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!

D810 on the way - now what?

Lars

Active member
:D:D:D

I guess the first order of business is (figure out how to) evaluate whether the camera body is well aligned.
Then go through my Nikon glass to decide what to keep.
 

JohnBrew

Active member
Lars, I think you will find the alignment problem a thing of the past. The mirror box was completely re-designed to eliminate that problem. Of course, there is still the chance of sample variation, but you should have no problem diagnosing this with a good lens and testing all the focus points.
I would say that the D810 will nail focus most of the time, and at a much better rate than the D800. IMO, Nikon still has work to do with AF. I only have two AF lenses and much prefer primes. I only had one AF lens with my D800 and the focus was a crap shoot depending on subject. I used manual over ride quite a bit.
BTW, you should love the LV and new shutter.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
With a bit of luck my D810 is also on its way, if I can get hold of one of the special offers here in Austria together with the 24-120, which should make for a reasonably good kit lens.

Will sell my Df to partially fund this, the offer is so good that I could no longer resist!

If this works out I will be very excited!
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Be sure to go through the process of a good AF fine tune for all of your chipped lenses as a few points + or - can make a huge difference in your AF (and MF with confirm dot) pleasure!
 

Lars

Active member
Thanks for tips guys. :)
First lens is probably a 50/1.8G, just because it's cheap, small and good.
I don't have any normal zoom so that's probably next - the Nikon 24-120 or Sigma's new 24-105, or Tamron's 24-70. I need to do a bit more research but I believe those three are all reasonably good optically. Of course build quality really matters for a zoom likely to get banged around a bit. For that reason the new Tokina 24-70 could be interesting as well if it is comparable optically, I always liked Tokina's all-metal pro build quality.
Then again, perhaps the value of VR/IS should perhaps not be underestimated? The Tokina has no such thing.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I have the 24-120 Nikkor --- it is probably the worst lens I own from an optical POV, and at the same time, probably one of my most used! It is optically slow at f4, and isn't particularly sharp there, but nor is it particularly bad -- IOW totally usable wide open. It sharpens up nicely at f5.6 and is very good corner to corner at f8. After f8 diffraction kicks in and you gain nothing. So it sits on my cam at f6.3 most of the time, and gets bumped up to f8 when I need max DOF or opened to f4.5 when I need it. VR is very good, and does add a solid 2 stops of speed, and I've pressed it to three with good technique.

Here is a shot I took with it on the D800 when the pair was relatively new, and in fact the shot that sold me on using the lens more often than not for travel/walk-around. I have converted it to split-tone sepia/cool in C1, printed it to 16x24 and it holds up outstandingly well. 1/8th @ f8 at ISO 560 and 24mm handheld. (Also note the DR which has improved a stop with the D810!):



Here is another shot with it that shows VR capability. This shot was f4 (wide open) at 66mm and ISO 3200 which was my max on the D800. IIRC the exposure was 1 second, all hand-held at night. It does not hold very well up at 16x, but does at 10x and I used it in a calendar that year ;) :

 

JohnBrew

Active member
+1 on the AF fine tune. It's really quite a simple process and made even easier with LV - you can do it on the fly, so to speak.
 

Lars

Active member
Thanks Jack :) I suspect that I will prioritize f/2.8 over resolving power - image depth currently plays an important role in my photography. I guess most zooms in this range will be quite decent at f/5.6-f/8 so, as is often the case, wide open performance and max aperture become the differentiators. Add build quality and IS performance to the mix. And of course size and weight for a walkaround lens. That said, obviously the 24-120 is quite good and cost-effective as well. Decisions...
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Thanks Jack & John!

Received mine today and am currently getting used to it again after I had sold my D800E a year ago. I still need to say it feels different - actually very much different from the D800E for my feeling, the shutter is so much quieter etc.etc. The 24-120 seems to be a decent copy, need to do some more testing though.

Also the 1.8/35 and 1.8/85 are perfectly harmonizing with that body!

I am really excited.

Peter
 

Lars

Active member
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
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
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
Lars,

especially the shutter in the D810 is much quieter compared to the D800E, also EFC contributes to much less vibrations and thus sharper pictures over all. Plus the absence of any AA filter is a big plus IMHO. Then the grip is more and better pronounced compared to the D800E and also the viewfinder display easier and better to read because it is white instead of green. For me all this sums up as a much smoother and better camera, an also the first photos already show!

The 1.8 lenses are really good, especially for that price! Nevertheless I will try the 1.4/35 Sigma ART, as this seems to be an outstanding lens as can be seen from lot of reviews, I think easily outperforming m´the much more expensive 1.4/35 Nikkor.

But what I am really after are the 80-400 VR2 as well as the 200-500 for wildlife.

All the best with your D810!

Peter
 

Lars

Active member
Yep 200-500 seems to be a no-brainer for anyone looking for reach. I'm also eyeing 70-200 f/4 options (Nikon and Tokina), need to research those a bit more as wide-open performance will be crucial. So far it seems that both lenses are decent, Nikon's VR and AF probably has a slight edge over Tokina. For sports/action I usually find myself at the long end of my 80-200, so a 200-500 would probably be my choice for sports.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

Lars

Active member
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.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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.
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.

My own plan for an AF zoom lens setup is as follows:

Sigma 24-35mm f/2
Nikkor 70-200mm f/4
Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6
Some AF 50mm'ish lens, probably Nikkor, Sigma or Tamron. The Tamron looks like a strong contender.

My current prime setup is:

Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (excellent)
Nikkor 28mm f/2 AiS (mostly sufficient)
Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AiS (very good)
Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 AiS (surprisingly good, even @ f/2.0)
Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 AF (what Jack said)
Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF (wonderful lens, but slow AF and not absolutely sharp @ f/4. will be replaced by a PF when monies allow)
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
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.
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. :)

G
 

Lars

Active member
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).
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
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).
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.
 

Lars

Active member
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.
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. :cool:
20 is good as super-wide for rectilinear single-shot panoramics. Any wider means strange distortion if subject is three-dimensional.
 
Top