoot with most of the time. Mine did not get much use, but when it did this lens gave beautiful images.
As far as the D800 kit, my choices would be the 14-24, 24G, 85G, and Zeiss MP for macro. The 70-200 VRII is also good to fill the telephoto range. With this kit you pretty much have enough coverage.
It's an exciting time to be shooting Nikon, let's hope the D800 gets here soon....
And yes, very exciting times to shoot Nikon.
I've decided on a very close version of the previous choices as well. The 24G is too wide for the work I would do with a fast wide prime, so I am thinking
14-24, 35/1.4, 85G/1.8, and 70-200 VRII.
Is the nikon 35 not worthy? I've used the canon version and find a fast 35 a very useful prime. I'm just kind of surprised by so many people choosing the 24/1.4, which seems a specialized lens.
I share Guy's preference for primes, it seems that quite a few of us prefer primes. I still mostly use my old Nikkors from 35 years ago. My lenses of choice are a 300mm, a 200mm f/4 (lighter and with the ISO capacity of the current d700, fast enough) 105mm, 55mm micro, and for wide I am using a 28mm which is sharpest at f/8. However I would be interested in the 24mm iterations as they seem to be as sharp as my other lenses. When the dust settles in the next six months I will also get a d800(uncertain if I want the d800 or the E, I suspect the E) But I foresee that camera being strictly a tripod mounted camera. Since I already do a lot of tripod work for me lack of VR in the times that I handhold things is never an issue. I either use flash or ridiculously high ISO's on the d700 (got to love that capability) I can see why for a lot of working guys the two cameras would just about cover most any situation.
I am looking forward to taking the new camera out for a test spin and see what I can wring out of it. I would love to have a camera out-resolve my lenses, I have never had that experience in 50 years of 8x10,4x5, 2 1/4 or 35mm work have I ever had a camera/film or now digital out resolve any lens as long as I used the optimal f/stop. Equally I have never had a lens that was optimally sharp at every f/stop. It is funny, as long as I can remember this one subject has been periodically the hot topic. Every time I get a new camera, the first thing I want to see is just how sharp is it really? It has to be genetic predisposition, those who become photographers need to smell the print and now pixel peep. ( And I am guilty, guilty, guilty.)
As an aside, my wife whispered to me in the dark one night recently, why don't you buy the new camera?
You might be surprised what kind of an effect that can have.
Though I wonder if it might work the same in reverse?
the less sharp lens.
The real issue with the D800 will be color depth and tonal depth.
Sample images published so far are not that promising...
There is more to an image than straight resolution.... well unkess it's a photo of microfilm
In other words, a sharper lens will make your pictures sharper, as will a sharper sensor. Within limits, of course. Sensors have a hard cutoff and a more squared off curve than film.
Another issue is that lens performance varies enormously from one aperture to another and from one part of the field to another. A lens may indeed outperform a sensor on axis at f5.6, but come nowhere near doing so in the corners, or anywhere in the frame at f3.5. This is a typical case where in a meaninful way a lens does and does not outresolve the sensor.
The lens I am most looking forward to mating with the D800e is the Zeiss 50/2 makro-planar. I absolutely love this lens, it rivals the leica 50/1.4 asph in my opinion. The flexibility of having this normal lens do macro while being light enough to carry all day has me drooling! best....Peter
If I would use the D800 as my main camera, I would use a lot:
#2 105/2.0DC (or 85/1.4G)
#4 70-200VRII (or maybe the 180/2.8...if it performs ok on the D800 which is maybe not the case)
I also own the 24-70 zoom but from using the S2 over the last year I kind of re-experienced how good primes and specially just a 50mm FOV lens can work and how flexible it can be.
I also believe that 50mm forces the photographer to be relativly close to the subject which is good.
I dont have a D800e pre-ordered though and will wait and look forward to all the images posted soon.
Right now I think the S2 is my main camera, and the D700 I mainly need/use if I shoot action/sports (which seems notto happen much these days) and for the few times I use the D700 I dont need to replace it.
I am specially interested how the D800 will work color wise, specially and most important in regards to skin color.
“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” — Ansel Adams
Right now its a toss up between the 14-24 and the 24 1.4.Got everything else figured out . I could also toss in their the Zeiss 21mm instead.
For me lenses seem to come down to
I had the 2.8/24-70 and while a great lens I almost never was using it. Turned out I am preferring primes in that area. Also I would expect Nikon to bring a VR version pretty soon, as they are now forced by Canon, so that would rive price of the current 24-70 pretty much south.
Mine will be
85 1.4 G
Im still on the bubble if the 180 will work okay. I did buy it used though so worth a try.
THe problem with the DC lens is that it's a really complicated design (not just optically) and you have take great care with it in the field. Even in a heavily padded bag, a drop can cause the internal mechanics to misalign. This is what happened to mine. $$$$.
Today's zooms are of course just as complex. They are just built better.
My 50mm f1.4 G was a total pig. I have replaced it with the 1.8 G and it is much better. I'm a bit doubtful as to whether my 24-70 will hold up on 36mpx, but it's a great all purpose lens.
My ideal D800 kit would be:
14 - 24 G (AMAZING lens)
24 - 70 G
50mm f1.8 G
35mm f1.4 G
If I had the money I'd also buy the 50mm Zeiss Makro-Planar.
I have no need for anything long in my bag.
all latest issue
I've been collecting lenses for the D800E as well, testing the out on the D7000.
My D7000 backfocused badly (-13 on AF tune default, even with manual lenses). It went to Nikon and came back spot on. And I mean spot on.
80-400 VR: pretty low contrast lens. Smooth, nice bokeh. Everyone complains about it, but I like this lens a lot. Being low contrast, it gets cut off early by the D7k's AA filter. It's always almost there but never quite sharp; and it looks exactly the same on a D700, so clearly it's a product of the low contrast plus AA filter. The D800E should do better, or so I hope at least. Not sure how the corners will handle on FX, but I'm holding onto it for now and might shoot it in crop mode. 1.2x might be a good option. AF on my copy is spot on.
14-24. Good lens out of the box, in fact quite good. But mine backfocused severely on the 24 end, about a foot at 10'. Had it serviced by Nikon and got back a STELLAR lens with spot-on focus anywhere, everywhere. So they fixed not only AF, but overall improved the lens with whatever adjustments they made.
24-70. Same problem as 14-24; out of the box, good lens with serious backfocus at 70mm (-15 vs 0 at 14mm). Unusable. It's off to Nikon.
50/1.4G. Serious backfocus, but it's fixed with a -17 AF tune. Very glowy wide open (as in flarey, not as in Leica). Lots of tangential chromatic aberration. It's good at f/2.8 and excellent at f/4. But I don't have any use for an f/1.4 lens that needs to be stopped down to f/4. I'll be sending this to Nikon for service regardless of whether I keep it or not. At least I'll be selling a lens up to spec. Given how the 14-24 improved overall with an adjustment, if the 24-70 also improves as dramatically overall I'll be sending the 50 in.
85/1.8G - on backorder.
AIS 105/2.8 Micro. Fine lens, no complaints. Nothing spectacular either.
Mamiya 645 APO 200/2.8 with an adapter. Excellent lens.
Mamiya 120/4 Macro - excellent lens. I like this much better than the 105 Micro.
AIS 105/2.5 - will get one of these just because. Nice lens at a bargain price.
But in general I have little interest in manual focus prime lenses on a DSLR. The M9 is superior for that kind of use and the whole benefit of a DSLR to me is versatility. Don't really need one-trick ponies that just sit unused waiting for the perfect moment. (When I probably won't have it with me anyway. Meh.)
Also, I've observed:
- Nikon cameras and lenses need a trip to Nikon more often than not, so expect this when buying.
- The good news is they come back as 'good copies'.
- If AF is off on a lens, then chances are good it's not performing up to par in general. Send it to Nikon.
Anybody on this lens... AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Macro Autofocus Lens.
I never known anyone owning it. I kind of like the idea. On Photozone has great ratings..
Minimalist kit for me.
28 f2.8 Schneider PC Super Angulon (already have it; currently testing)
50 1.8g (something small fast cheap)
IMHO, the DC lenses are über-built. All that metal and crinkle paint. I suppose a drop of the right distance and angle could mis-align almost any lens, zoom or otherwise...
Here's the lens.
I only use the Nikon 24 tilt/shift once ... rented for a commercial job, which is something I don't do often. The Nikon was very good, although the mechanics of it seemed a bit convoluted ... there's a wee locking knob, and there's the whole tilt assembly adding complication, which I found no use for in the 24.
It's hard for me to compare optical quality of the two, since I just used the Nikon for magazine pictures, and I wasn't fussing over them like I do with personal work that's intended for bigger prints and longer shelf life.
Reviews I've read by people who have owned both lenses pretty uniformly give the optical nod to the Schneider.
A friend who shoots architecture with a Canon system says that the Schneider trounces the older Canon TSE lenses, but that their brand new ones are more or less its equal.
I'll link to a couple of my test images later.
Last edited by paulraphael; 21st March 2012 at 20:13.
I had one of these a number of years ago with a canon mount. It was not that great of a lens. It might have been better than the original 24mm TSE but it produced horrible chromatic aberration and non-sharp corners especially when shifted. I am sure it is not as good as the new 24mm TSE from canon-- which i own and think is a wonderful lens
I know someone who has both the Schneider and the new generation Canon TSE lenses. He prefers the Canon because 24mm is more useful for him but he finds them optically similar.
Good to know there are a few options. When I get my D800 I'm almost certainly going to order a PC lens, most probably the Nikon 24mm although a 28mm would suit me just as well. I've never seen the Schneider before so I can't compare. There doesn't seem to be many reviews directly comparing the two online either.
I don't see many listing the PC-E lenses....
I'd have thought for landscape orientated work on the D800 the perspective control lenses would be on any list,
Why the lack of interest?
DPreview has some sample images with different Nikon lens now.
I'm simple -- thinking a 28/2.8, 50/1.4g and the 85/1.8 when it ships. Maybe the latest 70-200/2.8 v2 and maybe the 20/2.8 too. I like the range of the 24-70, but cannot stand the size.
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."1 Member(s) liked this post
My decision is in or should I say my bag is holding them. Lol
I went 14-24, 35 1.4 G, 50 1.8 G, 85 1.4 G and a 180. I got the 14-24 and 180 used. Just need to pick up cam in the morning. LOL
Yea been busy getting it set up.
Just got a used Zeiss 35/2 distagon to go with my 50/2 MP. Reid Review was extremely high on this lens, he even said that he wished the AA filter on the D700 he was testing it with was weaker as the sensor wasn't keeping up! Sounds like a job for the 800E! best....Peter
But my simple turn out to be more complex after doing my homework. Studying the MTF's for the Nikon shorter primes, I was left underwhelmed. So what I have right now is the 16-35 and 70-200 VRii plus 1.7x, with the new 24-120 as an all-around. I can confirm this new 24-120 is NOT anything like it's ugly predecessor; it is quite sharp but does show some barrel at the wide end, pin at the long end. The 16-35 is very sharp too, surprisingly so and distortions are not bad at all -- I am impressed. The 70-200ii is outstanding, as has been said, but initial impressions of the 1.7x are ho-hum. It's not horrible, but it isn't as good as the sensor when coupled to the 70-200. In fact, I may return it. Curious what folks see with the 1.4x or 2x on this lens.
Glad you like the 24-120mm - it is in an entirely different league to the previous version.
The 16-25mm is a superb lens as well - and VR can be very useful when photographing indoors (cathedrals etc).
In my view the new TC20EIII is better than then TC17EII.
The 70-200mm with the TC14 is great, and even with the TC20 yields very good results.
Still keen to hear what others think of Nikon TS lenses.
Thank you for the converter info --- I think I will be exchanging my 1.7 for the 2.0 later today. But to clarify, did you test on the D800 and the VRii zoom? I ask because the 1.7x is okay, just hits a wall before the D800 pixels do where the VRii by itself clearly exceeds the D800 pixels (well most of them anyway). I know the 1.4x is excellent, but I wanted a skosh more at the top end than 280mm, so the 2x it is.
No, I've not had a chance to test drive the D800 yet.
It is just my impression using a D700 body and a variety of Nikon lenses, including the 70-200mm VRII, in which the TC14 and TC20 seem to give the best results.
Beware of highlights in the background when using the 2x - they can appear funny. ie the bokeh can appear odd.
Mots reports suggest that the TC20 is best matched with fix fast primes eg 300mm f2.8 etc.
Look forward to seeing more of your results.
Prior to the new 2x (EIII), results from the three teleconverters were pretty much as one would expect. The 1.4x was exceptionally good (especially on fast telephoto primes and the 70-200 f2.8II), the 1.7x was good on the fast tele primes but clearly lost resolution and some contrast, and the older 2x (TC EII) was in my opinion left for wanting (and believe me I'm being charatable with the older 2x TCII...I'd much prefer to call it of the "Canine" variety. I wasn't a fan of the 1.7x either but some were.
The new 2x (TC EIII) is quite exceptional considering it's a 2x. On the larger tele priomes like the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 and to a good degree on the 600 f4, it's amazing what its capable of and when conditions and lighting are right, it comes amazingly close to the 1.4x and in some cases appears to almost equal it. Far superior to the 1.7x! Thats saying a lot about a 2x (and I don't even really like teleconverters).
Thats why the ophened child is now the 1.7x, but rumors has it that it too will be updated in the near future.
On the 70-200 f2.8 II lens, the new 2x does well in some circumastances but may not always be optimal and with this one lens in particular, I wouldn't expect it to match the 1.4x (with that lens). Using it with the tele primes, well its a different story.