Nikon D800 First Blush

[jonoslack]

I am very surprised (maybe even slightly shocked) by the 24-120mm f/4.

Hi Uwe . . . shocked by how good it is?
I find it hard to tell by web shots this size; and your photos are always fine. it's the one think most likely to make me buy the D800 (if the 24-120 works well with it).

 

[ustein]

Jono,

The old 24-120mm was not great. So I expected some improvements but it surpassed my expectations.


I posted a link to the full sized images (see above). The 24-120mm zoom range is ideal for me and I don't care that much about the 14-24mm range but that lens rocks (see Guy's sample (red house).

 

[jonoslack]

Jono,

The old 24-120mm was not great. So I expected some improvements but it surpassed my expectations.


I posted a link to the full sized images (see above). The 24-120mm zoom range is ideal for me and I don't care that much about the 14-24mm range but that lens rocks (see Guy's sample (red house).

HI Uwe - I've owned the 14-24, and I know how good it is, how heavy it is, and how much I don't use it! Like you the 24-120 range is pivotal for what I do (if I want class primes I'll stick to the M9)

I'm in China right now, and not downloading full sized samples!

thanks . . .
all the best

 

[Jack]

I am very surprised (maybe even slightly shocked) by the 24-120mm f/4.

I told you so! oke: n
~~~

Jono,

It is a very good, even surprisingly good performer. I told this to Uwe last week and he really didn't believe me because the previous version was so poor. But this one is a whole new animal. A little longer physically, but about the same weight, and of course it also has VR. If I had to make any complaint, it is distortions, but they are so easily corrected in post that I find it a trivial concern. The 24-120 is an ideal range for me too, and this lens is a joy to use.

Still searching for an ideal 18 to 20mm lens though, no luck. The 16-35 is also very good optically, but distorts more, and I don't use wider than 20mm very often at all. The 14-24 is excellent as well, but difficult to filter. Both are large and expensive for the few times I want an 18-20-ish focal. I know the Zeiss is probably the answer, but I would prefer AF and lower cost, so I may just settle for a basic Nikon 18mm or 20mm AF.

 

[ustein]

>I told you so!

Jack, believe me if you did not tell me I would have missed it big time. Thanks. You are much more of a lens gourmet/expert than me .

 

[ustein]

The reds are not great in ACR but better in NX2. Too bad I cannot photograph all our Ferraris

 

[D&A]

I am very surprised (maybe even slightly shocked) by the 24-120mm f/4.QUOTE]

My disappointment with the current 24-120 f4 (in the samples I tested) wasn't even the mild-moderate distortion at the wider focal lengths, but was simply the weak performance sharpness wise away from the center of the image at closer focusing subject distances. At moderate and long subject distances such as one might use it as an outdoor walk around lens, it was more than acceptable (fine), especially when appropriate distortion corrects were applied when required. With others opinions on this lens's performance so greatly varied since it's introduction, I wonder if there are extensive differences with different production runs of this lens, much akin to Nikon's 17-35mm f2.8, where differences between early and late samples were dramatic. Interestingly, there has been some talk that for whatever reason, the optical performance of this lens on the D800 is far superior to its use on the D700/D3 (bodies I initially tested various samples of this lens on). Why & how it's hard to say. In any case, just some personal observations.

Nicely posted samples with this lens Uwe!

Dave (D&A)

 

[ustein]

>Nicely posted samples with this lens Ewe!

Thanks but still my name is Uwe

 

[D&A]

>Nicely posted samples with this lens Ewe!

Thanks but still my name is Uwe

Believe me I know...following you and your site from the very earliest days years ago. It was simply a typo and I caught it prior to even seeing your post repremanding me...LOL! Try typing fast on a miniture cell phone Thanks! UWE!

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay got some nice test images between the two systems 2 sets to be exact. Than I ran into a parade, out came the Nikon. Lol

Try posting everything up later

 

[D&A]

Okay got some nice test images between the two systems 2 sets to be exact. Than I ran into a parade, out came the Nikon. Lol

Try posting everything up later

Perfect...out shooting and testing and away from a calibrated system anyhow, so something I and I'm sure many others are looking forward to later.

Well I hope out came the Nikon...I'd think by the time you set up the tech camera, the parade would be long gone...that is unless you asked parade participants to stop, turn and look.....LOL!

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

One of the easier choices to make in life. ROTFLMAO

 

[Jack]

>I told you so!

Jack, believe me if you did not tell me I would have missed it big time. Thanks. You are much more of a lens gourmet/expert than me .

Ah not really -- I know you also look for and see the exact same things I look for (and see) in lenses. The reality for both of us (and Guy too) is isn't only about resolution, but lots of other factors that mostly relate to the subjects we each like to shoot

My disappointment with the current 24-120 f4 (in the samples I tested) wasn't even the mild-moderate distortion at the wider focal lengths, but was simply the weak performance sharpness wise away from the center of the image at closer focusing subject distances. At moderate and long subject distances such as one might use it as an outdoor walk around lens, it was more than acceptable (fine), especially when appropriate distortion corrects were applied when required. With others opinions on this lens's performance so greatly varied since it's introduction, I wonder if there are extensive differences with different production runs of this lens, much akin to Nikon's 17-35mm f2.8, where differences between early and late samples were dramatic.

It's certainly possible there was a production difference, but I will add that I am very impressed with close-up performance on this lens, at least central 2/3rds of frame. In fact, it focuses very close and obtains semi-macro magnifications at very acceptable resolutions. No, it will not replace a dedicated macro, but it is more than just decent for the occasional close-up grab.

 

[tashley]

I told you so! oke: n
~~~

Jono,

It is a very good, even surprisingly good performer. I told this to Uwe last week and he really didn't believe me because the previous version was so poor. But this one is a whole new animal. A little longer physically, but about the same weight, and of course it also has VR. If I had to make any complaint, it is distortions, but they are so easily corrected in post that I find it a trivial concern. The 24-120 is an ideal range for me too, and this lens is a joy to use.

Still searching for an ideal 18 to 20mm lens though, no luck. The 16-35 is also very good optically, but distorts more, and I don't use wider than 20mm very often at all. The 14-24 is excellent as well, but difficult to filter. Both are large and expensive for the few times I want an 18-20-ish focal. I know the Zeiss is probably the answer, but I would prefer AF and lower cost, so I may just settle for a basic Nikon 18mm or 20mm AF.

aaarrrgghhh.... my 24-120 ordered brand new at a great price from Robert White in the UK (no one else has them in stock at any price) has arrived but I HAVE NOTHING TO PUT IT ON and this thread is torture....


:cussing:

 

[eleanorbrown]

Guy, thanks for posting links to the RAWs...they are really really helpful. I'm working (for the Nikon) in Lightroom 4---don't have the Nikon software but from what I'm hearing it's lousy to work with (Nikon's that is). I'm actually liking my results in Lightroom. Just wondering how the same shots would work in the D800e? Read that some who had preordered the "e" version got warning emails from B&H about issues with the files from this version. I've never used a CMOS sensor without an AA filter.
Thanks again for your links and testing! Eleanor

Here is a link to this Raw to play with.

https://www.yousendit.com/dl?phi_ac..._download%26batch_id%3DM3BtcmxlYSs1UjU3czlVag

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes the E version may just be the wild card here. I never shot a hot rodded CMOS sensor myself but seen some issues . Although the E is not really hot rodded one still has to wonder. I'm going to wait the E version out until I see some results myself. But I will say the e-mails from B&H and others and Nikons warnings are really to cover themselves more than the issue itself. Both of them are worried about returns, lets face it most people buying these may not even know what it truly is to start with and I said this before if Canon/Nikon put out a non AA sensor than they would get tens of thousands of phone call complaints over moire . I said this a year ago and Nikon went ahead and did it, so the are really covering themselves from the occasional moire issues. All sensors have it but the AA does reduce it greatly. Honestly I think it will be fine but again you are going to want great glass in front of it. The sensor will handle almost anything thrown at it but it does come down to limits of the lens.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Guy, I agree that it's a case of CYA by Nikon at the moment with the E series, no doubt coupled to the fact that there are likely many more orders for this camera than were initially expected in their 90:10% production plan.

 

[weinschela]

Leica didn't need to cya re the M8 and M9 lack of AA filter. If I did weddings I might worry about moire but have had M8/9 for 5-6 years and run into moire rarely. Now the 800E is 2x the resolution of the M9 (okay, 2x the number of pixels) so that may be a difference, but I ordered one and am not wringing my hands - other than I don't have it yet.

 

[vjbelle]

Guy,

Your images have been a real eye opener..... at least for me. Your Test files with the 60mm vs 35mm were very telling..... I zeroed in at 100% on the small text at the right hand door and compared the small text on the 'Thank You For Not Smoking' decal. Even with 36MP there really is no comparison. More pixels = more detail. I still have the E on order and only the Nikon gods know when it will show up but I'm in no hurry. I know for sure that I'll never sell my DF or Schneider LS lenses. My Alpa, of course, will always be used for the majority of my images. The Nikon will just be a spare in the bag along with my Zeiss glass.

I really do appreciate your taking all of this time for testing and sharing. :salute:

Victor

 

[Vivek]

Guy, I agree that it's a case of CYA by Nikon at the moment with the E series, no doubt coupled to the fact that there are likely many more orders for this camera than were initially expected in their 90:10% production plan.

What does CYA mean?