The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

What Lenses for the D800?

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
So IMO major improvement from a so&so fast telezoom to an exceptional lens. I dont know how it works with the high pixel density of the d800 though.
FWIW, I demo'd the 70-200 VRii on my D800 and while it is impressive, it's not perfect. My copy was not quite up to the sensor at the shorter end, but just barely. OTOH, it was outstanding at the 200 end. I never tried it with the newest 2x-3 or 1.4x converter, but I hear results from both are very good. I did however try it with the 1.7x and the results were disappointing -- so much so, I'd avoid that combo.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Dave and Inner,

Good to know about the 105DC and sharpness. I had sort of noticed that just playing around with it and decided to investigate further -- at least assuming that 2 stops to the left is minus 2 -???. However, I have it currently set to f2.8 to the right -- what I assume is plus 1 -- and really like that as my standard look for most things I am shooting with it. One thing is certain, the effect changes with focus distance too, especially at closer distances. Note number 2 is the lens back-focused on my body and needed a -7 offset to zero it on my body.
Robert,

:wtf: is a roll?

FWIW, I prefer my lens set at +1 or +2 for look, perhaps -1 for max sharpness. I will hopefully -- weather and time permitting -- be posting examples later this week.
The effect you see and like by using +1 or +2 can be mitigated/altered depending on what aperture you use and additionally whether you select these settings on your DC control ring prior to or after focusing. Since setting the DC control will ultimately cause a shift in the depth of field ( and your subject placement within this zone), the sequence used for setting DC ring and focusing will have quite different results, as will aperture selected.

Dave (D&A)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
FWIW, I demo'd the 70-200 VRii on my D800 and while it is impressive, it's not perfect. My copy was not quite up to the sensor at the shorter end, but just barely. OTOH, it was outstanding at the 200 end. I never tried it with the newest 2x-3 or 1.4x converter, but I hear results from both are very good. I did however try it with the 1.7x and the results were disappointing -- so much so, I'd avoid that combo.
To be honest you'll only get great results from the 1.7x and older 2x with the prime long glass. The 70-200 VR II even on the D3x only gelled with the 1.4x for me. The v3 2x was ok and much better than the older versions but didn't really sing for me unless it was on my 200/2 VR or 600/4 VR. The 200-400/4 VR wasn't ideal with it either. Btw, the 200/2 VR is probably the great leveler with the D800 - wow, what a lens! I never used it enough to fully appreciate it but it never failed to impress me with its sharpness and 'look' in shots. Not exactly a lightweight portable lens though!
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
To be honest you'll only get great results from the 1.7x and older 2x with the prime long glass. The 70-200 VR II even on the D3x only gelled with the 1.4x for me. The v3 2x was ok and much better than the older versions but didn't really sing for me unless it was on my 200/2 VR or 600/4 VR. The 200-400/4 VR wasn't ideal with it either. Btw, the 200/2 VR is probably the great leveler with the D800 - wow, what a lens! I never used it enough to fully appreciate it but it never failed to impress me with its sharpness and 'look' in shots. Not exactly a lightweight portable lens though!
Do not even mention the 200 F2 to me, I'm completely out of knitting material for a ski mask.

My old days I had a Canon 200 1.8 actually 3 in total and a Leica 180 f2 summricon. Man that lens was a dream. Now I would love to get the Nikon, I seen some images and wow. Talk about magic
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Guy, resistance is futile ...

Actually I think that the 200/2 VR is the Nikon analogous lens to the Noctilux in the Leica line up. Most people aspire to get one, love shooting it for a while but unless you need it for sports or close up wildlife shooting it tends to become one of your best but seldom used lenses. When you need to raid the piggy bank it tends to be the first one to go and then you lament selling it and buy another later and the cycle repeats itself.

My last rationalization with the 200/2VR was that with the 1.4x & 2x converters I could have a single lens that would give me everything that my 200-400VR gave me in a single package. In fact image quality-wise it was pretty darned near true but less convenient.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Guy, resistance is futile ...

Actually I think that the 200/2 VR is the Nikon analogous lens to the Noctilux in the Leica line up. Most people aspire to get one, love shooting it for a while but unless you need it for sports or close up wildlife shooting it tends to become one of your best but seldom used lenses. When you need to raid the piggy bank it tends to be the first one to go and then you lament selling it and buy another later and the cycle repeats itself.

My last rationalization with the 200/2VR was that with the 1.4x & 2x converters I could have a single lens that would give me everything that my 200-400VR gave me in a single package. In fact image quality-wise it was pretty darned near true but less convenient.
In fact, the 200 f2 with the newest 2x (TC E-III), was actually better optically than the 200-400 f4 at 400 in my opinion when each was shot at longer subject distances (which was a particulary weak area for the 200-400 f4). At closer range, it was extremely close but the 200-400 f4 edged it out. In fact as stupendous as the 300 f2.8 VR lens is, the 200 f2 with f1.4 gave it a run for it's money. Couldn't agree more with you Graham, the 200 f2 is a lens to aspire to and very versitile with the 1.4x and 2x, but like many, the compact mass of this lens, doesn't invite one from taking it along on a random day's outing to shoot. A specific reason to grab it usually needed to exist and ultimately many reluctantly sold theirs from lack of use.

Dave (D&A)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Dave,

Yeah, I understand all about lens design, and the relationships between aberrations and aperture, thanks!

Moreover, it is impossible to design a lens to be "perfect" except at one aperture and one focus distance -- a lot of folks do not know that. Everything either side of the optimal magnification ratio or aperture the lens was designed around is going to be a compromise in absolute quality. I believe the setting to -1 for optimal focus on the DC is because folks are shooting this lens wide open, and focus generally shifts further away as one stops down -- so I suspect the lenses are set for optimal at f 4 or f5.6 and when folks shoot at f2 or 2.8 the lenses focus a little closer, hence moving the DC control minus or towards front actually corrects the aberrations for the slightly closer focus.

Regardless, we get instant feedback with digital so we can figure out what works best for us with this lens pretty easily.

Thanks,

Jack


The effect you see and like by using +1 or +2 can be mitigated/altered depending on what aperture you use and additionally whether you select these settings on your DC control ring prior to or after focusing. Since setting the DC control will ultimately cause a shift in the depth of field ( and your subject placement within this zone), the sequence used for setting DC ring and focusing will have quite different results, as will aperture selected.

Dave (D&A)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Both Guy and I owned the Leica R 180/2 in the day and loved it. It was a massive manual lens, but the results were spectacular. If I start shooting the D800 a lot, I will probably spring for 200/2. But my first fast tele will likely be the 300/2.8 --- owned one of the first Nikon AF versions of it back in film days and loved it. And I also owned the 600/4 and 800/5.6, shot a lot of nature and birds, but they were only available as manual focus back then.
 
Guy, resistance is futile ...

Actually I think that the 200/2 VR is the Nikon analogous lens to the Noctilux in the Leica line up. Most people aspire to get one, love shooting it for a while but unless you need it for sports or close up wildlife shooting it tends to become one of your best but seldom used lenses. When you need to raid the piggy bank it tends to be the first one to go and then you lament selling it and buy another later and the cycle repeats itself.

My last rationalization with the 200/2VR was that with the 1.4x & 2x converters I could have a single lens that would give me everything that my 200-400VR gave me in a single package. In fact image quality-wise it was pretty darned near true but less convenient.
You nailed it for me Graham. I bought mine to shoot the Kentucky Derby. When my sports shooting days ended, i just never found enough use for it, and I raided it's piggy bank to get one leica lens or another. With the 800E I just may get tempted again, but will really try and resist getting the best nikkor I ever shotI ;>) ....Peter
PS- I found the 200/2 and the older 2TC was as good as my 200-400 @ 400 and AF on my then D2 was fast enough for horse racing. This newest 2TC III sounds quite appealing. Hmm, so maybe a 200/2 and the new 2TC and my older 1.4 TC is a cost saving way to have a long lens arsenal. Hmmm. ;>)
 

fultonpics

New member
200 2.0, does anyone use these anymore? thought the d3s took them out. 300 2.8 is nice, but like the 400 2.8 (newer one) better.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Dave,

Yeah, I understand all about lens design, and the relationships between aberrations and aperture, thanks!

....hence moving the DC control minus or towards front actually corrects the aberrations for the slightly closer focus.

Regardless, we get instant feedback with digital so we can figure out what works best for us with this lens pretty easily.

Thanks,

Jack


(I only quoted only a portion of your original txt above). I understood you were well versed regarding lens optics, including the the principals behind soft focus lenses. Since postings (responses) in general are read by many, and additionally there were comments/questions regarding this particular lens, my response was generally for those who might not be familar with the operation or optical properties of how this lens works. In some ways it is different than two other well know soft focus/defocus contol lenses.

You are also correct....moving the DC control towards the front does correct the aberrations for the slightly closer focus.

In essence, the front positions are responsible for correction of spherical aberration (SA) and alter the defocused character in front of the subject. Conversely the rear positions introduces SA and alters the defocused character behind the subject.

In pre-digital days of film only, the amount of work to determine what settings (with this lens) that resulted in just the effect one desired, took a considerable amount of time and effort.

Dave (D&A)
 

D&A

Well-known member
This newest 2TC III sounds quite appealing. Hmm, so maybe a 200/2 and the new 2TC and my older 1.4 TC is a cost saving way to have a long lens arsenal. Hmmm. ;>)
With the 1.4x and especially the new 2x, it's not just appealing to use them on the 200 f2, but almost irresistable. It literally had to be pried from my almost cold/dead hands...or in other words I went kicking and screeming in trying to not let go of this combination. Oh to win the lottery someday! :)

Interestingly a store going out of business recently was selling a brand new sealed 200 f2 VRII boxed, for more than 20% off mail order price. I resisted but found myself hesiatating for just a moment....but 5 minutes later, it was scooped up by another buyer.

In all seriousness, it's probably as potent a combination on the D800 as the 85mm f1.4G is...just different.

Dave (D&A)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
200 2.0, does anyone use these anymore? thought the d3s took them out. 300 2.8 is nice, but like the 400 2.8 (newer one) better.
For speed use I suspect that this is true. For f/2 DOF and bokeh, that's a different story isn't it? The 200/2 for me was probably the fastest focusing lens I've ever owned too on my D3/D3s. Absolutely rock solid and would effortlessly track moving subjects or lock on instantly under static conditions.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
Here is my set for now:

- 24-120mm f/4 VR
- 105mm f/2.8 Micro VR
- 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I (we use this range often but $2,400 for the VR II version is a bit too much right now)
- 17-35mm f/2.8 (from 2001, use this range rarely)
- 28-70mm f/2.8 (not sure when I will use it though) The faster aperture is offset by no VR.
 
So, since consensus seems to be that Nikon QC is spotty, especially with autofocus, I'm going to go the bourgeois route and buy my lenses new, with full USA warranty.

I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions for a fairly efficient test procedure to determine if the thing can be tuned via camer settings or if it needs to go back to Mother Nikon?
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I have settled on (but tell me if I'm wrong before I buy!)

So having read everything here and a host of other views and reviews I have settled on the following for my E... and with special thanks to Jack for bringing some of these to my attention...)


Zooms

1) 24-120. No brainer. Everyone seems surprised by how well it does.
2) 70-300 either Nikon or Tamron. The Tamron gets slightly better reviews in pretty much every department and there are corrections for it in LR4. I was going to look at the 80-400 but apparently both these 70-300s are notably better, lighter and cheaper and I'd rather give up the extra range in favour of these attributes and then rely on 'digital zoom' for further reach :D I rarely do anything that needs these focal lengths and never for professional use so this should be fine as a compromise.


Primes


1) 20mm F2.8 sounds really useful: small, light, not too pricey, great to carry around in the bottom of the bag when the only other lens I have with me is the 24-120. Useful for certain kinds of landscape.
2) 50MM Leica R Cron (ROM version) with Leitax adaptor. I already have this lens so I might has well adapt it and have it as a good mid-ranger.
3) EITHER the 85 F1.8G (very nearly as good as the F1.4 but a lot cheaper) OR the 105 DC. Either of these will serve well for portraits. It's a pity neither has the benefit of VR, which I think may prove almost necessary at this focal length on the D800E. The advantage of the 10.8G is that it has way way better MTF performance at wide apertures, which helps mitigate the effects of no VR, but the bokeh won't be as good.


So given that I've got the Leica 50mm and the 24-120 already, I could have the full bagful for about £1,400 new if I went for the cheaper options. Then I'd have primes at wide, mid and portrait and zooms from 24-300.

Sound sensible? I am mildly concerned that the 20mm, 85mm and 70-300 are not in the Nikon technical document for enhanced sharpness with the D800E...
 
Last edited:
Top