What Lenses for the D800?

[pophoto]

Yes been looking at the Nikon 1.8 too and just not sure on it yet. Little new right now, like to hear on the D800 first on it. I think the Sigma is a safe bet right out of the gate ready to shoot though, reason I figured I can't go wrong. I still have my Sony to cover me until the D800 but it will be sell Sony get Nikon lenses as soon as the D800 is in hand.

I don't know Guy, for me the Sigma 150 f/2.8 was just a regular lens, maybe bordering a bit dull too. Nothing special about, does what it describes sort of lens. I returned it and left it as that. I bought into the Nikon 105VR instead and preferred it even though less reach. I'm just adding another opinion to the mix.

If you buy it and like it then keep it, otherwise return, either way is cool with return policies today!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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.

 

[Bob]

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.

Well they usually distort less than short zooms.
-bob

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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.

 

[D&A]

I don't know Guy, for me the Sigma 150 f/2.8 was just a regular lens, maybe bordering a bit dull too. Nothing special about, does what it describes sort of lens. I returned it and left it as that. I bought into the Nikon 105VR instead and preferred it even though less reach. I'm just adding another opinion to the mix.

If you buy it and like it then keep it, otherwise return, either way is cool with return policies today!

I can certainly see and identify with Pophoto, and where he is coming from. In one sense the Sigma 150mm f2.8 doesn't have the utmost in clarity as some of the nano coated Nikon single focal length lenses and zooms have. In that sense the 105 f2.8 VR G lens and the 70-200 f2.8II have more dynamic images. Heck, the 200 f2 VR superceeds them all .

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.

Dave (D&A)

 

[pophoto]

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

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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

 

[D&A]

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.

Dave (D&A)

 

[onaujee]

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....

 

[ptomsu]

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....

I agree on this lens selection, with the exception of the 14-12, I would rather prefer the 16-35 VR, simply because it is much lighter and equally sharp as the 14-24. Also WRT the Macro, I never have found that the Zeiss lenses are better (sharper) than their Nikon counterparts, so I would rather choose the Nikkor 105VR.

And yes, very exciting times to shoot Nikon.

 

[NicholasRab]

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.

 

[jsf]

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?
Joe

 

[FredBGG]

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.

If any of your lenses look sharper than another then the sensor is out resolving
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

 

[paulraphael]

If any of your lenses look sharper than another then the sensor is out resolving
the less sharp lens.

Well, sharpness is a factor of MTF at specific frequencies, and MTF does not get translated by a system as a simple chain with a weakest link. All the degradations compound each other. The final MTF is determined by multiplying the curves of the parts of the system.

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.

 

[innerimager]

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

 

[Paratom]

If I would use the D800 as my main camera, I would use a lot:
#1 50/1.4G
#2 105/2.0DC (or 85/1.4G)
#3 24/1.4G
#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.

 

[Bryan Stephens]

I assume if using flash or if available light is sufficiently bright and you can keep the lens stopped down to at least f5.6/8, then for general applications when used on the D800e, it might be sufficient. Of course nothing substitutes for actually trying it out when the body is available. Again my recommendation is just be selective when choosing a given sample of the lens. Early on there were horendous sample to sample variation (saw this with my own testing) and some were simply close to the "canine" variety (and I do love dogs). It took a while for Nikon to sort this out (and there was more consistancy in production), but even on later runs, some seemed to be better than others.


**** ADDITION: I forgot to mention...many samples of the 17-35mm f2.8 lens have the infamous AF-S motor squeek when using in autofocus mode (some even develope this shortly after being new out of the box). Often this meant costly Af-S motor replacement, while other samples go on squeeking to varying degrees for years). This being due to being one of the earliest designs of the Nikon AF-S motor.

Dave (D&A)

I can attest to that. I sent mine back for repair last year due to the squeek and also do to an error message I was getting. When I received mine back it was fine for about two weeks then started the high pitched squeal again. :thumbup:

 

[Bryan Stephens]

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

The 200 prime is an awesome lens and I use it quite a bit for my sports as it is fast, and sharp and the bokeh it produces is very nice indeed. :thumbs:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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.

 

[ptomsu]

For me lenses seem to come down to

4/16-35/VR
1.4/24
1.4/50G
1.4/85/G
2.8/70-200/VR2

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.