Nikon's best primes/glass ? (D800 in mind)

thanks

I decided to get the D800, not the D800E. Primarily when I found out that the AA filter is not removed. There are two AF filters, a vertical and a horizontal splitter. They are leaving the first one in, but substituting the second one with a combiner (to combine the two spots back into one). Effectively this cancels out the AA filter but will not be as good as having none whatsoever. Apparently that was too expensive as they would have had to redesign the sensor as the focal plane would change. It will still be more detailed then the D800, but very slightly, so I'd rather spend the difference on lenses.

again wondering about MF on the Nikon (thinking about the Zeiss 50/2)

85mm 1.8/G seems amazing. The same type of price performance weight on the wider primes would be good

50mm is a real problem

I notice you don't mention the 35mm f1.4/G. Commentators either wax lyrical or not. slrgear and photo zone don't seem to think its amazing, just very good

thanks

sfnikon said:

sfnikon said:

I am after sharpness over everything else

Click to expand...

I have the D800E ordered and also concerned with finding optics to match with this sensor.
Except where noted I have all of the lenses below and just waiting for the body:

14-24 - no prime in this range beats it except the ZF21 which is not wide enough for me.

24/1.4G - (I don't have this lens yet waiting to see how good the new rokinon 24/1.4 is first) not the sharpest prime edge to edge but probably the best available. Better than the new zeiss 25.

ZF35/2 - Not spectacular but slightly edges out the 35/1.4G and Rokinon 35/1.4 (better than canon 35L)

ZF50/2 - The best out of a mediocre 50 field (canon can't do any better btw)

60/2.8G - Very sharp and you could consider skipping the 50's altogether with this if you don't mind a relatively slow f/2.8.

85/1.8G - (I have this pre-ordered) New lens and by early indications it will be the sharpest 85 out there.

ZF100/2 - Spectacular lens. This will be the first lens I put on my D800E

200/2 - Spectacular lens. Probably the sharpest DSLR lens Nikon makes. My favorite portrait lens and I almost always shoot at f/2.

Click to expand...

--
http://photon-priority.blogspot.com
http://www.haroldmiller.me

--
JF

MF with the 24G I reserve for tripod mounted conditions when I can use LiveView zoomed in all the way. I do this for astro and landscape shots. For handheld, the AF is good enough for me, but I do need to use f/2 or f/2.8 to increase the % keepers if it is not a posed shot. I'd guess that 2/3 the shots wide open miss critical focus on a D90, and about 1/3 miss on a D700.

harold1968 said:

thanks

I decided to get the D800, not the D800E. Primarily when I found out that the AA filter is not removed. There are two AF filters, a vertical and a horizontal splitter. They are leaving the first one in, but substituting the second one with a combiner (to combine the two spots back into one). Effectively this cancels out the AA filter but will not be as good as having none whatsoever. Apparently that was too expensive as they would have had to redesign the sensor as the focal plane would change. It will still be more detailed then the D800, but very slightly, so I'd rather spend the difference on lenses.

again wondering about MF on the Nikon (thinking about the Zeiss 50/2)

85mm 1.8/G seems amazing. The same type of price performance weight on the wider primes would be good

50mm is a real problem

I notice you don't mention the 35mm f1.4/G. Commentators either wax lyrical or not. slrgear and photo zone don't seem to think its amazing, just very good

thanks

Click to expand...

I'm manual focusing on the D3 without any special screen and it's a challenge esp since I like shooting at f/2. With practice my stationary object 'hit rate' for perfect focus improved from 40% to around 66%. I actually find it quite pleasurable manual focusing and if I'm shooting for leisure I usually reach for a manual lens with a precision focus ring like the zeiss and more recently the rokinon 35/1.4 which is superb for the money btw. I'm manual focusing @f/1.4 and doing pretty well at > 50% hit rate.

However when I shoot an event and need to get the shots the zooms come and it's all 14-24, 24-70, 70-200VRII. They are more business less fun.

50 seems very important to you and you should also take a close look at the 50/1.4G as well. Stopped down it is very sharp. I like the zf50/2 better since I like shooting at f/2 where it is slightly better than the 1.4G.

There is nothing wrong with the 35/1.4G it's a very good lens comparable in resolution to the ZF35/2 and Rokinon 35. The rendering is a bit different with the zeiss having some more contrast.

--
Jake

faterikcartman said:

I used to be a prime nut too, but the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 2.8's make a great and versatile set.

The 300 2.8 VRII could be THE reference prime. Its MTF curves are unbelievable.
The 135 DC is just a superlative lens and good resolution out to the corners.

I wouldn't bother with a Nikon 50 at this time.

The 24 2.8G
35 2.8G
24 PC/E
85 PC/E
85 2.8G
100 2.8VR
and 100 DC
Also have appeal, among others.
And I will buy the 200 f/4 Micro-Nikkor when it is updated.

You can throw money at it (always fun) and build a collection, or buy specific lenses when you find yourself missing a shot you really wanted (not as frequent as people tell themselves if they would just move their feet a little).

If you're not sure what you need, the trinity of 14-200 2.8s is where you should begin IMO.

Click to expand...

Must have had a middle-age moment. I pulled out my 85 1.4G and instantly remembered this post: the 24, 35, and 85 are, of course, f/1.4 not 2.8. Not sure where in the heck I got 2.8 in my head (especially owning one of them -- DOH!). Still, a bigger fan of the 135DC and, as a result, will pick up the 105 DC too and would not be surprised if I preferred it to the 85.

Thanks alot.

Another vote for the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. That is one incredible glass. Only downside is flare if you aren't careful to keep it off that bubble-glass at the front end and lack of filter screw-ins, although there are alternatives.

I shot some snowplow at Lassen National Park (in a 5 shot HDR) a month ago and made a big enlargement off it. I can see stones embedded in the tires from it and scratches in the windshield. Can't wait to see how it performs on the D800E, even though I've seen that French Library shot made off it which is pretty amazing. Nikon really broke the mold with that lens, although they had to fix mine when it was new for a focus issue that the camera could not compensate for right out of the box. But boy, did they make up for that issue!









It's now my primary lens always on the camera for what I shoot. Wouldn't trade it for a prime of any type, well maybe a 500mm or 600mm f/4 maybe. You get a good one and you just know it.

Mack

Get the 24 1.4G you won't regret it. It has quickly become my favorite lens

If you spend a lot of money on the wide end and long end you can save some money in the middle and get the 105mm 2.5 AIS. Personally I think this lens is as sharp as many of nikons G series primes and can be had for less then 200

harold1968 said:

I like the idea of a smaller lens
when does the 35 f2 get sharp in terms of aperture

vagari said:

Ive only the D700 with no desire for D800 , but what I use and my plan
should work well on most FF bodies

24/1.4---just ordered it, can't wait, to me the class of the new G lenses

35/2--- tried the 35/G, don't like it or want it, small size is perfect for my street shooting

58/1.2 Noct---no explanation needed

85/1.4 D--can't see spending another $1k on the G, don't need AFS

100/2 Zeiss----awesome in all ways ( except AF)

135/2 DC-----love it, but might sell to make room for below

200/2--the standard against every other lens IMO
want it bad, alot of $$$, trying to make finances work

300/4----like it also, but stil lust for 300/2.8 VR, daily

Click to expand...

--
http://photon-priority.blogspot.com
http://www.haroldmiller.me

Click to expand...

mine is sharp right from F2, at least in the center , where it counts for my style of shooting , at that aperture, won't be in focus all over anyway

by F4 sharp everywhere except far corners,

My AF 35/2 was soft at f/2, usable at f/2.8 in the center, ok at f/4, good at f/5.6 and sharp over the entire frame at f/8 on the D700. As much as I like 35mm and the idea of a small 35/2 with AF, I was pretty dissapointed by this lens. It's strong sides where the fast AF and low distortion though.

Getting the AF-S 35/1.4G was a revelation in IQ, but it's big and AF is slow.

The manual Nikkor 35/2 Ai and AiS on the other hand is a pretty good lens!

I made a comparison between the AF-S 35/1.4G and my old 35/2 from 1978 on the D700 and posted full size pix from f/1.4 to f/8 here: http://marcschlueter.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/nikkor-oc-auto-35mm2-vs-nikkor-af-s-35mm1-4g/

harold1968 said:

I like the idea of a smaller lens
when does the 35 f2 get sharp in terms of aperture

vagari said:

Ive only the D700 with no desire for D800 , but what I use and my plan
should work well on most FF bodies

24/1.4---just ordered it, can't wait, to me the class of the new G lenses

35/2--- tried the 35/G, don't like it or want it, small size is perfect for my street shooting

58/1.2 Noct---no explanation needed

85/1.4 D--can't see spending another $1k on the G, don't need AFS

100/2 Zeiss----awesome in all ways ( except AF)

135/2 DC-----love it, but might sell to make room for below

200/2--the standard against every other lens IMO
want it bad, alot of $$$, trying to make finances work

300/4----like it also, but stil lust for 300/2.8 VR, daily

Click to expand...

--
http://photon-priority.blogspot.com
http://www.haroldmiller.me

Click to expand...

--
Marc
http://marcschlueter.wordpress.com/

fortunately my 35/2 is no where as soft as the pictures you linked

had the 35G been priced nearer the 50/1.4G, I may have bit

for $1600...no way

You got the part where I wrote in that blog post that I applied no sharpening or anything to the RAW files prior to exporting them as JPG, hmm? Like the small amount of sharpening normally required to overcome the slight blurring of the D700 AA filter...

And you realised that the point of focus in some of the pix with wide open aperture is somewhere in the middle of that bush (I know I messed up that part a bit).

Anyway, my 35/1.4G isn't soft. In direct comparison it's a little bit sharper than my 28/1.4D and 50/1.4G but slightly less sharp than the 85/1.4G. If I would think it's soft or in any other way not up to the task, it would be long gone by now.

And actually it was $2500 at the time (currendly €1799 = $2375), for $1600 it's a steal.

Congratulations for your AF 35/2! I mean that. Mine and the ones I got in my hands where nowhere as good.

vagari said:

fortunately my 35/2 is no where as soft as the pictures you linked

had the 35G been priced nearer the 50/1.4G, I may have bit

for $1600...no way

Click to expand...

--
Marc
http://marcschlueter.wordpress.com/

thanks all for your advice

my initial conclusion is perhaps off-the-wall but I think we suite me initially. Note that mild wides (28-50mm) are where most of my photography is.

I will get the 85mm f1.8G for the rare times I use this focal length. If I find myself using it more I will borrow a 85mm f1.4G to try and think about upgrading.

I am aware that its not just sharpness, its also the coatings and the draw of the lens that make pictures pop!. Which is why the differnce between the 85mm f1.8G and f1.4G might be more that just the stats.

I will also get the 50mm f1.8G. It seems the f1.4G is no better and for a lightweight walk-about the f1.8G might be a good compromise until the fabled f1.2G ever turns up.

Lastly I will get the 35mm f1.4G. The pictures I have seen with it are fabulous and it ticks all the boxes for me (except for weight!). I will use it as my indoor lens and for landscapes and architecture.

If the 35mm f1.4G goes well I will also get the 24mm f1.4G later.

I might buy a cheap Zeiss secondhand to assess if I can handle manual focus on the D800.

I am surprised that I am not saying I will get all the most expensive lenses, but this seems to be the state of Nikon lenses at the moment.

rgds

--
http://photon-priority.blogspot.com
http://www.haroldmiller.me

faterikcartman said:

I used to be a prime nut too, but the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 2.8's make a great and versatile set.

The 300 2.8 VRII could be THE reference prime. Its MTF curves are unbelievable.
The 135 DC is just a superlative lens and good resolution out to the corners.

I wouldn't bother with a Nikon 50 at this time.

The 24 2.8G
35 2.8G
24 PC/E
85 PC/E
85 2.8G
100 2.8VR
and 100 DC
Also have appeal, among others.
And I will buy the 200 f/4 Micro-Nikkor when it is updated.

You can throw money at it (always fun) and build a collection, or buy specific lenses when you find yourself missing a shot you really wanted (not as frequent as people tell themselves if they would just move their feet a little).

If you're not sure what you need, the trinity of 14-200 2.8s is where you should begin IMO.

Click to expand...

IMHO I wouldn't say the trinity of 14-200 is a good place to start. I mean, it all depends on the type of photography you do although it does give you flexibility. Also, there is really no need to cover a focal length range such as 14-200 (or any range for that matter) with all lenses you get. If you think, you can always get the 14-24 and the 50mm and literally walk the distance between 24 and 50. Moreover, the 50mm will make you a better photographer because you will learn the hard way to compose your shots. Again, it all depends. If your style of photography finds you shooting in events where you don't have much space then a zoom lens like the 24-70 is better.

All in all I agree with those that said to focus on the lenses you really need instead of building the perfect and most expensive collection that you will rarely use.

Btw, I have the 135 f/2 and it's wonderful. I'm also thinking about getting the 24G for landscapes because I don't need anything below 24 and I want to be covered in case I need to use filters (it's not that easy to use filters with the 14-24).

harold1968 said:

50mm

Well its the 50mm f1.4 G or f1.4D. I can' work out which one of these is better. It seems the f1.4D might be a better all rounder ?
Sigma 50mm f1.4 seems to only excel in the centre.

The Zeiss looks good, but how difficult is manual focus on the D700/D800 ? I wonder. I mean that the guide, for example on the M9, is quite easy to use. But DSLRs I have used have been terribly slow for complete manual focus. Is there focus confirmation ?

Click to expand...

If you want the best IQ and you don't need AF I think the Zeiss 50mm f2 makro is the answer. It is very easy to focus on a D700 until the light is very poor so I bought a Nikon 50mm f1.8G for that reason. That's also a fine lens.

harold1968 said:

24mm, 35mm and 85mm

Seems the new f1.4Gs are the only games in town. Any good ?

Click to expand...

No doubt, but I use a Nikon 28mm f1.4. I couldn't decide between the 24and 35 for focal length, hence the 28. It's superb. Perhaps a bit pricey.

The Nikon 85mm f1.4 is the cream of the 85's no doubt, but I went for the Sigma 85mm f1.4. A superb lens. If you want the absolute best and care not about budget get the Nikon.

harold1968 said:

I never shoot zooms. But if someone tells me that Nikon make a zoom as good as a prime in a certain range I will have a look.
Although f2.8 puts me off somewhat

Click to expand...

I could live with primes but I do use zooms when I need the flexability. The 70~200 VRII is such a good lens it sees a lot of use even though I have some excellent primes in the same range. I also use my 17~35 more than any other lens (yes, despite having the 28mm f1.4).

harold1968 said:

--
http://photon-priority.blogspot.com
http://www.haroldmiller.me

Click to expand...

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

slimandy said:

No doubt, but I use a Nikon 28mm f1.4. I couldn't decide between the 24and 35 for focal length, hence the 28. It's superb. Perhaps a bit pricey

Click to expand...

Don't you know that the 28 1.4 is "soft" (at least according to a number of folks that don't use it regularly).

Examples (posted a number of times before):

Close (minimal focusing distance)
Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/2500s f/1.4 at 28.0mm iso200



Crop



Distance :
Nikon D3 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/1600s f/1.4 at 28.0mm iso1600



Crop



In general, I also prefer the 28mm focal length to 24 since I sometimes use it with people in the picture, and it's easier to avoid distorting them when they're not near the center of the frame:
Nikon D200 ,Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D AF
1/60s f/1.8 at 28.0mm iso800



Best Regards,

RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

Nice samples.

The impression I get from these forums is that people who criticise the 28mm f1.4 have not used it. People that have used it tend to sing it's praises, even if they also own the 24 and/or 35mm lenses.

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