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!

Fun with the D810

tashley

Subscriber Member
Here's one using the multiple exposure function, which is quite fun: set to 10 exposures and shot with Continuous High, handheld with Auto Gain, the camera combines ten frames into one. Has potential I think.

 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Tim, just have to say you've clearly elevated your level of seeing great shots. I realize that's not a camera-dependent thing, but for whatever reason these last few strings of D810 images are among the best images I've seen from you. :thumbs:
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
That's a kind thing to say Jack though I have yet to take any shots with it that enter my own personal pantheon - but it does give me pleasure to use in a way the 800 didn't, and I think that makes a difference.
 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
Jack & Tim,

As two of the most trusted lens gurus on GetDPI, I'd be interested in your evaluation of lenses that are worthy of the D810 camera's sensor. I've been through [almost] every system I could get my hands on - Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica-M, Leica-S, Cambo, Alpa, Sony - and the limiting factor in performance ALWAYS has been the glass that will match the capabilities of the sensor.

When I owned a D800e, I found that the Zeiss ZF.2 lenses were the sharpest primes for my photography (principally landscape) and most [modern] Nikon lenses didn't match the 36MP resolving power of the camera. Now I'm using a Sony a7R and, once again, very few available native lenses match the camera's capabilities. The FE 55mm f/1.8 is a notable exception. One recent pleasant surprise is the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS, which is incredibly sharp on the a7R, but requires the Metabones III or IV adapter to couple to the camera. The [adapted] Leica WATE is equally sharp and lighter in weight. No pun intended.

I like to print big (20x30" and larger) and tend to judge the camera/lens combo on its ability to hold sharpness and contrast to the edges and into the corners, without smear, color shfts or uncorrectable distortion.

So my question is:

Which lenses, Nikon or otherwise, will get the most out of the D810?

Joe
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Joe,

Firstly, mine just arrived today, so this is very, very preliminary comments. Re lenses, I think it's pretty safe to say that whatever you found out with regards to net optical performance with your D800 or A7r is going to hold here -- no magic beans delivered that make legacy lenses sharper ;). I have yet to experiment fully with it, but the one area where I see some benefit is with tele work at slower shutter speeds is the new EFC. It seems to work as advertised here, though the real benefit is probably 1/30th and 1/8th and not so much 1/15th -- again, I need to experiment further with my tele on the pod. You can still set the camera up to do the 3 sec delay after shutter press, and this coupled with the EFC may be enough of an advantage on the best newer lenses to be a winner. Oh, one point I had missed in previous discussions of EFC -- it limits max shutter speed to 1/2000th.

Getting AF point orientation lock point a-la D4 in this body is a huge usability plus too.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Joe, I'm with Jack - nothing new to say on lenses really. I have found the experience of switching out and switching back in quite a useful way to concentrate my thoughts on lens choice and so I have ended up with:

Sammy 14 f2.8
Zeiss 21 f2.8
Nikkor 24-70 (new copy is better at the wide end and very useful overall)
Nikkor 70-200 (having some small issues, yet to track them down but overall a brilliant and useful lens)
Sigma ART 50
Adapted 50 Cron R

Lenses I won't be getting again having sold them the first time:
Nikkor 28mm F1.8 (too much field curvature, too tricky)
Sigma 35 ART (ditto)
Nikkor 85 F1.8 (brilliant lens but not a length I often use)

Lenses I have tried on the 810 and returned:
Tamron 24-70 F2.8 (poor QC on two copies)
Sigma 24-105 ART (too blurry in the corners)

For now I have all I need: an acceptable ultra wide for the odd interior shot, a very good wide for landscapes, two very useful zooms and one 'ultra prime' that lets me do bokeh stuff and killer resolution stuff...
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Two more using multiple exposure mode. It is very flexible and amenable to different shooting methods depending on results desired. I am really enjoying this though I have yet to get on paper the result in my mind's eye.

Both ten frames, handheld, auto gain..



 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Joe,

I guess I should have followed on with my current lens stable and some comments. I shot them ALL yesterday just to confirm AF offsets. Anyway, they are:

14 Samyang -- very good performer for a relatively inexpensive hyperwide. I rarely use it, but like having it for when it's needed.

17-35/2.8 Nikkor AF-D -- this is my main wide and for that reason is almost always in the bag. I use it mostly for the 17 end, though as most know with a wide, a little tweak in focal length can make a big difference, so zoom is a nice feature here. It is very sharp centrally, however cannot hold the extreme corners at any aperture or focal. But since it does very well at frame edge, I live with bad corners, since rarely is extreme corner performance mandatory for my imaging.

24-120/4 Nikkor Zoom -- it's just decent enough at 24 to be useful, and surprisingly very good at the 120 end, and in-betwen those in the middle. Corner performance on mine is good enough at all focals, so it sees a lot of use as a walk-around/convenience/travel/casual lens. Actually it sees a surprising amount of use considering its being essentially the worst lens I own.

24 PC-E -- I have a decent copy and find it useful for certain applications, so I keep it. I do not use it a lot, and as good as it is optically for a tilt-shift lens, it is barely up to the sensor centrally at optimal apertures. But that performance holds to corners through a significant range of the shift. Given the tilt and shift options, it offers unique imaging characteristics and all said and done makes very good images.

28/1.4 Nikkor -- Lens #1 in my triad. It isn't exceptional optically at 1.4, but the aberrations make for gorgeous rendering. It sharpens up nicely at f2, and is excellent by 4. Lower contrast than more modern, slower 28's, but has a look I'll never tire of. Its actual focal length is probably closer to 30, which for me is about ideal. So it is my favorite wide and so much so, I do not bother with a 35 anymore (and if I need 35, I have the 17-35).

50 Sigma ART -- Lens #2 in my triad. Smashingly excellent at all apertures and only drops slightly at the extreme corners wide open. (By f4 it is essentially the optical equal of the outstanding 85/1.4G.) Great bokeh both ahead and behind POF. It's a little large for a 50/1.4, but the overall rendering is outstanding. I knew after getting this lens that I'd never look back at my 50/1.2 D manual focus, so I sold it to a friend who wanted it.

85/1.4 Nikkor AF G -- Lens #3 in my triad. Simply outstanding, one of the best lenses I own optically with great character and bokeh. A little large, but renders so beautifully, it is almost always in my bag.

85 Nikkor PC-E -- very good optically, even fully shifted at the corners. Better optically than the 24 by a wide margin, and the usefulness features for tilt-shift lenses hold. It has very good macro capability and my 1.4x Nikon converter adds some versatility.

85 Petzval -- I bought it on a whim, but it renders so classically old-time large format look, I definitely keep it for certain creative applications. It's also just a blast to shoot with.

105/2 Nikkor AF-DC -- very good optically corner to corner wide open, and sharpens up to excellent by f2.8. You can move the POF with the DC ring to tune look for portraits. I hardly ever both shooting it anywhere but with the DC zeroed, but it's a nice feature to have when shooting portraits of more mature women ;)

Sigma 120-300/2.8 OS DG HSM zoom -- this lens is surprisingly good optically at 120, and stays that way all the way to 300! While perhaps not quite up to the Nikkor 300/2.8 prime, it's still quite excellent optically, a lot cheaper and more versatile. It hardly suffers with either the Sigma 1.4 or 2x converter attached, making it a versatile long tele for the times I need one. It is a beast, so gets left in its own trunk case with the Sigma converters at the car until needed.

180 Nikkor AF-D, late model -- just picked this lens up and couldn't be happier. It will likely replace the 105DC at being one found in my bag most of the time. Other copies I've seen were perhaps older versions and did not render great in the corners. But this one is very good centrally and holds well across the frame. Much like my 28/1.4, this lens shows its age of optical design with some aberrations, lower overall contrast, slightly more yellow hue and a teeny bit of CA in the final image, but these latter are easily correctable. In the end, it has a great look by my standards and is a relative bargain in this focal for my needs. As a side note, Nikon or Sigma teleconverters will NOT mount on this lens even if they've had their mounts modified -- the lens throat while deep enough is too thick at one point to accept the front element of the converters.

I have owned, sold and won't be repurchasing: 70-200/2.8 current and previous generations; 80-400 current and previous generations; 24-120 previous generation; 50/1.4G; 85/1.8G; 28/1.8G; 35/1.4G; 14-24; 45 PC-E and a handful of manual focus Nikkor and Zeiss ZF lenses. My eyes are getting older and current AF is so good, I prefer to use it when possible.

Hope this helps.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I prefer the f4 because it is about as good, has better VR and is much lighter and smaller. The Makro Planar is very sharp by has really bad colour fringing that takes a fair amount of stopping down to tame, and is often too many pixels wide to treat effectively. I sold mine and wouldn't consider another.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Another look with these: shot quite differently (but still multiple exposure) and then I have done some trickery with clarity, sharpening and NR in some fairly extreme ways to get the painterly look I'm after. These will probably get printed very large on Hahnemuhle German Etching and then I'll decide if I like them... This is quite fun!



 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
Thanks Jack and Tim for your very detailed responses. I've noted that the Sigma 50mm ART lens is a new stellar performer for both of you. While Jack prefers AF primes and Tim leans towards versatile zooms, for the most part it's déjà vu all over again. My aging eyes require either 1) very accurate and dependable AF or 2) focus peaking and focus magnification with Live View or EVF. That has led me to the Sony a7R, which I enjoy very much. Having become initially enamored with the small lightweight camera body, I have found myself migrating to large heavy (by comparison) adapted lenses. I had hoped that the D810 would have incorporated an EVF, but that was not to be. Now I'm hoping that Sony tames the shutter on its a7/a7R series with EFC or some such, one major advantage the D810 has over it at present. Thanks again for your responses, and keep the images coming. I'm enjoying the "fun with". :thumbs:

Joe
 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
I prefer the f4 because it is about as good, has better VR and is much lighter and smaller. The Makro Planar is very sharp by has really bad colour fringing that takes a fair amount of stopping down to tame, and is often too many pixels wide to treat effectively. I sold mine and wouldn't consider another.
Which lens?

Joe
 
Top