D800 with 24-120 opinions and tests

[tashley]

I know a number of people are hoping to get this combination but are concerned that the lens may not be up to the camera... however, seeing's as Nikon recommend it, and many people on-line have found the lens surprisingly good, I got one before my D800 was delivered and have been trying it out.

Some observations:

Firstly, in single centre point one-off focus mode I have yet to miss a single shot in any light at any distance.

Secondly, the lens is, I think, better than my old walkaround, the Canon 24-105.

Thirdly, though contrast drops a little at the longer end, it is really negligible.

Now, I am uploading to Zenfolio as we speak my standard test scene. It's not perfect but its been very useful over the years to judge sharpness of systems at medium long distance. All the files are uploading at 91% JPEG quality and 100% size. They were imported into LR4 and given Auto tone, uniform WB, and sharpening that I am using as my first flush attempt at getting input sharpening right for this camera and lens. That is 60, 0.7, 70, 20.

Lens corrections are also applied, including for CA.

Now this is a test I did for myself and am sharing, not something I am using to try to prove anything to the world. Consequently all these are handheld with VR on and with AF as described above. That's how I will shoot this lens. If I want top quality I'll use a tripod and top notch glass.

My acid test is: as a carry around, can this SYSTEM of lens and camera provide me with generally good IQ with certain sweet spots of excellence such that, should I come across something I want to work up, print and sell, I could do so happily? The answer is Yes.

Here's the link to the files:

Tim Ashley Photography | D800 With 24-120 tests | _DSC2381

Here are my brief thoughts on looking at them at 50% on screen, equivalent to a 200DPI print. I didn't bother with 100%, that's how irrelevant it is for my particular purpose here.

The shots were pretty much all very good or better on centre, so the qualitative judgements below refer to the edges unless otherwise stated.

24MM
f4 bit soft at edges but acceptable, CA bad.
f5.6 slightly soft edges, goodish, CA noticeable
f8 edges good, CA OK

27mm
f4 as above for f4
f5.6 as above for f5.6
f8 as above for f8

35mm
f4 as above for f4
f5.6 pretty good edges and CA
f8 very good altogether

50mm
f4 edges OK to good, bit of CA
f5.6 very good to excellent altogether
f8 excellent altogether

70mm
f4 edges slightly soft, a little CA
f5.6 good to very good altogether
f8 vert good to excellent

85mm
f4 good, small CA
f5.6 good to very good, CA negligible
f8 Excellent

98mm
f4 softening edges, a little CA
f5.6 acceptable edges, CA negligible
f8 pretty good overall

120mm
f4 entire frame very slightly soft, edges,a touch more so, a little CA
f5.6 entire frame goodish
f8 Entire frame good

Phew.
Enjoy, and tell me if you agree!

 

[ustein]

>Secondly, the lens is, I think, better than y old walkaround, the Canon 24-105.

I think so too.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Tim

First ..nice test ...since you shoot this frequently you have a nice benchmark of past experience to reference . I do the same thing with a pier in jupiter Fl . Have shot the pier so many times I can see the differences between cameras and lenses in a instant .

I am surprised by the apparent high interest in the 24-120 zoom . This lens was tested extensively when it was introduced and while significantly better than the old version (which would be unacceptable on the D800) ...it has not been highly regarded.

I understand the value of a good all around walk around lens..like the 24-105/4 canon was when the Mps where in the 12 range . Most people stress the issues of distortion,aberrations and soft corners but I am equally concerned that the lens is slow and not so great wide open . Shooting at ISO 800 verse 400 is a big deal in almost every measure of IQ .but it depends on the subject ..the color and the Dr range required .

Just seems like a real mismatch when discussing the IQ of the best FF sensor available . I fight to keep my ISO as close to native as i can while still having the appropriate shutter speed and aperture . A lens that needs F5.6 to perform doesn t fit my requirements .

I understand the value of AF ..but not really on a test as you have performed . If you shot the same scene with the best Zeiss ZF.2 lens ....the 100/2,the 50/2 ,the 21/2.8 you would see a material difference in IQ. I know some photographers have an absolute must have AF ...I don t feel this way . I need AF for Polo not for a landscape on a tripod .

If I was shooting events and needed a zoom ..I would go with the 24-70/2.8AF which is just a great lens and has the advantage of being usable at f2.8 . You have to watch the sample error on these ....I had to have my 24-70/2.8 rebuilt by Nikon under warranty and its so much better . Fortunately I had a friends copy to test against .

I really do understand the value of the 24-120 range ....fought this issue with Canon for years ..the 24-105 was really handy ..yet the 24-70/2.8 was better for events .

I spent a ton of time testing all the Nikon glass and the zeiss alternatives on the D3X and you could see the differences . The fast primes where great at F2.8 but the zooms often required F5.6 .

 

[tashley]

Hi Roger,

I hear you, but we do have different criteria: this is a walk around and for that, the first consideration is the right combination of weight and zoom range provided that at 50% on screen there are some spots of excellence and no real no-no spots. Hence the methodology. It's not intended to show the best the camera can possibly do, just what it can do when lazily operated but by someone who vaguely knows what they're doing and has chosen the glass for the task...

This combo fits that bill for me without a doubt. AF and no tripod are also a requirement (you can't focus Live view without a tripod if you value your sanity and a tripod is not a walk around item for me).

As I said if I had gone somewhere on purpose to take a shot I would certainly use premium prime glass and a tripod, of course, but so far I am very happy shooting the D800 up to ISO 800 and pretty happy to ISO 1600 because at 50% zoom you just don't see noise, even with quite strong sharpening.

This camera is a game changer: the extra resolution and good ISO performance, coupled with great DR, make the files very malleable and that means that you can shoot around a lenses weaknesses quite adequately. There are several combinations of F stop and focal length and ISO on this system that I would most certainly sell or exhibit prints from.


Regarding shooting the same view with every system, I am SO with you on this: it can spot a winner or a dog within seconds of opening the files!

Can't wait to try the D800E in the same place!

Best
Tim

 

[darr]

Thanks Tim!!

 

[glenerrolrd]

I am certainly one to appreciate the form and function of a camera lens combination as I shoot primarily my M9 s with summicrons ..because they just handle so well.

I am still waiting for my D800E and D4 (next week) but I think I know what to expect form all the great posts of those that have the cameras .

 

[tashley]

Well ol' chap, I honestly think you're in for a treat! As it happens I am having a big consolidation of gear - selling my M9 (keeping all the glass) and my 5DII and Gh2 will all the glass, all the various compacts and mistakes, my X100... and whittling it down to just a NEX7, D800 or D800E, and IQ180 gear. Should cover all the bases!

 

[D&A]

Hi Tim,

Thanks for all your posted images in your other thread and your personal observations regarding the current Nikon 24-120 f4 VR lens as used on the D800. Count me as one of those that wasn't overly impressed with this lens when used on a D700/D3s, especially considering it's fairly high price. Yet there are few lenses in this range to choose from as a single walk around lens that has the combination of focal length, constant aperture and speed along with VR. I completely understand your intent and purpose of using this lens and your points of view are well taken. Thanks!

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jan Brittenson]

selling my M9 (keeping all the glass)

I'm wishing for an M10 with the same 36MP resolution as the D800E. While I think of my shooting as 75% RF and 25% SLR, or more in favor of RF, there are some things the SLR just does better. Like the mere existence of high-quality 70-200 zoom optics. (Just a 135mm is kinda limiting for reach on the RF, and slow to work with to boot.)

But, for now because the D800E is so much high resolution I suspect it's going to be 25-75 until we see the M10. I'm holding on to the M9 to see what happens.

I could of course buy an IQ back and tech cam, but I know for certain it would spend its life in a bag and never get used. Not going down that path. In fact, I'm going to sell off all my Mamiya SLR gear as it's going to be completely unused once I have the D800E in hand.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Wow you guys maybe jumping on to a bandwagon? There was a significant difference between the D3/D700 and the D3X or the Sony A900 . The new d800/d800e are both one step better . If you are comparing the d700 its night and day but not so with the D3X or the sony a900 . The point being it depends on where you are coming from(what you are comparing it with) and what you plan to shoot .

My three systems are the Leica M9,S2 and the Nikon D3s/x (soon to be D800e/D4) . I have tried and owned the Sony Nex 7 and the Fuji XPro 1 and sent them back . (just too much work to perfect the system with little if any gain over my existing equipment). When I got the S2 ..I did not stop using the M9 for street and travel . I also still use the Nikons for sports ,long glass and flash .

I expect the D800E will be a D700 body with a sensor much improved over the D3x . Pretty great camera but not better suited to street than my M9 s . The D4 will be a better version of the D3s and will be the camera of choice for fast action with long glass.

It takes years to master a system and I am attempting to standardize around three platforms and use the best tool for the assignment .

 

[Paratom]

Wow you guys maybe jumping on to a bandwagon? There was a significant difference between the D3/D700 and the D3X or the Sony A900 . The new d800/d800e are both one step better . If you are comparing the d700 its night and day but not so with the D3X or the sony a900 . The point being it depends on where you are coming from(what you are comparing it with) and what you plan to shoot .

My three systems are the Leica M9,S2 and the Nikon D3s/x (soon to be D800e/D4) . I have tried and owned the Sony Nex 7 and the Fuji XPro 1 and sent them back . (just too much work to perfect the system with little if any gain over my existing equipment). When I got the S2 ..I did not stop using the M9 for street and travel . I also still use the Nikons for sports ,long glass and flash .

I expect the D800E will be a D700 body with a sensor much improved over the D3x . Pretty great camera but not better suited to street than my M9 s . The D4 will be a better version of the D3s and will be the camera of choice for fast action with long glass.

It takes years to master a system and I am attempting to standardize around three platforms and use the best tool for the assignment .

Roger,
my gear is close to yours except I now only own a D700 body in the Nikon system. 90% of my shots are done with the S2 and the M9 and for walk around with Nex (or now the x100 which might eventually replace my NEX).
I still keep the Nikon for sports/tele/action or when I need fast reliable shooting. I once had a D3x but didnt use it enough to justify, it didnt show the IQ of MF and didnt have the speed of the D3/d700. (On the other side it might be just the right compromise for some).
I am looking forward to your experience with the D800 vs the D4.
In a longer term I want to replace my D700, probably with a D800 or D800E, or maybe a D4. But I will wait because right now I really dont know which of those three bodies ould be the right one for me.
Kind Regards, Tom

 

[jonoslack]

HI Tim
Thanks a lot for this - excellent information, especially for me, as the 24-120 focal length is the one I like most (and only the old Olympus 12-60 has ever lived up to my hopes).

I'm prepared to jump ship from Sony to Nikon . . . but not until I see what Sony comes up with next for the A900 replacement and new lenses. I've got too much invested in glass to simply jump, and comments on the colour of the D800 hasn't really reassured me.

I'm still having a love/hate relationship with EVF - I'm loving the visible white balance and exposure - focus peaking and being able to read the depth of field on 3rd party lenses . . . and hating the fact that it isn't optical!

all the best

 

[glenerrolrd]

Roger,
my gear is close to yours except I now only own a D700 body in the Nikon system. 90% of my shots are done with the S2 and the M9 and for walk around with Nex (or now the x100 which might eventually replace my NEX).
I still keep the Nikon for sports/tele/action or when I need fast reliable shooting. I once had a D3x but didnt use it enough to justify, it didnt show the IQ of MF and didnt have the speed of the D3/d700. (On the other side it might be just the right compromise for some).
I am looking forward to your experience with the D800 vs the D4.
In a longer term I want to replace my D700, probably with a D800 or D800E, or maybe a D4. But I will wait because right now I really dont know which of those three bodies ould be the right one for me.
Kind Regards, Tom

Tom

Interesting comparison. I fully appreciate that different requirements drive different conclusions .....and that the subjective feel of the equipment can be more important than the slight differences in IQ.

When I got the D3X I hoped it would cover my needs for landscape/seascape work as well as providing a significant boost for some types of sports photography (surfing ,kiteboarding both benefit from the higher IQ). At this point it was indeed the best alternative for me as it shared my Nikon long glass (200/300/400/600) . Your observations are similar to my experience ...it was just too slow for sports (at 14bits its 1FPS not the 5FPS advertised at 12bits). With the right Zeiss glass it compared well to the M9 but the size and weight made it a non starter . Then the S2 came out and you didn t need extensive testing to see the difference.

I only mention this because the D3x is an order of magnitude better IQ than my D3 was . Most Nikon users still consider the D3/D700 their benchmark ..so obviously they are appropriately wowed by the D800. And for sure the D800E looks to make my S2 seem a luxury .

 

[D&A]

Most Nikon users still consider the D3/D700 their benchmark ..so obviously they are appropriately wowed by the D800. And for sure the D800E looks to make my S2 seem a luxury .

Hi All,

I certainly don't want to derail this thread since Tim has been generous and has taken an enormous amount of his time to provide the results of his testing of the 24-120 f4 VR lens on the D800 and to share his personal observations. My comments & thoughts regarding the performance of this lens are in a post above and in other threads on this forum.

With regards to the quoted comment above....

Initial accounts and extremely early and preliminary comparative images taken with the D800 and Pentax 645D, has them very close with the edge to subject detail going to the 645D. Of course there are so many variables to examine in future testing of these two system which would clearly delineate "image" advantages of both systems... but the point I am trying to make is that with the same type of early and preliminary testing, it also appears that the D800 also comes close in image quality in some respects to the S2 with the S2 presumably having the edge over the D800. Of course all these particular comparions are debatable. I would assume then if we extrapolate, then it stands to reason that the 645D and S2 in some respects are extremely close, image wise. Yet not often is this last comparison spoken of as them being close, as though they are in some ways much further apart than they might actually be (and it may be that they are, especially due to optical performance of the Leica lenses).

I'll be the first to say, that most of these image tests are simply images of flat field subjects, sometimes with as close to a matched set of similar performing lenses, sometimes not. Additionally rendering of subjects and presentation of their respective images of all three cameras as examined in large format prints also hasn't been carefully done as far as I know.

My thought is if "A" (D800) is image wise quite close to "B" (645D) and "A" (D800) is image wise quite close to "C" (S2), then why is it rarely mentioned that "B" (645D) image wise is close to "C"(S2) and the perception is they are (from an image standpoint) in a different class from each other? Is it assumed it is because the Pentax 645 system relies on older designed 645 lenses, mostly designed in the film era whereas the other two have recently designed state of the art "digital" lenses? This may be true but all these preliminary observations as I just mentioned, is with lenses set on their optimal apertures and the Pentax 645 held its own. Just food for thought regarding all these types of comparisons and whether they are fueling some to drop their current systems for some other, simply based on these early observations.

*** Note to Moderators. If this question belongs in a different thread, then I welcome it being moved. Tim's work on what is a very popular "walk around lens" as used on the D800, is too important to be overrun.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Its fine Dave and it is a great question many are wondering on these D800/D800E. The real question and no one has the answer as it is a personal decision is how close is good enough. As you know I have shot already about 2k in images with the D800 and I'm pretty damn impressed and if I had to do a buy call right now on Pentax and Leica it would be wait for next version but thats me. As a MF shooter you want to be way above the borderline of the D800?D800E to do a buy call. I already have that in the IQ 160 and tech cam and that I would buy again. A S2 or Pentax 645 I would be scratching my head pretty hard. Now a S3 with a Dalsa and 50 or 60 mpx no question that would be above the D800 borderline a great deal. The limit on the S2 is the sensor not the lenses they have a long way to go to reach there full potential . My bet a 5 micron sensor so whatever that works out to be than that leica would be worth going after regardless of costs. But thats me and my opinion.

 

[tashley]

HI Tim
Thanks a lot for this - excellent information, especially for me, as the 24-120 focal length is the one I like most (and only the old Olympus 12-60 has ever lived up to my hopes).

I'm prepared to jump ship from Sony to Nikon . . . but not until I see what Sony comes up with next for the A900 replacement and new lenses. I've got too much invested in glass to simply jump, and comments on the colour of the D800 hasn't really reassured me.

I'm still having a love/hate relationship with EVF - I'm loving the visible white balance and exposure - focus peaking and being able to read the depth of field on 3rd party lenses . . . and hating the fact that it isn't optical!

all the best

Hi Jono,

Oddly the thing I miss most on the D800 having shot a lot with the NEX7 recently is that little tweak on the focus ring that brings up the highly magnified zoom view for focus. Give me an EVF any day over an optical finder - or better still an accurate hybrid!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Tim you can set that up in Live View with the Center button upon pressing goes to 100 percent or more for focusing. I have mine setup like that and its nice and handy.

 

[tashley]

I know, but I hate LV for handheld shooting... would kill for a good EVF here!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Man I just can't handle the EVF stuff I am a optical viewfinder all the way. I know I just can't change my spots or stripes. Old dog here. LOL

 

[tashley]

I always thought I really preferred the rangefinder first, the optical second and the EVF third but these new EVFs are so much better and you can really see if you have the exposure right before you shoot - as well as getting focus bang on... I'm a convert as you can tell, and now find the guesswork of rangefinder framing really irritating!