I just got a Nikon 105mm 2.8 micro-Nikkor and it is a fantastic lens for the D800. I am really impressed with the detail, bokeh and color. I used to use third party (e.g. Leica and Zeiss) macro lenses on my canon because I did not like the canon choices but I am just so pleased with the Nikon that I do not have to look at the zeiss or leica. I will say that I am a huge fan of the Zeiss 50mm f2 makro as a general 50mm focal length and at some point want to trade my canon for a nikon.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
What Lenses for the D800?
- Thread starter Mr.Gale
- Start date
ptomsu
Workshop Member
The 2.8/105 Micro Nikkor VR is a superb lens. Easily outperforming any Zeiss counterpart. Not so sure about Leica APO Macro 100, but this is a different game.
innerimager
Member
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 would love to hear how the PC-E lenses fare on the D800. Do share your findings when you're done
mountainjoe
Member
Anyone tried out a Zeiss 35mm f2?
I would think this lens would be worthy of the D800 if any lens is...
I would think this lens would be worthy of the D800 if any lens is...
innerimager
Member
Just bought a used one which will sit all by it's lonesome self till the D800E arrives. I'll report my findings then, but this lens is exceptional and could be one of those that really delivers to this sensor. Check out Reid Reviews (worth the fee) where he tested it on a D700 and said he wished the AA filter was weaker so he could really see how the lens shines.
It think the 50mm/2 zeiss is a great all around lens that can do macro. I like the 100mm zeiss but I am not as impressed -- primarily background-bokeh-- transitions. There are a a lot of alternatives that are better in the 100mm range that I think are better.
one if not the favorite lens on my d700.
innerimager
Member
I'm with you Mark. I sold my Zeiss 100 MP, preferring the 105 DC on my D3, while the 50 MP became one of my all time favorites. I'm hoping the 105DC fares as well on the D800E, and suspect it will. I prefer the transition from sharp to unsharp, the bokeh, and even the colors of the 105 DC over the Zeiss 100.
nikonf
Member
Yes, I am going to try my 100mm Macro-Elmarit as soon as I get my D800E.
Do you think any of the Leica R wide angles will work well?
Okay, after a few days of dorking around with glass, here is what I've settled on for the time being. Lenses are pretty personal, so I am not suggesting this is an ideal set for everybody, it's just a good beginning point for me and my needs with this camera. And of course, all of this is subject to change as I shoot the camera more :ROTFL:
Next point is I have refrained from sharing images because the weather in sunny California has been anything but this past week, lots of rain and total ugly overcast skies. (Plus I've been busy with the paying gig!) Hopefully the coming week is good weather and I have some free shooting time and can get some test images up -- stay tuned.
24-120 VRii: This lens is just so versatile, I expect it to be on the camera 80% of the time.
20mm f2.8D: While the 16-35 VR is probably a better net performer at 20 than this lens is, this lens is still quite good. Plus -- and this is the important part for me -- I do not shoot wider than 24 very often at all, so carrying a larger, heavier lens that may get used 5% of the time is not very attractive. Plus there is the cost difference! The 20 is tiny, so is floating around the bottom of the bag taking up no room or weight and will be there when I do need it. Oh, and I do like the way this lens renders!
80-400 VR: I found a used one at my local camera store and its performance pleasantly surprised me, especially at the long end. The 70-200/2.8 VRii is a phenomenal lens, but when I need a tele over 120 I usually end up wanting around 300, so the 70-200 needs a converter. Now the 70-200 with a converter is probably still be a better performer than this 80-400, but this lens is a bit shorter and lighter (a lot shorter than the 70-200 with converter mounted), and covers the entire range without the need to swap the converter on and off. It does give up optical speed at the lower ranges, so the look is different, but again my main desire for this lens is the 300 range.
105DC: This is my look lens, I love the way this lens renders period. And it is a tunable look which is very cool. Plus when set to zero it is laser sharp with great bokeh. In this, it also makes up for not having the speed in the lower regions of the above zoom.
Still needed: A "look" lens in the 50 range. I am waiting on the 50/1.4G, but may end up with the Sigma 50/1.4 *OR* the Nikkor 35/1.4G. I had the Sigma on my Canon and really liked the way it rendered; Guy has the 35/1.4G and is really happy with the way it renders. The other option would be an MF Nikkor 50/1.2, but I am pretty certain I want to stick with an AF lens on this camera.
Next point is I have refrained from sharing images because the weather in sunny California has been anything but this past week, lots of rain and total ugly overcast skies. (Plus I've been busy with the paying gig!) Hopefully the coming week is good weather and I have some free shooting time and can get some test images up -- stay tuned.
24-120 VRii: This lens is just so versatile, I expect it to be on the camera 80% of the time.
20mm f2.8D: While the 16-35 VR is probably a better net performer at 20 than this lens is, this lens is still quite good. Plus -- and this is the important part for me -- I do not shoot wider than 24 very often at all, so carrying a larger, heavier lens that may get used 5% of the time is not very attractive. Plus there is the cost difference! The 20 is tiny, so is floating around the bottom of the bag taking up no room or weight and will be there when I do need it. Oh, and I do like the way this lens renders!
80-400 VR: I found a used one at my local camera store and its performance pleasantly surprised me, especially at the long end. The 70-200/2.8 VRii is a phenomenal lens, but when I need a tele over 120 I usually end up wanting around 300, so the 70-200 needs a converter. Now the 70-200 with a converter is probably still be a better performer than this 80-400, but this lens is a bit shorter and lighter (a lot shorter than the 70-200 with converter mounted), and covers the entire range without the need to swap the converter on and off. It does give up optical speed at the lower ranges, so the look is different, but again my main desire for this lens is the 300 range.
105DC: This is my look lens, I love the way this lens renders period. And it is a tunable look which is very cool. Plus when set to zero it is laser sharp with great bokeh. In this, it also makes up for not having the speed in the lower regions of the above zoom.
Still needed: A "look" lens in the 50 range. I am waiting on the 50/1.4G, but may end up with the Sigma 50/1.4 *OR* the Nikkor 35/1.4G. I had the Sigma on my Canon and really liked the way it rendered; Guy has the 35/1.4G and is really happy with the way it renders. The other option would be an MF Nikkor 50/1.2, but I am pretty certain I want to stick with an AF lens on this camera.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Okay I got to ask you this and I know the answer . M8 when you had it you loved the 28 cron. Which is FF 35 and you loved the 50 pre which was 65 I think. Jack since you have the 105 maybe 35 f2 which is supposed to be good although the 1.4 is a look lens have thought about the 60 macro which is really good even at infinity and maybe 650 dollars to boot. Just implant thought there. Lol
Btw folks Jack and I are always debating what lens next issue in all our systems . It's always fun to talk glass. We truly are gear slut lens whores.
Btw folks Jack and I are always debating what lens next issue in all our systems . It's always fun to talk glass. We truly are gear slut lens whores.
Just a suggestion based on your posting "above". For whatever reason, an extremely large percentage of the 105mm DC lenses over the years (USA versions?) came directly from Nikon brand new with best sharpness at a DC setting one or two notches away from zero. It's well documented and many have opted to send them back to Nikon for "nulling" the DC control to zero or at the very least, leave their DC setting where simple testing showed best sharpness. If it's something other than zero, it's very easy and fast to test for with simple DC control bracketing on a stationary subject.
For "look" in a 50mm, I don't have to tell you about the Sigma 50mm (which you mentioned) but whether it has enough resolution when used wide or one stop down on the D800, it's hard to say.
Dave (D&A)
For "look" in a 50mm, I don't have to tell you about the Sigma 50mm (which you mentioned) but whether it has enough resolution when used wide or one stop down on the D800, it's hard to say.
Dave (D&A)
innerimager
Member
"still needed: A "look" lens in the 50 range. I am waiting on the 50/1.4G, but may end up with the Sigma 50/1.4 *OR* the Nikkor 35/1.4G. I had the Sigma on my Canon and really liked the way it rendered; Guy has the 35/1.4G and is really happy with the way it renders. The other option would be an MF Nikkor 50/1.2, but I am pretty certain I want to stick with an AF lens on this camera."
Jack - Let go of AF and try the Zeiss 50/2 MP, you'll be very happy ;>)
best....Peter
PS I concur with Dave, my 105 DC is sharpest at DC set -2.
Jack - Let go of AF and try the Zeiss 50/2 MP, you'll be very happy ;>)
best....Peter
PS I concur with Dave, my 105 DC is sharpest at DC set -2.
[QUOTE PS I concur with Dave, my 105 DC is sharpest at DC set -2.[/QUOTE]
Yes, correct Peter. It usually was generally -1 or -2 that was most often the setting many found where their 105DC lens would exhibit max sharpness (for those lenses that were off in their DC calibration from Nikon). Most definitely agree with your suggestion about the Zeiss 50 f2, if AF is not a requirement.
Dave (D&A)
Yes, correct Peter. It usually was generally -1 or -2 that was most often the setting many found where their 105DC lens would exhibit max sharpness (for those lenses that were off in their DC calibration from Nikon). Most definitely agree with your suggestion about the Zeiss 50 f2, if AF is not a requirement.
Dave (D&A)
That's a damn good observation :ROTFL:
In truth, I did love the 28 Cron, and I loved the 50 pre-Lux. But the 50 pre was always just a tad long for me. Given I have the 105DC, I will prolly end up with the 35/1.4 as my wider look lens -- I used the 28 Cron a lot more than the 50 Lux on the M. I really don't think the 35/2 will deliver the look I want, but if I could find one to try it is certainly worth looking at -- the 20 D renders nicer than I expected.
Dave and Inner,
Good to know about the 105DC and sharpness. I had sort of noticed that just playing around with it and decided to investigate further -- at least assuming that 2 stops to the left is minus 2 -???. However, I have it currently set to f2.8 to the right -- what I assume is plus 1 -- and really like that as my standard look for most things I am shooting with it. One thing is certain, the effect changes with focus distance too, especially at closer distances. Note number 2 is the lens back-focused on my body and needed a -7 offset to zero it on my body.
Good to know about the 105DC and sharpness. I had sort of noticed that just playing around with it and decided to investigate further -- at least assuming that 2 stops to the left is minus 2 -???. However, I have it currently set to f2.8 to the right -- what I assume is plus 1 -- and really like that as my standard look for most things I am shooting with it. One thing is certain, the effect changes with focus distance too, especially at closer distances. Note number 2 is the lens back-focused on my body and needed a -7 offset to zero it on my body.