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!

Suggestions for best lenses for use with 800E

algrove

Well-known member
As a newbie to Nikon after 30+ years, I'm awaiting an 800E. I have the latest 70-200 VR and want to know if the latest 24-70 is a good lens on the short end?

Also what about teleconverters for the 70-200. Any experience from members using the 1.4 or 2.0 with the 70-200?

I see the 200-400 is mighty pricey, so wonder of anyone has actually used it? Is a fixed 300 or 400 better to get?

I will using these long lenses mostly for wildlife shooting.

Last question--What is the best macro lens to consider for the 800E? Thanks all.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
As a newbie to Nikon after 30+ years, I'm awaiting an 800E. I have the latest 70-200 VR and want to know if the latest 24-70 is a good lens on the short end?

Also what about teleconverters for the 70-200. Any experience from members using the 1.4 or 2.0 with the 70-200?

I see the 200-400 is mighty pricey, so wonder of anyone has actually used it? Is a fixed 300 or 400 better to get?

I will using these long lenses mostly for wildlife shooting.

Last question--What is the best macro lens to consider for the 800E? Thanks all.
I tried two copies of the 24-70, really didn't think it did to well. I settled on 35mm and 50 zeiss, still debating on which Zeiss for the wide end but thinking of the 21 right now.

I think the 50 and 100mm Zeiss might be the best macros, I have both and haven't had a chance to do more than preliminary testing ... both appear to be very good. the 70-200 is decent, my copy is OK. That 200-400 is a great focal length range for wildlife, but pricey and I don't know how well it holds up to the sensor ... I'm going to opt for a fixed 300, haven't decided which one yet.

I also bought the 14-24 and like it. It has some issues but is a sweet lens and on my NEX 7 (best Nikon backup body imho) with the cropped sensor its great.
 

algrove

Well-known member
I tried two copies of the 24-70, really didn't think it did to well. I settled on 35mm and 50 zeiss, still debating on which Zeiss for the wide end but thinking of the 21 right now.

I think the 50 and 100mm Zeiss might be the best macros, I have both and haven't had a chance to do more than preliminary testing ... both appear to be very good. the 70-200 is decent, my copy is OK. That 200-400 is a great focal length range for wildlife, but pricey and I don't know how well it holds up to the sensor ... I'm going to opt for a fixed 300, haven't decided which one yet.

I also bought the 14-24 and like it. It has some issues but is a sweet lens and on my NEX 7 (best Nikon backup body imho) with the cropped sensor its great.
I was planning on aligning each lens if I discover issues. Did you try that with the 24-70 copies you were not too keen about?

Also would you use the 300 with a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter?
 
Last edited:

woodworth

New member
I chose the new 24-85 which has some distortion at both ends but is pretty sharp as well as smaller and lighter than the 24-70/2.8.

It seems to me that Nikon have always struggled to produce a truly satisfactory mid-range zoom, but the 24-70/2.8 aopears to be close enough if the weight/bulk isn't an issue.
 
My 24-70 is very sharp. Had to send it in twice to get roughness fixed in the zoom ring, but now it's perfect (first time they just lubed it, second time they replaced a couple of parts). It needed -9 adjustment for autofocus. It exhibits a slight case of the left side AF issue at 24mm. I almost never use AF.

The only optical problem I find is a moderate amount of field curvature at 24-28mm. I'm photographing the insides of industrial spaces right now, so if anything this is an advantage. But for some kinds of work you might not be happy with the corners on the wide end.

In other lens news, I'm having a blast with the 50mm 1.8g. Way better than my old AIS 50.
 

eleanorbrown

New member
I have chosen the Nikon 14-25, 24 1.4g, 35 1.4g, 50 1.4g, 85 1.4g and zeiss 1002 makro and am very pleased with all of them. Eleanor
 
As a newbie to Nikon after 30+ years, I'm awaiting an 800E. I have the latest 70-200 VR and want to know if the latest 24-70 is a good lens on the short end?

Also what about teleconverters for the 70-200. Any experience from members using the 1.4 or 2.0 with the 70-200?

I see the 200-400 is mighty pricey, so wonder of anyone has actually used it? Is a fixed 300 or 400 better to get?

I will using these long lenses mostly for wildlife shooting.

Last question--What is the best macro lens to consider for the 800E? Thanks all.
I've used the TC1.4-II and TC2.0-III with the 70-200mm VRII. The 1.4 works very well and the TC2 gives acceptable results though some loss of resolution is observable. I've also used the TC1.7-II but don't like the results with this TC - I rarely use it now on any of my lenses.

For macros I use the 105mm ED-IF VR and am very happy with it - the IF feature is quite nice in a macro.

Cheers,
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
At the moment and may change. Zeiss 18, 25f2 waiting on delivery. Nikon 35 1.4g , 50 1.8 G, 85 1.4 G and the 200 f2 VR1 with the 1.4 tele.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yes . I do like the Z 18. I like the focal length a lot . I need to get out and shoot with it more and next week I'll get that chance too freaking hot here right now. But here are a few test images corrected with PT lens for distortion. F8 and F11 here with really early light with a load of contrast. I test ugly as I want to see the limits. LOL





 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Its pretty sharp. I give this lens a little extra sharpening but was pretty equal to the 24mm. But I just bought a Z 25 F2 and want to see how that is also. I may eventually get the Z 15mm at some point. Im trying to reinvent my kit into a 2 different lens kits . One for commercial work and one for landscape type stuff. I'm still working on lenses and whats next just waiting to see what is announced if any before getting more. Given the pricing i can play quite a bit with Nikon/Zeiss stuff until I get what I want or have enough to fill the safe. LOL
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
As a newbie to Nikon after 30+ years, I'm awaiting an 800E. I have the latest 70-200 VR and want to know if the latest 24-70 is a good lens on the short end?

Also what about teleconverters for the 70-200. Any experience from members using the 1.4 or 2.0 with the 70-200?

I see the 200-400 is mighty pricey, so wonder of anyone has actually used it? Is a fixed 300 or 400 better to get?

I will using these long lenses mostly for wildlife shooting.

Last question--What is the best macro lens to consider for the 800E? Thanks all.
Can we assume that for wildlife you are primarily concerned about resolution and micro contrast in the middle and edges aren t critical unless they are mushy?

The 70-200/2.8 Vr2 is an exceptional lens more so if you can stop down to f4-f8 . In that range you should be quite happy . Adding the 2x reduces both resolution and contrast , adds 2 stops without changing DOF and slows AF . If you have adequate light to shoot at F5.6 (that T11 or worse) you will get decent but not great results . The new 3rd version of the 2x extender is a major improvement as was the 70-200/2.8 but its still an extender on a zoom lens.

The 200-400/4 is really a sports shooter lens ...its optimized for near and middle distances and not nearly as good out near infinity . Very nice when you have to shoot from a fixed position and can get fairly close (not sure if your wildlife fits that category ). Its much better stopped down 1/2 stop or more .

Neither of these lenses are as good as the 200/2;300/2.8;400/2.8 each of which can be shot wide open and pair well with any of the extenders .

The issues are that the long primes are very heavy and also very expensive .
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
I was planning on aligning each lens if I discover issues. Did you try that with the 24-70 copies you were not too keen about?
Yes, both were calibrated with FoCal. The lens just struggled to get sharp on one side even at f/8. I almost bought it anyway, but then opted for the Zeiss primes in the main focal lengths.

After seeing Guys post I may go for the Zeiss 18, I need to test my 14-24 a little more. (the 14-24 is sharper at 24 than the 24-70 was).
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The 24 on the 14-24 is really good. My basic issue with it was a tank but it also focus shifted as well. I'm trying the Zeiss 25f2 now be here tomorrow. I'll post some stuff on it.
 

Oamkumar

Member
I am looking for 16-35mm f4 VR, as I heard from 21mm this lens do not have any distortion. It accept filters, having VR, and very sharp. (from reviews. I have not seen this lens). Right now I have only two lenses 50mm 1.8D and 105mmG VR. 50mm is very good. I am worried about corners of 105mm macro lens. I found it very soft. I had a fashion shoot for a textile shop yesterday and could not get edge to edge sharpness in the pictures. centre area was sharp but corners were soft. Then I shot with 50mm and it was pretty good. I am planning to buy 85mm f1.8 lens, which is sharp even at the corners than 85mm f1.4 and 105mmG VR. (mansurovs.com/nikon-85mm-f1-8g-review)
 

Pingang

New member
1 lens : 24-70/2.8
2 lenses : 24-70/2.8 , 100/2.8 VR Makro
3 lenses : 24-70/2.8 , 100/2.8 VR Makro, 70-200/2.8 VR
4 lenses : 24-70/2.8 , 100/2.8 VR Makro, 70-200/2.8 VR, 12-24/2.8

the list can go on but the most basic stays. Not that I don't love primes, I have a lot of primes of 20 years collection and use them often in studio each for specific works. But minimize to 1, to 2 to 3, the choice is obvious.
I have known Steve McCurry for years, never once saw him took the 24-70/2.8 off his D3X - NEVER! All his works in recent years except those from Hasselblad are coming from one lens only!
One can train the lens to do a lot more thing, yes, we can always talk about the absolute sharpness - but what about the meaning of image, concpet, the purpose?
Sorry, try not to act as salesman.

BR,
Pingang
 

algrove

Well-known member
All your comments have been most appreciated. Now that I am confused, I guess it's a 300 or 400 (yikes the prices!) fixed seem to be the best. I will also want to occasionally use a 1.4, but probably not a 2.0 converter.

I had hoped for the 200-400, but since it appears to be profiled as a sports zoom that's not for me.

I have the 70-200 and 24-70. Got the later just to fill that gap on the wide end. I want to stay around f2.8 so that mena san expensive long lens.

Any more in sites? Thanks
 

woodworth

New member
I'm expanding my lens line up for my D800.

My question is: which lens to get for available light/candid work? 180/2.8 or 135/2DC?

Putting aside the differences in price and the fact that the 180 is a 2.8 max aperture and the 135 is a f2. Also the DC feature on the 135 is not particularly relevant to me (although I might end up liking it!).

I want a lens in the 135-200mm range that I can confidently use wide open for stuff like candid shots at a wedding, theater/concert photography, etc, and think the 180/2.8 is most likely the best option but am also drawn to the 135/2.

What do you think?
 
Top