What Lenses for the D800?

[Jack]

Thanks Jack. I think the 105 sounds right for me: Nikon glass can be a bit characterless IMHO, and so one lens with a very distinctive look will be very useful... So with the 20 mm and the 24-120, it looks like I'm your new mini me...

:ROTFL: Actually, it is maybe me now following YOUR lead! Looking into the Tamron 70-300 as we speak. (My sources tell me the Nikkor 70-300 VRG is disappointing at 300 -- very good from 70-200 though. Seems the Tammy is better at 300 and distorts less overall, and has a semi-decent long macro range. My 80-400 at the end of the day was good at 80, 200 and 400, but poor in the 250-350 region, and useful 200-300-ish is what I'm really after.)

 

[D&A]

Jack,

I assume you saw my comments in one of my posts above regarding the Tamron. If you are able to try it out prior to purchasing, I would...not only for performance at the longer end which was superior to the equivalent Nikon lens, but for the way the VC is implemented. I got used to it (although I much prefer the way The Nikon VR works), but know a few people personally, that couldn't adjust to it and found it bothersome and therefore deferred purchase. It's not a major factor but the way it gets activated and ultimately released takes some shooters a while to adjust to it. Aside from that and early samples all soft near 300 ( a bad batch), it does quite well for what it is ( at least on the D700 it does). It too is weaker at 300mm than at shorter focal lengths ( as expected), but seems to hold onto resolution better at this end of it's range than the Nikon, especially in the central portion of the frame.

I'll mention a sleeper lens that was not long ago discontinued by Sigma. It was their 100-300 f4 (constant aperture) zoom. It's somewhat bigger in size than the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII but in terms of its relatively low price and exceptional performance, it comes remarkably close and often is near ithe Nikon's equal at a fraction of the price. At 300mm, it also equals or surpasses the Nikon when the Nikon uses the 1.4x. Additionally the Sigma does well with it's own 1.4x, resulting in a capable 420mm f5.6 lens, especially across 80 percent of the frame and actually almost matches its $3000 big brother, the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 lens. Last year I tested all three lens together. The 00-300 f4 is built like a tank and only drawback is size/weight (not really a travel lens), and making sure you have an optimal sample.

Lastly two other superb AF lenses are the previously mentioned Nikon 135m DC lens and Sigma's 150 f2.8 macro (with or without lens stabilization). Both have stellar reputations, optically speaking and they both never cease to amaze me with their performance.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jack]

Dave, the other Sigma that is worth mentioning is the 120-300 f2.8! It is clearly bigger still and not a travel lens, but a lot of glass for the money. IIRC, the 120-300/4 is not OS/VR, correct?

 

[D&A]

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)

Dave, the other Sigma that is worth mentioning is the 120-300 f2.8! It is clearly bigger still and not a travel lens, but a lot of glass for the money. IIRC, the 120-300/4 is not OS/VR, correct?

That's correct Jack, the 100-300 f4 was never offered with OS/VR. Both lenses you mentioned are a lot of lens for the money, considering their competive pricing and their performance. The reason I believe the 100-300 f4,wasn't offered with OS/VR at this time last year (or approx 12-18 months ago) when Sigma was updating many of their popular lenses with OS/VR, was that they were trying to promote sales of their 70-200 f2.8 which wasn't a very big seller and therefore updating the 70-200 f2.8 lens with OS/VR and along with the accompanied sale of their 1.4x with that lens, they would have something close to the equivalent of a 100-300 f4 and also a combination to directly compete with Nikon's 70-200 f2.8VRII.

I can tell you from personal experience that the 100-300 f4 is far superior than their updated 70-200 f2.8, especially when that lens is used with their 1.4x. I tested the 100-300 f4 along side their older non OS/VR 120-300 f2.8 and I'd give the edge to the faster zoom but not by much. When their 1.4x is used with both lenses, centrally it was almost a dead heat but the edges sides were distinctively better in the faster lens, but again not dramatically. When you consider the 100-300 f4 even at that time was $2000 less expensive than it's faster brother and much smaller and lighter by a significant margin, the 100-300 f4 was such a good buy, that most believe that Sigma was worried by keeping the 100-300 f4 lens in production, that it might take sales away from both their new 70-200 f2.8 and new 120-300 f2.8, especially if they (Sigma) updated the 100-300 f4 with OS/VR.

One last thing to note. The older 120-300 f2.8 non OS/VR had major issues with correct focusing on Nikon bodies and rectifying it with a trip back to Sigma, wasn't always successful. The 100-300 f4 basically was issue free except for the usual Sigma sample to sample variation. I haven't shot with the newly released 120-300 f2.8 OS/VR lens yet (hope to soon), but in speaking with a couple that already shot with this newly updated lens, optically it's close to the original but appears to be better with regards to correct focusing. Optically comapred to it's older non OS/VR version, nothing definitive yet from what I've heard so far. They definitely improved the mechanical and handling design of the lens though. Unfotunately sample to sample variation in both older lenses was often onsiderable and finding a good optical sample takes some doing.

After owning and using both (with and without their 1.4x), I kept the 100-300 f4, it being an invauable lens for concert work, much like Nikon's 70-200 f2.8 VRII, not only due to manageable size/weight but also that the images it produces has always been impressive.

Dave (D&A)

***(This post has been substantially corrected and updated on 4/6/12)

 

[ustein]

105mm Macro seems to work great.

 

[D&A]

Uwe very nice! These and along with some other images posted, really puts demands on the D800 sensor, especially with their very detailed repetitive patterns...such as the tree leaves and roof tiles. Normally in the past, these kinds of images were in the domain of MF if extreme detail was required for large format prints. I would love to see both the Raw's as well as how 40-60MP backs/cameras reproduce the same scenes...not so much as to which is better (as each system in other ways has advantages and disadvanatges), but simply to see what is gained and/or lost and how each reproduces such scenes.

Dave (D&A)

 

[eleanorbrown]

After much thought and research I have decided that the Zeiss 100 f2 will be my short telephoto lens for my backordered D800e...also considered the nikkor 85 1.4 and nikkor 105 2.8 but in the end the zeiss won out. This forum has been really helpful but what finally made my decision final were the comparative results on digilloyd's site of the D800 with the zeiss 100 f2 and Leica s2. Eleanor

105DC looks like a winner too -- VERY nice look and tunable, yet stopped down a few and zeroed, it is a razor sharp image.

 

[BSEH]

Hello
I'm new here and just want to say that I appreciate the tone, the pictures and the expert opinions. This is a very competent side.

I receive (hopefully) my D800 tomorrow and look forward to testing it and apparently also myself and my skills.

As for lenses for D800, seems to show a picture of lots of opportunities for 14 to 50 mm. Then I have only seen 85/1.4G, Zeiss 100/2, 105 VR, 105 DC and 70-200 VRII performs satisfactory. Is it right or have I missed something?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Check this thread out. I have 14-24, 35 1.4g, 85 1.4g, 50 1.8g and a 180 2.8 plus other members have posted various lenses as well. Welcome aboard

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/35804-nikon-d800-first-blush.html

 

[BSEH]

Check this thread out. I have 14-24, 35 1.4g, 85 1.4g, 50 1.8g and a 180 2.8 plus other members have posted various lenses as well. Welcome aboard

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/35804-nikon-d800-first-blush.html

Thanks Guy,

Your opinion about 180 f/2.8 : D800 ?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

So far the 180 is doing a good job. You will have to AF fine tune it but it is really good at F4 going down. 2.8 is good but that extra stop helps. I need to get back out again to get some decent images to post but so far it's doing a great job and easy to find used at like a 650 dollar price. Which is a nice break after buying the 35,85 and 14-24. It may not match the 70 -200 which I have not had a chance to compare the two side by side but it is good.

I actually thought about renting the 70 -200 for a day to test it out

 

[ptomsu]

Guy,

I would really try the 70-200 VR2! I had both lenses (of course on prior DSLRs from Nikon) and I was never really happy with the 180 but liked already the 70-200 VR1 and was very satisfied with my copy of the 70-200 VR2.

Too bad I sold all my Nikon glass 2 years ago so I have to reinvest again from the scratch here

Peter

 

[BSEH]

So far the 180 is doing a good job. You will have to AF fine tune it but it is really good at F4 going down. 2.8 is good but that extra stop helps. I need to get back out again to get some decent images to post but so far it's doing a great job and easy to find used at like a 650 dollar price. Which is a nice break after buying the 35,85 and 14-24. It may not match the 70 -200 which I have not had a chance to compare the two side by side but it is good.

I actually thought about renting the 70 -200 for a day to test it out

I would love the 70-200 VR II of my collection. But 3000 usd camera, and the 24-70 2.8 kinda empty the bank account ..

So looking for cheaper in the 150 to 200 mm range, 180/2.8 may be the solution for an AF lens. Or maybe the sigma 150/2.8 with OS.

Otherwise I have to test all my old manual primes. Leitax converted Zeiss 28/2.8 - 50/1.4, Leica Summicorn 90/2 and a 180/3.4 APO Telyt .. ) gonna be fun .. hope some of them will survive and abel to pull pixels out of the 36 MP sensor ..

 

[BSEH]

Guy,

I would really try the 70-200 VR2! I had both lenses (of course on prior DSLRs from Nikon) and I was never really happy with the 180 but liked already the 70-200 VR1 and was very satisfied with my copy of the 70-200 VR2.

Too bad I sold all my Nikon glass 2 years ago so I have to reinvest again from the scratch here

Peter

Would be glad to see some examples here when you grab it.

I'd check your website and :thumbs:

Envy you a bit the vision you have in your backyard, flat Denmark offer unfortunately not that kind of opportunities.

 

[gustavo]

I too love that Zeiss 50/2 MP and expect it will be the lens cap of my 800E. I am holding out hope that my beloved 105/2 DC will hold up and be my main lens in this range. I guess the nikon 105 VR will be on a short list otherwise, though the Zeiss 100/2 MP is really sweet.

BTW - For CA correction, C1 is highly recommended as a raw converter, it handles this problem extremely well. best...Peter

I´m still trying to decide which the better lens to use with the D800e are.
I am a passionate and -part time- professional photographer (just because I like it). I usually work in discotheques with my Canon 7d (15-85), and develop my own art work with that camera and with a Pentax 67 II and its fabulous lenses (I have recently been working about townhouses and multifamily buildings). Sometimes I need 1 meters prints (and sometimes bigger) for galleries.
I´ve decided to replace both cameras with the new Nikon D800e. I have been reading a lot about this issue on the Internet (and most of your notes). I have a 50 1.8D and I could spend no more than 3k in lenses. I need to cover from a wide angle to a short tele.
I think the 105 2.8G, would be the best option to cover the short tele area. I used to thought the combination between my 50 1.8d and the 24-70g (discotheques, travels, and kids) would be a good option to cover the wide/normal areas.
I understand some of you are not so sure about the 24-70 with the d800e (24, sharp, etc), so I`m a little disoriented about what could be the lenses for my needs and wallet.
Maybe the 14-24 (or 24g), 50 and 105g? I´m not sure if I could be comfortable without a short zoom in my bag.
I`d really appreciate you advices.

 

[D&A]

I´m still trying to decide which the better lens to use with the D800e are.
I am a passionate and -part time- professional photographer (just because I like it). I usually work in discotheques with my Canon 7d (15-85), and develop my own art work with that camera and with a Pentax 67 II and its fabulous lenses (I have recently been working about townhouses and multifamily buildings). Sometimes I need 1 meters prints (and sometimes bigger) for galleries.
I´ve decided to replace both cameras with the new Nikon D800e. I have been reading a lot about this issue on the Internet (and most of your notes). I have a 50 1.8D and I could spend no more than 3k in lenses. I need to cover from a wide angle to a short tele.
I think the 105 2.8G, would be the best option to cover the short tele area. I used to thought the combination between my 50 1.8d and the 24-70g (discotheques, travels, and kids) would be a good option to cover the wide/normal areas.
I understand some of you are not so sure about the 24-70 with the d800e (24, sharp, etc), so I`m a little disoriented about what could be the lenses for my needs and wallet.
Maybe the 14-24 (or 24g), 50 and 105g? I´m not sure if I could be comfortable without a short zoom in my bag.
I`d really appreciate you advices.

Lots of good suggestions can be made (and most certainly will), but permit me to throw one out there that might enable you to keep your current lenses and address your budget. No one can say with any certainty at this point how the Nikon 24-70 will perform with the D800E, until that camera is released and tested. A 16-35 or 17-35 along with a 50mm and a short telezoom would be a good spread. The 16-35 f4 VR I suspect will be a competent performer on the D800E but has excessive distortion at its wide end which may or may not be an issue in post processing, depending on subjects shot and subject distances. I haven't yet tested the venerable Nikon17-35mm f2.8 on the D800/D800E, but my gut feeling is corners to say the least at 17-20mm with the zoom might be an issue until well stopped down. The Tokina 17-35 f4 is an unknown and untested as far as I know on the D800 but will fit into most individuals budget. Tokina's 16-28 f2.8 won't be adaquate in the sides/corners, as it wasn't when I tested it on a D700/D3S. The zooms on the D800/D800E are sort of a wild card until further testing.

Lastly if you think you would use the wide range Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, you could combine that with a fast 35mm f1.4 and use your 50mm f1.8 and 105 G lens..which might just about be covered with your budget unless of course you decide to sell your 24-70 f2.8 lens. The gap between 24mm and 50mm is sometimes a bit too wide for many shooters, and therefore filling in that gap is essential.

Dave (D&A)

 

[BSEH]

Any read this guy ? Some time he takes a lot of beating, Im not qualified for be the Judge On this - any opinion on this ?

Drew from Lensrental

 

[BSEH]

Now with the link:

LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection

 

[ustein]

>Any read this guy ? Some time he takes a lot of beating, Im not qualified for be the Judge On this

What are you talking about (context)?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Some of his tests sound good like the 85g and 35g which I own. One issue is on zooms he has not tested the whole range of focal lengths but picked just one to test so that seems up in the air a little.