My Voigtländer 20mm is the SLII version.
The SLII version comes with a CPU matrix metering chip.
As far as I know the two versions (SL & SLII) are optically identical (at least I have never read the opposite).
Quoting from cameraquest.com
"All SL II lenses feature manual focus and computer chips for metering with modern DSLRs.
SL II series lenses have screw in lens hoods. SL I series lenses used bayonet lens hoods.
SL II lenses are black finish only. SL I lenses had black / chrome lens barrels.
Nikon AF or Digital: Set aperture ring at f/22, controlling f/stops from the camera, NOT the aperture ring. gives you manual focus with fully compatible metering."
Voigtlander SL II Lenses
Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II Aspherical (Canon EOS) - Lab Test / Review
FYI - B&H now has the Voigtländer 40/2 SLII in stock ($449). Just ordered one for myself. I'm thinking the 40/2, a 20, and the AF-S 85/1.8G or AIS 105/2.5 will make a nice little pocket lens kit.
Nikon did not put any 50 mm lens on their preferred list for D800, which is surprising. I checked a number of lens tests on Photozone. I am considering a D 800e kit to include several VERY inexpensive Nikon primes. I am most interested in f 5.6 to f11 for my seascape work. at those apertures the 50mm f 1.8 ($120), and 85 mm f1.8 ($425) should be a no brainier. Their resolution figures generally meet or beat very expensive zoom at 1/3the price, giving up flexibility of course. I pre- ordered the D800e, and purchased the 14-24 for interior architectural work I often do, and the Zeiss 18 mm (has a filter thread--important to me) for seascapes. adding the cheap 50 and 85 would round out a modest system.
>adding the cheap 50 and 85 would round out a modest system.
I have the 50mm f/1.8G and plan to add the 85mm 1.8G too.
[QUOTE=ustein;412306]>adding the cheap 50 and 85 would round out a modest system.
I have the 50mm f/1.8G and plan to add the 85mm f1.8
coming from you, high praise indeed. here is Photozone's recommendation:
The Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G is an excellent lens that performs on a very high level in almost any regard. Sharpness is excellent in the image center straight from the largest aperture, the borders and corners deliver very good resolution wide open and excellent sharpness stopped down.
Typical for a fast prime there is pronounced vignetting wide open, which can easily be cured by stopping down. The same applies to Bokeh fringing. CAs and distortion are very well controlled though. The biggest surprise is probably the bokeh quality, which is not right up there on the benchmark level set by 85mm f/1.4 lenses, but quite close.
The build quality is on a high level and in line with other Nikon consumer prime offerings. Thanks to an AF-S drive autofocus action is virtually silent and quite fast for a portrait lens.
So, in summary, for most subjects the lens gives around 95% of the performance of an AF-S 85/1.4 but at just one third of the price. Certainly highly recommended!
>coming from you, high praise indeed.
I followed Photozone.de :-)
With the 50mm the D800 feels nearly light (though not small).
My new light D800 kit:
I think the 85mm would also fit in.
Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and converter: It's best in the 180 to 300 range at all apertures, pretty marginal at 120 but already cleaning up by 150mm. Wide open performance is just okay, certainly usably sharp centrally but not laser crisp and edge contrast is a bit soft -- a bump in clarity helps a lot. Also, for whatever reason f2.8 performance is much better at closer, under 10m distances. (Lens focuses pretty close, like 8 feet or so.) f4 and 5.6 improve to very good, primarily from increased edge contrast, f5.6 very good all the way to corners. f8 it is a laser with excellent contrast. The 2x converter is marginal -- works in a pinch but lower contrast overall. On the upside, the Sigma OS is impressively good -- I was able to easily handhold and get perfectly sharp images at f8 with 1/320th shutter speeds. In short I can recommend it as a versatile range with usable fast aperture, though much improved stopped down. For the relatively low price -- it's cheaper than Sigma's own fixed 300/f2.8 -- it has a lot to offer, but of course you are paying for the fast aperture that isn't stellar in terms of size and weight penalties.
Just an update: I mentioned somewhere that the 100mm Zeiss Makro Planar F2 was, whilst gorgeously sharp and with lovely lovely bokeh, not my top suggestion on the D800/E because of the fringing issues it had when at the wider apertures. So bad that no amount of fiddling with lens corrections in LR or C1 would get rid of it and if you really wanted to save the shot you had to round-trip it to photoshop and spend a lot of time dealing with it very manually.
LR 4.1 Release Candidate has new options for dealing with it and I am hugely impressed. I need to get over the first flush of excitement and look for any flaws that I might not like so much but so far, this takes the lens out of the 'might be for sale' category. Which I am so pleased about because I really like it.
Here's a scene that was ruined by the dreaded purples:
All the files are here:
Tim Ashley Photography | D800/E with Zeiss 100mm F2 Makro Planar | _DSC0096
The full scene:
Crops before and after treatment:
I know that looks like it's just desaturated everything but next post will show crops from a different part of the image with the same treatment
2 Member(s) liked this post
If I would have only one prime lens for the D800 the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G would be it.
This image is a moire trap (not here):
This crop shows why:
Posted a short article with our core lens set fro the D800:
outbackphoto - News - Our Core Nikon D800 Lens*Set
very useful. I was looking for a definition for the 105, and you gave it. thank you very much.
I`d also appreciated some comments about the 16-35 but understand you cannot probe test lens. thanks.
>16-35 but understand you cannot probe test lens.
Have no idea. But I own the 17-35mm and it has to do when I would need it (very rarely I guess). But I will try to perform some indoor tests at some point.
Note: these are all our own lenses.
Okay, finally caved and ordered a 200/2 -- used, VR1 G version. Also ordered a 2x ver III converter and since the Nikon 1.4x won't AF with this lens, I ordered a Sigma 1.4x to try -- not holding my breath on that combo being great though.
I don't know if anyone else has seen this
LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection
but it is very useful indeed and on the lenses I own, exactly matches my real-world findings.
>but it is very useful indeed and on the lenses I own, exactly matches my real-world findings.
But it also shows that two numbers are not the full story.
1. No mention of CA
2. Zooms only at one focal?
3. Different f-stop measurements
For sure... but I can't find anywhere that has all variables covered which is why I'm doing so much testing myself for the things that matter to me. But that lens rentals page is a great place to start. I wish the UK had an equipment rental agency as comprehensive, helpful and well priced as them!
>But that lens rentals page is a great place to start.
Dave we both looked at the 1.4 on B&H website and it list it as no AF for the 200g F2 which we both thought really weird. I'm ordering a 200 also and would love to use the 1.4
End of day I hate zooms always have. But that comes a very pig headed person that never thought they will match a prime and in a way they never will. Your also seeing some real lens sluts around here. ME. LOL
Nikon TC-14E II 1.4x Teleconverter for D-AF-S & AF-I 2129 . So now I am a little peeved if that's wrong...
Guy, can't see on that where the 200 f2 is specifically mentioned. I trust Dave, but it's weird that B&H has that limitation posted.
Hope this looks correctly
AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF not possible
AF not possible
AF not possible
AF not possible
AF-S VR NIKKOR 200mm f/2G IF-ED
AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II
AF-S VR NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF-I NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8D IF-ED
For additional information about Nikon Teleconverter compatibility and/or function limitations, refer to the documentation packaged with the NIKKOR lens and/or Teleconverter, information provided in Nikon product brochures, Nikonusa.com or call Nikon Technical Support, toll-free at 800-645-6689.
Here is the link to Nikon's page -- it's buried, but I found it: http://www.nikonusa.com/en_INC/IMG/A...omp_chart.html
Now I need to order a Nikon 1.4x and return the &^#$ Sigma LOLOL!
Heck test it first. Lol
I was somewhat surprised by Jacks 1.4x comment too - it works perfectly with the 200/2!
Rosebud ...1 Member(s) liked this post
Thanks Graham we where both on talking to each this morning going over it as I want one also and the data on B&H was just flat out wrong.
Anyhow, the important thing is you both are going to be impressed with the 200 f2 with and without the 1.4x and even surprised when using the 2x with this lens, as long as you don't expect miracles, but a very useable image under the right set of conditions (speaking of their use on a D700/D3s of course).
You almost make me want to re-aquire this lens. My bank account is going to love you both if I ever decide to do so
Last edited by D&A; 8th May 2012 at 04:10.
FWIW the Nikon list is wrong for the 105mm f2.8 VR - AF and VR works fine with 1.4II, 1.7II, and 2.0III TCs that I have.
Mind you that Nikon will say that any combination of TC and lens that results in a min f stop of 5.6 will not AF - but of course they do albeit in good light ;-)
http://mountainjoe.zenfolio.com/ - excuse the mess
>105mm f2.8 VR - AF and VR works fine with 1.4II
How good is this combination?
Jack, just a small additional comment regarding the Sigma 1.4x which I believe you initially ordered. Generally the Sigma 1.4x will not Af with many Nikon Af lenses it's mounted on. It ends up either not autofocusing at all or stuttering and/or simply hunting back and forth as though trying to find something to lock onto. For a 3rd party 1.4x that does work reliably with most all Nikon Af lenses (SW or screw driven), the current Kenko Pro 1.4x converter does (Tamron's is reportedly similar or the same). Optically speaking, it often can do a decent job but in most cases it's clearly inferior to the Nikon if both happen to work properly with a given lens and are tested simultaniously.
Conversely, the current Nikon 1.4x will Af with most Sigma lenses with HSM focusing, but to get it to mount, one has to carefully dremel away the small little metal square on the back of the Nikon 1.4x, in order to get it to mount to the Sigma lens. Often times the Nikon is superior optically to Sigma's own 1.4x when used on a Sigma HSM lens, other times it's moderately close. It depends on the lens they're being used on.
Last edited by D&A; 8th May 2012 at 06:42.
To update, I immediately ordered the Nikon 1.4x and will return the Sigma -- the fact I had to do the extra unnecessary steps -- pay for an additional shipping fee for the second Nikon box and pay a return shipping fee for the Sigma -- was the source of my frustration comment above
Just took delivery of the VR1 200/2. OMG it is a freaking LASER, even wide open! DOF Is paper thin -- and thus my issue. This one back focuses slightly to the point I cannot correct it with -20 dialed in on my body It sits about 3cm behind PoF at 15 meters, and it's a 3cm you can see because the DoF is so freaking thin. Option one is to return it. Option two is to see if Nikon service will adjust it, but that sounds like a crap-shoot and a PITA to begin with. I am sick. Oh, and the 1.4x works great on it -- final image is still extremely sharp wide open -- a skosh behind the 200 naked, but still sharper than the 70-200 VR2 at 200 and f4... LASER!
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."1 Member(s) liked this post
If you think the lens with the 1.4x is spectaculary good, you'll be quite impressed with the 2x when it has to be used in a pinch, depending of course on camera to subject distance. Both these converters work extraordinarily well (especially the 1.4) with the current 200 f2, the 300 f2.8 among some others.
Last edited by D&A; 10th May 2012 at 14:32.
I bought the 2x III at the same time, so it's already in the bag. I am debating what to do re the 200/2. It is a beast, so part of me is re-considering the 70-200 VR2 even though it clearly is not the laser the 200/2 is.
What I would like to know is how well the 300/2.8 VR + 1.4x compares to the 500/4 VR...
Both work well. I'd return the 200/2 and go for another copy with better calibration. It is, quite simply, an AWESOME lens that the 70-200 VR II will never match. It is one of the few lenses that's missEd from moving from Nikon to Phase One. (ok, add the d3s and 35/1.4g & 24/1.4G & 14-24 plus 70-200VR II).
Last edited by GrahamWelland; 10th May 2012 at 19:40.
Of course its a personal decision what to do, especially as to whether to stay with a 200 f2 or move back to the 70-200 f2.8 VRII. At 200mm with and without teleconverters, there is no question optically, the 200 f2 is clearly superior. The one thing many of us here on Getdpi who have owned the 200 f2 at one time or another have mentioned is that as exciting as it is to have the 200 f2, ofteh after a while, it gets left in the bag (ie: stays home), simply because of it's physical mass, it truly is a beast and eventually gets sold.
One other thing to keep in mind is the 70-200 f2.8 at 200mm at closer subject range, is more like a 140mm lens due to focus breathing. This is often heard as a complaint from some, regarding the lens. Additonally, even at greater distance where the 70-200 is a true 200mm lens, when one compares use of the 2x on each lens, the 200 f2 +2x wins hands down...not even close. At closer subject distances, it gets somewhat better for the 70-200 f2.8 +2x, although it still lags behind. Still a lens is no good if it simply gets left behind all the time.
As you well know, all these choices is about giving up something to get something...the usual tradeoffs. Unfortunately no "one" perfect ideal solution exists.
Last edited by D&A; 10th May 2012 at 20:59.
1 Member(s) liked this post
What Dave said. Been there, done that - couldn't agree more.
And I still miss my 200/2 VR even though it spent a lot of time in the truck and not the bag.
I can tell you from personal experience and testing (since I originally had the same question when contemplating purchase of a 500 f4 VR) and additonally from a few extremely talented wildlife photographers I've known for quite some time (who also performed similar tests)....the combinations you inquired about "above", are extremely close. At closer subject distances, it's generally a toss up, but at greater distances, the 500 f4 has a slight-slight/moderate edge. If you posed the identical question, except substituted the 2x in place of the 1.4x....the 500 f4 is superior in all cases but again at closer range, the 300 f2.8 +2x can often do a very credable job at close and mid subject distances.
Last edited by D&A; 10th May 2012 at 19:56.
It's definitely a tough call. The 300/2.8 plus 70-200 and converters is probably a more versatile and logical combo...
Last edited by D&A; 11th May 2012 at 04:41.
Sorry if this question is silly:
Focus breathing reduces focal length of the 200mm to an apparent 140mm at close distance. But what about the 70mm range ? does it appears widest too at close focus distance?