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?

D&A

Well-known member
I have some thoughts on a some of lenses you mentioned Tim, but for the moment, permit me to concentrate them on the current Tamron 70-300 with the similar to Nikon vibration reduction control. I'm not completely certain that either of these lenses are completely up to the task of being used on the D800/D800E, but will reserve judgement in that department until I have a chance to actually test them out on that body...so my thoughts simply pertain to their use and some quick observations made on the D700.

Opticaly the Tamron was a bit sharper, especially at the longer end of the zoom range but in this class of lenses, sample variation in both the Nikon and Tamron may be more of a deciding factor regarding which ultimately gets the optical nod, more than anything else. In terms of actual performance, neither lens actually approaches the acuity and the ability to resolve detail as a good 70-200 f2.8 VR II zoom with a 1.4x, although as used as a walk around lens in a small kit, they obviously have their place.

One thing you should though be aware of is how Tamron implements their vibration type control mechanism. It's quite different than Nikon's and if you're used to how Nikon does it, it can and has been jarring and a bit disconcerning experience for some. The Nikon does it in a two step process when the shutter is first pressed half way down to focus (and activate VR and then ultimately you complete taking the shot). The Tamron does it all in one action and the image stabilization mechanism causes the image in the viewfinder to come to abrupt halt and be held there for some time, even if the half pressed shutter is released. Harder to describe in words and doesn't sound like much of an issue, but it has been for some. Actually having both lenses in hand and mounting and trying each side by side, you will immediately see what I am describing. Near or at 300mm both lenses did a creadible job (with the Tamron clearly having an edge) but I wouldn't personally put a lot of weight on their resolution holding up to sizeable prints where fine detail needs to be resolved. Thats been my experience when I tested two good samples of both for an aquantence, to use on an overseas trip. The Tamron is somewhat weighty too but appears to be constructed well. The other thing to note, is if you purchase the Tamron, try and get one from recent stock and production runs. Early one (runs) had an issue where the lens went completely soft at its longer focal lengths and many have reported this. Tamron does fix them readily when sent in for adjustment, but it's best to simply avoid having to do this with a new lens. On the D700, the Tamron was impressive thru most of it's range but like the Nikon, one can see it's missing that degree of acuity that helps define a certain look with regards to some images.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

ustein

Contributing Editor
>2) 70-300 either Nikon

Very interested how this lens is working on the D800. Especially compared to the 70-200 VR 1 which is kind of soft.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Uwe, what I find most interesting is there have been more and more reports of certain lenses (and not always the top tier ones) that were found to perform just OK on the D700 but excellent on the D800. The 24-120 f4 comes to mind, since there were very mixed opinions on that one (on a D700/D3, including my own experiences), but a fair # have said when they tried the lens on their D800, its performance seemed to be considerably better. I've heard from one other that the same lens improvement was observed on his D800 with regards to his Nikon 70-300. My comments above regarding the comparision of the Nikon 70-300 on the D700 vs Nikon's 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4x, was with Nikon's newer 70-200 f2.8 VRII lens...which I now added this distinction in my post above. Thanks for the interesting info Uwe!

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

D&A

Well-known member
I'd love to understand the theory that can back those observations up.
So would I Graham...believe me, so would I! My initial thought was that some of these new D800 owners never shot with anything above maybe 12-21MP and upon opening the file (especially at 100%), were excitied by what they saw (especially with equipment that they had in their own hands and subjects they knew quite well)..... and so even images with their D800 taken with decent but less than pro level lenses, looked astonishingly good to them. I really can't say or know unless someone else can come up with some idea as to why these observations are being expressed?

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I used this combo as my final small Nikon outfit for travel before selling up for more MF gear. (D700 + 16-35VR, 24-120VRII, 70-300VR). All good lenses but the 70-300 was the weakest and not even close to the 70-200VR II.

The 45/85 PC-Es, 24/35G, and 14-24 I had were noticeably sharper overall or had much nicer Bokeh.

I'm kind of thinking the same as you Dave. Maybe it's pixel wonderment at work.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
Did anybody try the following lenses on the D800:

- AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G
- AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yes the 50 1.8 g very sharp. I took a couple shots with it yesterday will post in First Blush thread
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
One thing I remembered from back in my Nikon film days was how well the 20 AF handled direct light in the frame, so I tested it today -- it was the first day we've had actual Sun showing in blue sky since I got the camera! Anyway, here you go -- not the greatest artistic image, but a definite torture test for a lens and especially a digital sensor. I dod not actually expect to get the traditional lens "star" pattern from direct Sun on the sensor, but I did. Sure there is a bit of flare, but hey, look what I'm shooting at!

20 AF D at f16, processed in ACR, shadows lifted about 40 points:



~~~

Now here is a shot from the 105DC. This one is an infinity shot to show the lens in a normal environment. I was surprised by a couple factors. First was the dynamic range of this image exceeded the camera's ability to fully capture -- IOW both ends of the histo are clipped. I had to balance exposure and add 6 points of highlight recovery and 6 points of fill to "save" it. But the radio towers in the way background are very sharp for the hazy distance away they are. Also, there is a lot of detail on the hillside where I focused.

105DC at f8 with DF at +2, focus is on the rocks on the hill:



And a crop -- keep in mind this was hand-held 1/200th @ f8, ISO 100, and those radio towers are at least two miles (4.5KM) away. The rocks and trees are a good 500 - 600 meters away. You can see high tension power lines peeking out from the next canyon over:


~~~

Here is a bokeh shot with the 105DC -- I focused on the weed in front, f2.8 with DF set at +2 or f2.8 behind:



Bottom line is I am very happy with these two lenses.

PS: All were processed in the ACR beta using the Adobe standard profile. However, WB had to be bumped up to shift sky out of cyan -- let's hope Adobe gives a color tweak for the official release.All had a slight boost to saturation. Sharpening varied a little frame to frame, but I am using around 48/0.6/40/9 for most with some clarity (except for the bokeh shot).
 

D&A

Well-known member
The 105 DC lens is a outstanding lens! Some though prefer the slightly less sharp 135 DC, simply because the increased focal length of the 135mm provides a narrower depth of field at similar f-stops (when both lenses are used with DC control essentually off).

Dave (D&A)
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I have some thoughts on a some of lenses you mentioned Tim, but for the moment, permit me to concentrate them on the current Tamron 70-300 with the similar to Nikon vibration reduction control. I'm not completely certain that either of these lenses are completely up to the task of being used on the D800/D800E, but will reserve judgement in that department until I have a chance to actually test them out on that body...so my thoughts simply pertain to their use and some quick observations made on the D700.

Opticaly the Tamron was a bit sharper, especially at the longer end of the zoom range but in this class of lenses, sample variation in both the Nikon and Tamron may be more of a deciding factor regarding which ultimately gets the optical nod, more than anything else. In terms of actual performance, neither lens actually approaches the acuity and the ability to resolve detail as a good 70-200 f2.8 VR II zoom with a 1.4x, although as used as a walk around lens in a small kit, they obviously have their place.

One thing you should though be aware of is how Tamron implements their vibration type control mechanism. It's quite different than Nikon's and if you're used to how Nikon does it, it can and has been jarring and a bit disconcerning experience for some. The Nikon does it in a two step process when the shutter is first pressed half way down to focus (and activate VR and then ultimately you complete taking the shot). The Tamron does it all in one action and the image stabilization mechanism causes the image in the viewfinder to come to abrupt halt and be held there for some time, even if the half pressed shutter is released. Harder to describe in words and doesn't sound like much of an issue, but it has been for some. Actually having both lenses in hand and mounting and trying each side by side, you will immediately see what I am describing. Near or at 300mm both lenses did a creadible job (with the Tamron clearly having an edge) but I wouldn't personally put a lot of weight on their resolution holding up to sizeable prints where fine detail needs to be resolved. Thats been my experience when I tested two good samples of both for an aquantence, to use on an overseas trip. The Tamron is somewhat weighty too but appears to be constructed well. The other thing to note, is if you purchase the Tamron, try and get one from recent stock and production runs. Early one (runs) had an issue where the lens went completely soft at its longer focal lengths and many have reported this. Tamron does fix them readily when sent in for adjustment, but it's best to simply avoid having to do this with a new lens. On the D700, the Tamron was impressive thru most of it's range but like the Nikon, one can see it's missing that degree of acuity that helps define a certain look with regards to some images.

Dave (D&A)
Thanks Dave... I had read about that in the Photozone review, which also has the MTFs and it does sound mildly irritating but to be honest, I so rarely use a focal length over 120 that this is mainly for the odd shot of my dog! I like the extra contrast this lens seems to offer over the Nikon equivalent, too. I'd love to see any example shots on the D800 if there are any floating about.

I'm not too worried if one or two of the lenses in this bag aren't quite up to the D800E - I think this sensor will offer benefits of tonality and DR that don't always need ultimate resolution and if I anticipate printing to 40" I'll make sure I've got one of the best lenses strapped on the front!

I just tested my Canon5DII with 24-105 versus NEX7 with 15-55 at equivalent FOV and at F8, the differences are visible in favour of the Canon at 100% on screen but with a touch of post, at 50%, which roughly equates to a 200dpi print, I actually prefer the NEX because the DR is better and so IMHO are the colours... so for prints up to the largest I can do myself (24" roll printer) even a lowly kit lens can hit the spot if the sensor has some of the extra mojo of this new generation!
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Thanks for posting these Jack. Glad to see the sun has finally peeped out. Given how much heat haze shimmer there is in there too, that is nothing short of amazing...

So given the choice between the 105 and an 85 f1.8g, which would you prefer?

105DC at f8 with DF at +2, focus is on the rocks on the hill:

And a crop -- keep in mind this was hand-held 1/200th @ f8, ISO 100, and those radio towers are at least two miles (4.5KM) away. The rocks and trees are a good 500 - 600 meters away. You can see high tension power lines peeking out from the next canyon over:
 

D&A

Well-known member
So given the choice between the 105 and an 85 f1.8g, which would you prefer?
I suspect you'll get a lot of different opinions on this one (and underestandably so), especially when you substitute one the other Nikon 85mm lenses for the new 85 f1.8G lens in you comparison question above.

Till not long ago, one of the most popular questions and discussions with Nikon shooters was whether they prefer and would choose the 105mm DC lens or the older 85mm f1.4 D lens. Opinions would be split 50-50. The 85mm f1.4D was sharp and would be better at isolating your subject with shallower depth of field but images were rendered "cool" and was not always the ideal or lens for portraits although many used it for just this reason. It's attrative creamy bokeh was a big plus. The 105 DC renders "warm", had excellent sharpness (arguably a bit more than the older 85mm f1.4D) and for portrait work was often the prefered lens, having a look in the way it would draw an image, warm and inviting, many positive attributes even when DC was not employed.

The newer Nikon 85mm lenses have altered some opinions. The new 85mm f1.4G is a bit warmer than it's predesessor, somewhat sharper and even a bit smoother in the way it renders busy backgrounds. I was impressed when I compared the older and newer versions together. Yet if I had to pick one specifically for portraits, I still woould probably go for the 105DC (although it is a very attractive lens for shooting other things)...but if subject isolation and certain types of distant landscapes was part of the equation, I probably would opt for the 85mm f1.4G. The older D version was mediocre at best for shots at long distances, going soft, but the new G version is much improved in this area.

I haven't really done anything with the new 85mm f1.8G lens except a few quick shots at a dealer but from what I briefly saw, it appeared more like a little brother to the new 85mm f1.4G as opposed to any similarity to the older 85mm f1.8D version, which quite different in a variety of ways.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Thanks for posting these Jack. Glad to see the sun has finally peeped out. Given how much heat haze shimmer there is in there too, that is nothing short of amazing...

So given the choice between the 105 and an 85 f1.8g, which would you prefer?
Yes there was still a lot of veiling atmospheric haze, which given the result did impress me with both lenses!

Re 85. I have not shot the 85/1.8 G, but I passed up purchasing one because of the 105DC. That said, I see it both ways:

Speaking for me, I was going for a look lens, and the fact the 105 is laser sharp and has great bokeh when zeroed, then add in you can tune the aberrations to suit sealed it. Had I not bought this lens, the 85/1.4G was my short choice -- it was a gamble because I read the 105DC would not cut it on the D800, but clearly it does.

For you (or anybody else), I think it really comes down to which focal you'd use more -- I think there is a enough visual difference between 85 and 105 focals it is a factor -- and then what kind of look-character(s) you're after. Then you need to decide if you want near instant SW AF, or can you live with slightly slower screw AF to gain the tunable oof character?
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Thanks Jack. I think the 105 sounds right for me: Nikon glass can be a bit characterless IMHO, and so one lens with a very distinctive look will be very useful... So with the 20 mm and the 24-120, it looks like I'm your new mini me...
 
Top