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!
Lars,Peter, congrats on your new tool/toy/tinker object. Looking back what was your reason for not keeping the D800E, and how is the D810 different?
Camera arriving tomorrow with a 50/1.8G, a grip, a DK-17M finder magnifier, and a dirt cheap L plate for body only. Also considering 35/1.8G and 85/1.8G at some point, we'll see if my old 85/1.4D stands up to scrutiny.
Beyond my 20/2.8D I really don't have any wide angle primes as all my landscape work has been with large format. The D810 has just about enough resolution for single-shot panoramics - in my opinion a horizontal panoramic format requires more detail as we tend to examine it closer, in segments, rather than as a single image. 8K wide will do for reasonably wide prints.
Lars
Spot on, Jack. I use the 180 for travel. When a zoom is needed for sports etc., I have the 80-200 AF-S, which performs best @ f/4-5.6.Lars,
If you need the versatility of the zoom in the 70-200 range, the Nikkor f4 is pretty dang good. However, if you don't really need it except for 200, then I reco you look at an older 180/2.8 -- about the same size as the 70-200/4, less weight and 1/4 the cost -- very sweet lens to use with gorgeous rendering and easy to travel with. Sharp centrally with extreme corners going a little soft wide open, but it's a pleasant soft that I find useful for "centering" people. By f4 it's essentially as sharp as the zoom, though it doesn't focus quite as fast.
I love that lens! It performs superbly on the D750 (24Mpixel) and F6 (APX 50 film test). I doubt you'll have any problems on the D810.Jack - I do have a 180/2.8D, probably my sharpest D series lens on the D700. Whether it holds up at higher resolution remains to be seen.
As for the gap between 20 and 50, I have considered replacing the 21/28 combo with Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 and 25mm f/2.0. I love the 21mm, but it's large and often too wide or not wide enough. At the moment, I'll let it remain as is though. The choices are more or less limitless between 20 and 28mm these days.Jorgen,
Looking back, my most used SLR lenses are: 80-200/2.8D (falling apart), 85/1.4D, Sigma 50/1.4 non-Art (love the bokeh, sufficient resolving power on D700). Less used: 180/2.8D (keeper, great but I always tend to pack the 80-200), 135/2 DC (specialty, great lens), 300/4 AF like yours (not a keeper, usually stays at home), 20/2.8D (always in the bag), 16/2.8D Fisheye (great but specialty). Also a Tokina 20-35/2.8 (from the nineties, like everything from that era that zooms it's, ahem, "sharp stopped down" hehe).
So: 80-200 needs to be replaced, and I'm ok with f/4. 200-500 is great for action sports. Huge gap between 20 and 50 - and my 20 isn't fantastic. 85/1.4D I could do without, it's in good condition so I could possibly replace it with a new 85/1.8G with even better defocus at half the cost. As mentioned above, a travel/walkabout zoom would be nice, and then a 28 or 35 prime of very good quality. Then perhaps a Sigma 50 Art for resolving power. I do prefer AF so Zeiss is not my first choice (but maybe I should reconsider for landscape-dedicated lenses).
I could go for 20-35-50 I think, with the 35 and 50 being Sigma's 1.4 Art for shallow DOF. Sure, let's throw in a 20/1.4 Art as well.As for the gap between 20 and 50, I have considered replacing the 21/28 combo with Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 and 25mm f/2.0. I love the 21mm, but it's large and often too wide or not wide enough. At the moment, I'll let it remain as is though. The choices are more or less limitless between 20 and 28mm these days.