D800 wasted on average lenses?

[phaseout]

I am in a unique position where I have sold my 7D and lenses and can start over with either a 5D Mark III or a Nikon D800. I will not be able to afford the top of the line Nikon lenses which are quite a bit more expensive than the Canon counterparts here in the US. I am not a pro and do photography on the side and as a hobby but I am set to get one of these two cameras and looking for a couple of flexible lenses.

My question is, am I wasting the resolving power of the D800 by using lenses like the 24-120 or the 50mm 1.4G with it?

Would I be better off with combo of the 5D mark III with the 24-105 which costs the same as the D800 with the 24-120 or even pay a few hundred more for the 70-200 f4?

Thank you.

 

[ARB1]

My question is, am I wasting the resolving power of the D800 by using lenses like the 24-120 or the 50mm 1.4G with it?

The 24-120mm is said to be an outstanding lens, it's also the lens I'm looking to get as a walk around lens.

 

[GMack]

You got your buying methodology backwards.

"A crappy body with a good lens is always better than a good body with a crappy lens." It'd be like putting bad eyeglasses on an eagle.

Both Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan give bad marks to the 24-120mm. Ken is even more ruthless to call it "One of Nikon's 10 worst lenses" here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm

If you get a good body first and you then buy a cheap lens for it, don't come looking for answers as to "Why are my photos not sharp? I even bought an expensive hi-rez FX body."

You'd be further ahead getting a cheaper D7000 body with either a Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 or their 24-70mm f/2.8 and maybe for a lot less money too. Then you could go into a hi-rez D800 without issues of owning a crummy lens and the problems it brings to a better body.

Mack

 

[nelsonal]

There is a newer 24-120 that got much better marks from him (and everyone else).
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm

 

[Anfy]

Both Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan give bad marks to the 24-120mm. Ken is even more ruthless to call it "One of Nikon's 10 worst lenses" here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm

In the link you provided Rockwell is speaking of the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120vr.htm ), not the current version:

24-120mm f/4 ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm ); of the latter, he writes: "The new Nikon 24-120mm f/4 VR is a great lens. It is worlds sharper than its predecessor".

Ciao!

--
Viva la evolución!

 

[apaflo]

You got your buying methodology backwards.

"A crappy body with a good lens is always better than a good body with a crappy lens." It'd be like putting bad eyeglasses on an eagle.

That is easy to demonstrate as false. A "crappy body" produces crappy pictures, period. A "crappy lens" isn't good wide open or perhaps at the end of the zoom range... but stopped down almost any lens can produce pretty good images. At least if mounted on a good body.

Both Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan give bad marks to the 24-120mm. Ken is even more ruthless to call it "One of Nikon's 10 worst lenses" here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm

That references the old 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6, not the new 24-120mm f/4 which is rated as a very good lens, and specifically was included in the list from Nikon as useful with the D800 body.

If you get a good body first and you then buy a cheap lens for it, don't come looking for answers as to "Why are my photos not sharp? I even bought an expensive hi-rez FX body."

He doesn't seem to be looking at "cheap" lenses though. Both the 24-120mm f/4 and the 50mm f/1.4G are in fact excellent lenses that will do very nicely on a D800.

You'd be further ahead getting a cheaper D7000 body with either a Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 or their 24-70mm f/2.8 and maybe for a lot less money too. Then you could go into a hi-rez D800 without issues of owning a crummy lens and the problems it brings to a better body.

Why waste money on yesterday's technology when he can start with something even better today.

 

[eurycea]

The AF-S NIKKOR 24–120 mm f/4G ED VR is one of the lenses Nikon recommends for use on the D800 for "enhanced sharpness."

See

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf

Although it beats me why the 50mm f/1.4 G is not on there, or the 300mm AF-S f/4, for example.

 

[ofior]

Seems the 24-120 f4 will be haunted by its ancestors. People keep pulling up the old version's review; and for some that know the difference, I think there's a guilt by association effect going on. Personally, I really like it, and use it more than any other lens I own.

Ozzie

 

[Michael Siemon]

Seems the 24-120 f4 will be haunted by its ancestors. People keep pulling up the old version's review; and for some that know the difference, I think there's a guilt by association effect going on. Personally, I really like it, and use it more than any other lens I own.

Ozzie

Yeah; I had one of the earlier ones (the most recent version before the current one), and

essentially shelved it as useless. [I used the older 28-105 for most of that range; loved it.] Since I got the new f/4 version, it is my single most used lens. Infinitely better than the earlier version(s). Sold the 28-105.
--
Michael L. Siemon

 

[stuntmonkey]

My question is, am I wasting the resolving power of the D800 by using lenses like the 24-120 or the 50mm 1.4G with it?

Yes and no. You'll probably be fine with the newer f/4 24-120 and you'll be fine with the 50 f/1.4. As a really rough rule of thumb, if image quality is not lens-limited on the D7000, then on full frame the center will still be fine. The D800 still has a larger pixel pitch than the D7000, so my guess is that with the exception of the 28-300, almost any modern FX lens can get the the most out of the D800 at some point in it's focal length/aperture range.

However... On paper, if you had no allegiances to a system, and were more comfortable with Canon, the 5Dm3 with 24-105L sounds like a more economical and better all-around alternative to the Nikon equivalent. Also, the lack of a 70-200 f/4 makes for a frustrating price gap between the 80-200 and the 70-200VR lenses

--
http://1000wordpics.blogspot.com

 

[coudet]

am I wasting the resolving power of the D800 by using lenses like the 24-120 or the 50mm 1.4G with it?

No.

There are some pictures here that may interest you:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/newproduct/20120319_519454.html

Would I be better off with combo of the 5D mark III with the 24-105 which costs the same as the D800 with the 24-120

Only you can answer this.

 

[slimandy]

My question is, am I wasting the resolving power of the D800 by using lenses like the 24-120 or the 50mm 1.4G with it?

The 24~120 is an excellent lens as long as you mean the newer f4 version. The 50 you mentioned is also an excellent lens, as is the 50mm f1.8G for even less money.

Would I be better off with combo of the 5D mark III with the 24-105 which costs the same as the D800 with the 24-120 or even pay a few hundred more for the 70-200 f4?

I assume you mean get the 70~200 f4 for the Canon because Nikon don't make one. It's a tough question to answer. Is there and reason you want to switch from Canon? Are you just tempted by more pixels (and if so, are they more than you really need)?

Thank you.

--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Almost every lens has extremely good resolution at f8-11 - in this sense the lens is not critical.
All lenses deliver more resolution when the sensor resolution is increased.

Lenses like the 60mm macro G have very high resolving power wide open - and are an affordable option for a D800 when you want to shoot at f2.8.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Photography could be easier - if cameras and lenses came with an increase in skill button.

 

[JayMitch]

Not a bad problem to have. ;-)

I am in a unique position where I have sold my 7D and lenses and can start over with either a 5D Mark III or a Nikon D800.

--

Flickr Page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25556585@N02/

Blog: http://jaymitchblog.blogspot.com/

 

[jorgeysusa]

I own the old 24-120mm and yes, Ken Rockwell is right, crappy soft focus everywhere. That's why they made the NEW 24-120 a couple of years ago. Get the right one and you'll be ok.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

My question is, am I wasting the resolving power of the D800 by using lenses like the 24-120 or the 50mm 1.4G with it?

It depends in part what apertures you intend to shoot

In the corners lenses like the 24-70 at 24mm f2.8 or the 50mm f1.4 G perform worse than an "average" lens at f8-f11

Whatever lens you use at whatever aperture you choose with good technique you can get more resolution from a D800 than the D7000 you just sold - provided you print big enough to see the difference

Other things than the lens and aperture affect image resolution; ISO setting and subject contrast probably being the 2 most critical.

When you want the highest resolution, subject matter is restricted (eg no wind in a landscape), ISO is limited to 100, apertures are limited to f8-11 with the best possible lenses, the subject needs to be high contrast in good light, and a good tripod and LiveView help. Let yourself down with any of these and you can easily loose a lot of resolution.
--
Leonard Shepherd

Photography could be easier - if cameras and lenses came with an increase in skill button.

 

[echelon2004]

All lenses will benefit from higher resolution body, regardless of how bad the lens is.

On the other hand, excellent lenses on a lower resolution body might very well have a higher total resolution than poor lenses on a high res body.

The lenses you mention are absolutely fine lenses though and they'll perform as well as you can make them to on any body, including the D800
--
Anders

'It is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice'

 

[harold1968]

I used to shoot the 24-120mm f4 on the D700
It's surprisingly sharp

The 50mm f1.4 g is excellent

 

[jubilatu]

The 50mm f1.4 g is excellent

Unfortunately Nikon does not mention it as being suited for "enhanced sharpness" in their field guide that a fellow poster mentioned earlier. So sad, because that would me my choice.

--

Please forgive my grammar but if you find it inconceivable address me in romanian.

 

[harold1968]

a lot of people are debating that and have come to the conclusion that the Nikon list is a marketing one to sell the most expensive lenses.

if you look at photozone.de the 50mm f1.4 out resolves most other nikon lenses

also the 85mm f1.8 is around the same as the 85mm f1.4 in resolution after f2, but surprisingly they don't mention that either

The 50mm f1.4 g is excellent

Unfortunately Nikon does not mention it as being suited for "enhanced sharpness" in their field guide that a fellow poster mentioned earlier. So sad, because that would me my choice.

--

Please forgive my grammar but if you find it inconceivable address me in romanian.