? Nikon AF-d 24 f2.8 35 f2 50 1.8 on D800???

[DDudenbostel]

I'm considering a D800 with the main consideration a smaller size and weight kit. I'm a commercial and documentary photographer and have been dragging a large roll around case with canon equipment and a equally heavy case of Hasselblad digital gear plus lighting and misc goodies. When shooting my Canon equipment I use 1 series bodies and mainly shoot primes.

The issue with my Canon gear is weight and size of L glass. These are not small and light compared to Nikons slower glass. I've used Nikon glass for years on film and then on the D1 and D1x back in their day and was happy with the results. Now with the higher res sensor of the D800 the demands on glass are much greater.

Anyone have experience with the 24 f2.8, 35 f2 and 50 f1.8 AF-D lenses? Also looking at the 85's how does the older AF-D stack up to the new G lens.

If I go Nikon again I want to go slower smaller lighter glass. If I have to go the new f1.4 G lenses there's really no point in switching systems.

Thanks in advance!

 

[pgmj]

I tried the 35/2 and compared it to the Zeiss Distagon T* ZF 35/2 some time ago using a D200. Don't think the Nikkor would hold up well on a D800 since it didn't perform very well on the D200, especially compared to the Zeiss. The 50/1.8 AF-D has rather ugly bokeh, imho, otherwise a decent lens. The newer 1.4G is very good and not all that large. The 85 AF-D has really bad flare resistance, but it is sharp and fairly aberration free from f/2.2.

Have a look at the Olympus OM-D if you want to get the size and weight down significantly.

 

[DDudenbostel]

Thanks for the info. I really want to stay in a full frame sensor.

If I have to go to Zeiss or the f1.4 G lenses then I might as well stay with Canon.

I bought a couple of D3100's this past year and had one converted to IR and one remained color. I bought them for vacation travel and have really loved them for casual shooting. I went with the D3100 because of size, weight and could use my old F manual focus lenses. I was really surprised at what performed well and what didn't. I always held the 105 f2.5 and 24 f2.8 in high regard. Note that the ones i have are the very first version non AI and formulas have changed in both lenses. The 24 has changed twice times and the 105 once. I also felt the old 50 f3.5 micro was good till I used these three on my D3100. I was seriously disappointed but also used my first generation 28 f3.5 and 35 f2.8 which were excellent performers. You just never know I guess.

I also have a 1970's 25-50 f4 zoom that is a stellar performer on the D3100's and a 75-150 E that's quite good but I have no experience with them on a FF camera.

Thanks and hope to hear from others that have used them on FF cameras.

 

[phero66]

I have the D800 and like you have been lugging around a Canon kit for the past 5 years. The only nikon lens I had left from before was the 50 f1.8D and I was plesantly surpised by its performance at f8. I had rented a Zeiss 50mm Makro to test on the D800E and while the Zeiss had less falloff @f8 they were pretty darn close.

With much joy I put the 50mm 1.8D onto my D800 that had just arrived and took it out for the evening revealing in its "lightness." However I was rather dismayed at its performance below f4, which if I had bothered to look at the ISO charts on the-digital-picture.com it would have been obvious it was not going to cut it until stoped down a good amount.

So... what f-stops do you plan to use them for? You might still get what you need out of them without Zeiss or G lenses.

 

[DDudenbostel]

I pretty much cover the full f stop range with what I shoot.

I don't enlarge to extremem sizes and most likely will not enlarge above native file size. I've found pixel peeping to give a false impression of an image or file. Looking at a 36mp file at 100% on screen is roughly like looking at a 90 inch print from six inches. No one ever does that in real life. My commercial work is all from a tripod with strobe lighting as a rule. Documentary work is on the fly hand held often under terrible lighting conditions. Often the imperfections in documentary photography ad to the drama of the subject. Not that I'm looking for sub performance in lenses but pixel sharp isn't as big a deal with documentary photography.

Here's a good cross section of my documentary work ---

Editorial B&W - RangeFinderForum Gallery

Thanks again

Don

 

[phero66]

I should have mentioned my main use for D800 is flat copywork, so @ 100% pixels is important for my type of work.

Looking at the ISO charts do give you a heads up on what can happen with the lens at various apertures, not just sharpness or resolution. For me it was the lack of contrast and just general haziness that killed its near wide-open use for me. Maybe you edit your way around this, or in the case of light falloff may aid your use of it. For me if I'm going to shoot near wide-open (for general street shooting) I'm doing it for bokeh, and some imperfections are ok. My limit was around f4 for the 50 1.8D, you might find it otherwise.

Best,

-John

 

[DDudenbostel]

I'm not a bokeh person and as far as falloff I often burn the edges down like I did with film.