OK..so my Nikon D800 is here. And all my D300s/300 and lenses are up on Ebay (and here in the Market forum). Looks like I'll have between $2 to 2.5 K to spend on glass for it. I'm old and Diabetic and had to go to AF a decade ago to get reliable focus. It is in fact AF the reason I shoot Nikon over other great brands.
It seems to get the best resolution I'd need to go to manual focus lenses by Zeiss. Not sure I'm ready for that. But here are my choices for possible lenses mated well to the D800. According to a number of testing sites they all resolve better than 1000 lines in the center . The edges vary but get to be in the 900+ range when stopped down 2 stops as opposed to wide open. I shoot mostly around 24mm, 35mm and over 180MM. So those are the ranges I hope to cover. I'm looking for hands on experience with any of these lenses and any other suggestions. Thanks in advance for your input!
Zeiss ZF.2 25mm f/2.0 (1216 / 1017 @ f/4) It is $1600 for a prime. The 2.8 version is just over $1k but I can't find any tests on it. Both are MF lenses.
Nikon 24mm f/1.4 G ED (1183 / 845 @ f/5.6) — note: the corners are rather soft even at 5.6
Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G AF-S (1170 / 1000 @ f/4) Sharp edges when stopped down to F/4
Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR (1136/952@f/5.6) Seems good but it's an older film design.
Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF is newer but again I can't find any tests and don't know anyone who owns one and uses it on a D800. It's much more $$ too.
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S ED (1107 / 902 @ f/8) This seems to be the lens of choice and is $1900!
Nikon 24-120 VR (1027 /836 @ f/5.6) At $1200 it's a deal for the range and F/4 doesn't bother me at all. I'd love this range but they are out of stock every where and I don't know anyone who owns one and uses it on a D800. The old version was one of my favorite lenses on the D300s but it's soft on the D800.
Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED I can only find tests on the 70-200 VR and it's way to much money for such a short tele.. For now this is likely my only option that covers the 105, 180 MM focal lengths I like so much. But it's lacking the 300mm I also use a lot when shooting landscape work outside CA. And primes in this range are over $1000 each so I can't exactly afford 2 primes to sort of cover the long ranges.
All I have right now is the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-S (1053 / 942@ f/8). So let me know if you have experience with any of these lenses on a D800. And if you have other suggestions I haven't thought of. Or more test sites I can look at.
What lenses do you currently own that you plan on shooting with the D800?
I think the 24-70 should be where you start, since it's an excellent lens and gives you some flexibility. That advice might change based on what other lenses you own.
I've had my D800 for about 4 months, of all the lenses I own, my favorites with the 800 are my 28-70 f2.8 AF-S , 70-200 f2.8 vrII and 85 f2.8 AF-S. I also have a D3S which I now only use for sports, airshows, and very low light settings.
First, VERY limited experience, I rented a D800 for a week to see what I thought...
You are asking about the 80-200 2.8D. (B&H # NI8020028DAQ Mfr # 1986)
One of my very favorite tools. It is an old design, and a bit loud focusing, making it noisy for video work. It is sharp as a tack. I have used it with my D300, D3s and the rented D800 with very nice results.
These two shots are the 80-200 on the D800: (exif info is intact)
As has been written here before, to wring the very best out of the D800 takes excellent technique and practice. I DO NOT feel like I got all the camera/lens combo is capable of, I think I needed more time and practice.
ETA: I also shot with the 24-70 and the 14-24. They are pricey but dont overlook them, they both gave me excellent shots.
R Michael Walker wrote: Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR (1136/952@f/5.6) Seems good but it's an older film design.
Not sure what you mean by older film design? I believe the lens has only been out for 2 or 3 years, and is considered the sharpest Nikon zoom period!
R Michael Walker wrote: Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED I can only find tests on the 70-200 VR and it's way to much money for such a short tele.. For now this is likely my only option that covers the 105, 180 MM focal lengths I like so much. But it's lacking the 300mm I also use a lot when shooting landscape work outside CA. And primes in this range are over $1000 each so I can't exactly afford 2 primes to sort of cover the long ranges.
I bought this lens the day it was released about 14 years ago, and use it for 90% of what I do. I shot it wide open today and was still amazed at how sharp it is. There is no need to go past f4 for sharpness or contrast, and I only use a higher f stop to balance strobe to daylight. I have 15 or 16 Nikon prime lenses, and overall nothing beats this lens! Several of the lenses are VR, but I always use a tripod unless I'm on the ground shooting wide angle shots. So investing in the 70-200 VR just doesn't make sense to me.
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: What lenses do you currently own that you plan on shooting with the D800?
I think the 24-70 should be where you start, since it's an excellent lens and gives you some flexibility. That advice might change based on what other lenses you own.
Like I said in the LONG post..I'm only keeping my 85mm F/1.8. The others are listed in the Market forum and now on Ebay as well.
Not sure what you mean by older film design? I believe the lens has only been out for 2 or 3 years, and is considered the sharpest Nikon zoom period!
Do you own one? The other problem I see with it is my love of polarizersers. Anything beyond 22MM doesn't react properly to them. One of the techs at Schneider tried to explain this to me when i was having problems with my 12-24 Nikkor and my polarizer. It could only do the middle or the edges never both.
Troy Tribble
Posts: 241
Clemson, South Carolina, US
When in the studio I prefer the 70-200mm VRii. On location I tend to use the 24-70mm more. If I didn't have either one of these lensI would have the 24-120mm F/4 It seems to be more versatile.
Fotografica Gregor wrote: most everything, with one notable exception, that worked well on my D3x at 24mp is working just as well on the D800 I've had since June.
14-24mm f2.8 is the notable exception - really showing softer in the corners if you're a pixel peeper - still a dynamic lens though
I can vouch for:
16-35mm f4N VR sharper results than the 14-24f2.8
24-70 f2.8 smashing - bulletproof
24-120 f4N looked just about as good on the D3x as the 24-70 but the D800 reveals its flaws a little more -still quite useful and the range is nice
50 f1.4G
70-200 f2.8 VRII - don't love it as much on either the D3x or D800 as I did on the D700 but it's still a performer and a must have
85f1.4G - another smashing award - bulletproof
105 f2.8VR Micro - just a split hair behind the above
Do you own one? The other problem I see with it is my love of polarizersers. Anything beyond 22MM doesn't react properly to them. One of the techs at Schneider tried to explain this to me when i was having problems with my 12-24 Nikkor and my polarizer. It could only do the middle or the edges never both.
No I don't own it, but have read several test results and all said it was an incredible lens. I do own the 17-35 2.8, and its an awesome lens and I've seen them used in really good condition for around $1000.
Troy Tribble wrote: When in the studio I prefer the 70-200mm VRii. On location I tend to use the 24-70mm more. If I didn't have either one of these lensI would have the 24-120mm F/4 It seems to be more versatile.
The 24-120 (older version) was one of my 2 go to lenses on my D300s. But I'm worried about the never version on the D800. Good lenses start to show flaws on it and I don't know anyone who has both the D800 and the 24-120. The one person commenting here about that combo did say he found flaws in the lens even though liked the range.
R Michael Walker wrote: Thanks! I was actually considering the 300mm Prime as an option but the F/4 version.
I do have this one in the AFS version. I owned the original and sold it when I purchased the current one. Optically both are excellent...the new focuses much quicker and min focus is much shorter, under 5 ft.
No I don't own it, but have read several test results and all said it was an incredible lens. I do own the 17-35 2.8, and its an awesome lens and I've seen them used in really good condition for around $1000.
I thought I read it was repalced by the Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Autofocus Lens . Maybe I have it backwords? But you say you like them both right? And are you shooting the D800?
I thought I read it was repalced by the Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Autofocus Lens . Maybe I have it backwords? But you say you like them both right? And are you shooting the D800?
No the 16-35 is newer and more affordable, but both are still in the current lineup. Yes I love my 17-35, I wouldn't part with it. I do not have the D800, I wish I did...I shoot with a D300s, and after 2.5 years it still delivers the goods every time. I'm a sharpness fanatic, and I hope you give the 80-200D a chance. Below are a couple of good deals!
R Michael Walker wrote: Do you own one? The other problem I see with it is my love of polarizersers. Anything beyond 22MM doesn't react properly to them. One of the techs at Schneider tried to explain this to me when i was having problems with my 12-24 Nikkor and my polarizer. It could only do the middle or the edges never both.
Yeah, polarizers aren't generally recommended for use with ultrawides; at least not when the goal is to darken the sky. As you no doubt noticed, you get different levels of brightness across the frame when you do this.
No the 16-35 is newer and more affordable, but both are still in the current lineup. Yes I love my 17-35, I wouldn't part with it. I do not have the D800, I wish I did...I shoot with a D300s, and after 2.5 years it still delivers the goods every time. I'm a sharpness fanatic, and I hope you give the 80-200D a chance. Below are a couple of good deals!
It's likely to be my only option to reach 200mm at this time. I had one when I had my D200 and it was very sharp. But so were my 12-24 and the other lenses that I'm now selling. And yes I agree the D300 delivers the good. Ilford has many very large prints of mine in their trave3lign booth and they look wonderful. but the D800 resolves so much more that I should be able to get the same sort of details I get in a close up with the D300s even when I'm wide. I want strands of hair and eyelashes on a tiny nude in a large landscape. My D300s can't do that unless I make a panorama out of several shots (I DID look at and reject the Gigapan unit to make that easier to do). That's way I bit the bullet and dumped all my equipment and got the D800. I'll let you know who that works out for me. LOL! And thanks fro all your input.
DOUGLASFOTOS wrote: I got my Nikon D800 last week. What I have read about the D800, if you lens has flaws, it will show up on this D800. You need a strong lens.
I am using 35mm 1.4G and 85mm 1.4G
And if you want to read reviews about Nikon Lens....check this out.
Thanks..but they-are not using a D800. The D3X is great and probably does show the limitations of lenses as well. Here is one of the sites I used that does use a D800 to test. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03 … -selection
Images by MR
Posts: 6,019
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
R Michael Walker wrote: Nikon 24-120 VR (1027 /836 @ f/5.6) At $1200 it's a deal for the range and F/4 doesn't bother me at all. I'd love this range but they are out of stock every where and I don't know anyone who owns one and uses it on a D800. The old version was one of my favorite lenses on the D300s but it's soft on the D800.
I heart this lens
There is also a new 24-85 / f3.4-f4.5 vr lens for the D800 @ about $600.
i am happy with the 24-70 f/2.8 on the D800. As you would expect, compared to the D300 I see a bit more chromatic aberration with it on the D800 and have not yet optimized an approach to most effectively remove it. Lightroom does a decent job but I think there is room to do a better job. I also love the results with the 70-180 micro on the D800. For best focus results shooting macro I use live view zoomed in and use a hoodman for critical focus. I have shot a few frames with the 70-200VR and the 300 t/4 and I am satisifed that I can get good results with both. I am also eager to shoot with the 500 f/4 with the D800.
I also have the 17-35 f/2.8 and have not yet tested it with the D800.
You can use a polarizer with the lens but you have to be judicious in how you use it. If there is a lot of sky you can take care of some of it in post processing (something I generally think is a crutch but it does hlep a bit).
My friend owns the D800 and says the 24-120 f4 is one of the sharpest lens he has ever owned.
and his has owned Leica, Hasselblad and most Nikon lens.
The other lens is the 70-200 either I or II.
the old 80-200 f2.8 I have owned in 3 versions and none were as sharp as the 70-200 vrI. Has fall off issues on full frame or think of it as automatic vignetting.
Nikon has a new 300 f4 coming - radical new lens design - it has a refraction lens in it. Lighter sharper and focuses closer. Evidently Canon beat them to this concept.
the old 300 f4 82 mm is super sharp and cheap used - disadvantage (slo focus and hunts - and a lot of distortion (makes people thinner)
I think Zeiss lens are sometimes over rated - if they were auto focus I would buy some of them.
50mm f/1.4 Best glass I own.
24mm f/2.8 Can't do any better for landscapes
16mm f/2.8 Fisheye speciality lens, low priority but fun to use
80-200mm f/2.8 I think these have been replaced by a 70-200, very sharp
24-70mm f/2.8 perhaps the best zoom in Nikon's current lineup
28-300 f/3.5-5.6 Very versatile. Great choice when you need this range and can't be changing lenses.
photoimager
Posts: 4,111
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
OP, without knowing exactly what purpose you will be putting the lenses to then advice can be difficult other than:
- to maximise the IQ from the D800 you need to optimise both your technique and your lenses
- Zeiss lenses do not have the IQ advantage that they once had
- generally the newer G lenses are better suited than the equivalent AF-D lenses
Moving to a D700 from a D200 really showed up the limitations of most of my AF-D 'primes'. In rank order of preference, for me:
70-200GII, 105 micro, 135DC, 24-70
photoimager
Posts: 4,111
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
Tim Foster wrote: Instead of Zeiss, look at manual focus AI-S lenses. They're really good. Check out the 50mm F/1.2, the 35mm F/1.4, and the 85mm F/1.4.
If you read the OP's first paragraph you'll see why they went to an AF system.
85mm 1.8G is a great lens if you don't really need the 1.4G (3.1 times the price of 1.8G).
35mm 1.4G is awesome lens.
I heard the 28mm f1.8G is also good too but personally I have no experience with it.
50mm f1.8G is also another sharp lens unless you absolutely need the 1.4G version.
70-200mm f2.8G VR II is very sharp lens if you step it down to f4.
14-24mm f2.8G is another sharp lens but I feel it is too wide for shooting models (not as useful if you shooting people). It is great for landscape though.
-------------
Older lens 80-200mm f2.8D/AF are sharp but not sharp enough for the D800. 70-200mm f2.8G VRII would be best lens right now for Nikon on these range.
There is the 80-200mm f2.8 AFS version but I have no experience with it.
Stephen Dawson wrote: The lenses I use with my D800
50mm f/1.4 Best glass I own.
24mm f/2.8 Can't do any better for landscapes
16mm f/2.8 Fisheye speciality lens, low priority but fun to use
80-200mm f/2.8 I think these have been replaced by a 70-200, very sharp
24-70mm f/2.8 perhaps the best zoom in Nikon's current lineup
28-300 f/3.5-5.6 Very versatile. Great choice when you need this range and can't be changing lenses.
I wanted the 24mm F/2.8 but it's gotten some really bad reviews in relation to the edges being soft at any aperture. Is this not your experience?
photoimager wrote: OP, without knowing exactly what purpose you will be putting the lenses to then advice can be difficult other than:
- to maximise the IQ from the D800 you need to optimise both your technique and your lenses
- Zeiss lenses do not have the IQ advantage that they once had
- generally the newer G lenses are better suited than the equivalent AF-D lenses
Moving to a D700 from a D200 really showed up the limitations of most of my AF-D 'primes'. In rank order of preference, for me:
70-200GII, 105 micro, 135DC, 24-70
The shots on my profile are pretty indicative of what I do. And Also landscape work. fast glass holds no special meaning to me as I am used to Medium Format where fast is F/4. And shooting nature F/8 is pretty much my go to spot. With the nudes I do like to shoot as wide open as possible but again, F/4-5.6 does what I want most of the time. I hung on to the 855 F/1.8 for the rare times I need to make a beauty or fashion shot. I mostly use 24mm, 35mm, 180mm and beyond. I'll be filling the wide angle void first. As $$ allows I'll go after the longer glass. MAYBE an 80-200 or 70-200 for the interim. But I need something a bit longer for the landscape work.
Alien LiFe
Posts: 638
San Francisco, California, US
R Michael Walker wrote:
Stephen Dawson wrote: 24mm f/2.8 Can't do any better for landscapes
I wanted the 24mm F/2.8 but it's gotten some really bad reviews in relation to the edges being soft at any aperture. Is this not your experience?
Hmm ... I'm actually thinking of getting those new 24mm f/1.4G & the 16-35mm f/4G ...
I've heard all the coolest things about it from Mansurovs & Bob Krist's blog about being less distorsion at 24mm ... even better then 35mm 1.4G ...
I'm putting my 17-35mm 2.8 & 2 of my SB900s for sale to fund for it ... in case anybody interested ...
| 
| 
| edu