So... I'm all but convinced that I'm going D800

Started May 17, 2013 | Discussions thread
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,943
Like?
Re: So... I'm all but convinced that I'm going D800
In reply to Tyym, May 17, 2013

Tyym wrote:

After much deliberation, I've decided to buy the D800 and I'm also thinking of buying the 85 1.8 (I just can't justify the 1.4... ouch), but I'm left with a bit of a dilemma.  I need some wide stuff.  I'm going to sell my D80 and 90mm Tamron (I will have to find a Macro lens too), but I really need a wide lens for the FX body.  I really don't know what to do.  I've been told to avoid the 14-24 because of the outer element.  The 16-35 was recommended an I'll consider it but I'm really wondering about a wide lens.  I absolutely love my Sigma 10-20 but of course, it's not FX!

I know this is a very good problem to have, but I'm really wondering what the heck to do.  I'm planning on adding the 50 1.4 to my bag anyway, and I may upgrade my 80-200 with a 70-200 VRII (I want to be able to use the TC20 for long telephoto)..

Personally I'd say that if your not planning on a mid range zoom then its probabley better to go with something in the 16-35mmish range so you don't have too large a gap between your 50mm 1.4 and your ultrawide zoom.

That would be a mark agenst lenses like the Nikon 14-24mm, Tokina 16-28mm and the Sigma 12-24mm, as you say both of these need a special attachment and larger filters, they can't use screw ins for protection if you really want that.

Your options to me seem to be....

Nikon 16-35mm VR - Very good all round ultrawide lens, VR comes in handy even for ultrawide shots due to the D800's massive resolution plus its weather sealed(the whole lens not just the mount).

Nikon 17-35mm F2.8 - Not VR, a bit less range and no weather sealing but it is a stop faster(Although not sharp at the boarders at f/2.8) and better built(metal exterior).

Nikon 18-35mm - Brand new cheaper ultrawide from Nikon, less range, no VR and less well built than the 16-35mm but it is smaller and cheaper, seems to perform more or less the same.

Tokina 17-35mm - Like the above but a bit more range and a but bulkier.

The other option would I spose to be to look at some prime lenses, if you don't need really ultrawide the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 looks very good value for money, the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 has gotten good reviews as well.

There are a few fairly cheap ultrawide primes aswell, the Nikon 20mm f2.8, Voigtlander 20mm 3.5 and Samyang 14mm 2.8 all have a good rep for sharpness when stopped down to F/8ish. The last couple are manual focus only but for ultrawides I'm guessing that's less of an issue since depth of field is much greater plus I'd geuss subjects less likely to be moving?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow