D800 amateur lens collection

I am buying the D800 mainly for travel, portraits and landscape.

I am attracted to the D800 for its cropping potential and detail.

It is also the lightest full frame AF device at the moment (never though I would ever say this about a Nikon )

My pictures alternate between wanting maximum sharpness across the frame with a closed down aperture:



and maximum DOF with the smallest aperture, e.g.:



I intend to only have one lens on me at any one time.

These are examples of my typical travel photographs:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/haroldmiller/6590108577/in/set-72157628473627781/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/haroldmiller/6820509316/in/set-72157629276204680/

My current lens plan is as follows:

1. 50mm f1.4G. 50mm is my favourite focal length. This will be my main indoor lens

2. 24-120mm f4. This seems to be the best compromise in terms of weight and quality for day time general shooting walkabout

3. 85mm f1.8G. Photozone says that above f1.8 thsi is as sharp as the f1.4G. I don't need the extra DOF at this focal length. I would be happy to get the f1.4G if there were real detail or micro-contrast advantages.

4. 35mm f1.4G. I like "tight" landscapes and this lens seems the ideal quality for landsacpes and also indoor group shooting.

I used to have the 24-70mm f2.8 which is amazing, but I am not sure the extra weight and cost is required for walk-about and I prefer primes for DOF and when the light drops.

does this sound reasonably ok ?

I'd change the 35G to a 24G. 24-50-85 makes more sense for me.

--
My equipment: Nikon D3s, D700, D7000, EOS 450D
The ladies equipment: Panasonic LX5 and GH2 for video

Sounds fine.

I woud probably pick a wider lens for "tight landscapes" like the (20,24,28 @2.8), but if you like 35 then go for it.

I will say that the 35 1.4 may be budgetary overkill if you plan to stop down. The 35 f2 is very similar past f4 and the samyang 35 1.4 is very likely at least equal to the 1.4 nikkor at 1/3 price. It's manual focus though.

Personally, I would recommend the 14-24 instead of the 24G. Although the 24G is quite the performer, if you don't need the 1.4 the extra wideness is quite cool



--
Lead, follow or get lost

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leeian/

are too close in my view. the 50mm g wins on price, the 35mm on performance and versatility.

Some plans and considerations:

1) 14-24mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 (and 24-120 f4 if you like a walkabout);
2) replace the 14-24mm f2.8 with a 20mm f2.8.

3) the 20mm is more versatile (& less expensive) than the 24mm f1.4: you can crop a 24mm scene at no cost and keep the extra wide latitude. Not same glass quality, though.

5) if you want a 50mm, get the inexpensive f1.8 (I have both 1.4G & 1.8D - the G has slower AF).

--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com
http://www.romephotographyworkshop.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbenphoto
http://www.24per36.com/fotografi/mauro-benedetti

My question for you Harold, from your Flickr portfolio it appears that you are using lightweight 4/3 cameras for travel. Like myself (perhaps), you need to travel light and perhaps having a D800 will be significantly more weight than those lightweight cameras. Just wondering if you will be willing to bear the extra weight while traveling or just use the D800 for specialty trips where photography is your main focus.

I'm planning getting the D800 (already on order) and have decided that I want the 16-35 VR f4 lens for wide angle while traveling, plus a good prime, either the 50 or 85 1.8. Have not ordered anything yet, but leaning on just getting a prime to start out with, then adding the 16-35 later. These lenses are hard to find without paying a premium but hopefully that will change soon. Might be smart to order now to avoid the rush when people get those D800 in their hands and decide they need some better glass.

since you said 'amateur' I presume that budget is a consideration as well.

If that is the case, these would be the two I'd recommend for your needs (you already mentioned both):

1) travel, landscapes (all in one type of lens) 24-120mm f4
2) 50mm 1.4

thanks the 20mm f2.8 D is interesting

photozone.de seems to think its quite good, but some mixed reviews

what are your thoughts on micro contrast and colour ?

Mauro.B said:

are too close in my view. the 50mm g wins on price, the 35mm on performance and versatility.

Some plans and considerations:

1) 14-24mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 (and 24-120 f4 if you like a walkabout);
2) replace the 14-24mm f2.8 with a 20mm f2.8.

3) the 20mm is more versatile (& less expensive) than the 24mm f1.4: you can crop a 24mm scene at no cost and keep the extra wide latitude. Not same glass quality, though.

5) if you want a 50mm, get the inexpensive f1.8 (I have both 1.4G & 1.8D - the G has slower AF).

--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com
http://www.romephotographyworkshop.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbenphoto
http://www.24per36.com/fotografi/mauro-benedetti

Click to expand...

all excellent points

actually I used to use a 5D and then a 5dii

I migrated to a Leica M8/M9 which I used to great effect but now want to return to AF (also I managed to sell my Leica gear for mostly what I paid, luckily in advance of the M10 coming out on May 10th).

I recently tried the GX1 and the Nex7. Both are surprisingly good cameras.
The GX1 is a bit too far off a 5Dii/M9 but the Nex7 is fantastic.
I am actually keeping the Nex7 for a lightweight alternative when I need it.

However once bitten by FF DOF control and high quality lenses there is no going back.

I think that the D800 and a single lens will mostly be ok. I always travel with a car so having a second lens in the boot seems ok.

I was also considering the 16-35mm. Seems a very nice "boot" lens for those landscapes. Great reviews.

the other idea someone put forward was a combination of the 50mm f1.4G and the 20mm f2.8D which some folk say is very good (inc. photozone.de), others are not too sure.

You are right about the lenses shortage. I think I got the last 50mm f1.4G in the UK (no kidding, I called up 10 shops, mifsuds had one left!).

I wouldn't want to get the 16-35mm and the 24-120mm f4. So it might be deciding between these two and the 20mm f2.8D to have the wide end covered.

decisions decisions ....

KenBuse said:

My question for you Harold, from your Flickr portfolio it appears that you are using lightweight 4/3 cameras for travel. Like myself (perhaps), you need to travel light and perhaps having a D800 will be significantly more weight than those lightweight cameras. Just wondering if you will be willing to bear the extra weight while traveling or just use the D800 for specialty trips where photography is your main focus.

I'm planning getting the D800 (already on order) and have decided that I want the 16-35 VR f4 lens for wide angle while traveling, plus a good prime, either the 50 or 85 1.8. Have not ordered anything yet, but leaning on just getting a prime to start out with, then adding the 16-35 later. These lenses are hard to find without paying a premium but hopefully that will change soon. Might be smart to order now to avoid the rush when people get those D800 in their hands and decide they need some better glass.

Click to expand...

I was in same boat and decided on Sigma 85 f/1.4 over the Nikon 85 1.8g. Below is a good comparison-

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=756&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Also, I decided on the Rokinon (Samyang) 35 f/1.4 over the Nikon 35 f/1.4. From what I've seen and compared, it's right on par (or better even) than the Nikon..you give up autofocus though.

--

When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do. - despair.com

crm114 said:

I was in same boat and decided on Sigma 85 f/1.4 over the Nikon 85 1.8g. Below is a good comparison-

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=756&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
I

Click to expand...

I looked at the comparison tests between the Sigma 1.4 and the Nikon 1.4; what astounded me is the difference in color at the center (the Nikon has a bluish purple tint) and is how much worse the Nikon looks in the corners at 1.4. Is this test legit? I mean if it is, the Canon camera doing the Sigma 1.4 is far superior. Can someone bring some light on these test results and the validity of "The digital Picture. Com?"

When you say "closed down aperture" do you mean something like f/22? With the D800 your sharpest apertures are usually going to be f/5.6 and f/8.

harold1968 said:

My pictures alternate between wanting maximum sharpness across the frame with a closed down aperture:

Click to expand...

Below, I think you must mean largest aperture with minimum DOF (depth of field). Maximum DOF means that near and far objects are in focus. Minimum DOF means that the area in focus is very shallow. f/1.4 would be a large (wide open) aperture while f/22 would be a small (closed down) aperture.

harold1968 said:

and maximum DOF with the smallest aperture, e.g.:



I intend to only have one lens on me at any one time.

My current lens plan is as follows:

1. 50mm f1.4G. 50mm is my favourite focal length. This will be my main indoor lens

2. 24-120mm f4. This seems to be the best compromise in terms of weight and quality for day time general shooting walkabout

3. 85mm f1.8G. Photozone says that above f1.8 thsi is as sharp as the f1.4G. I don't need the extra DOF at this focal length. I would be happy to get the f1.4G if there were real detail or micro-contrast advantages.

4. 35mm f1.4G. I like "tight" landscapes and this lens seems the ideal quality for landsacpes and also indoor group shooting.

does this sound reasonably ok ?

Click to expand...

Yes, those seem like good choices for what you want to do.
--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

I believe its bokeh fringing, here's a definition from photozone-

Bokeh Fringing

Bokeh fringing is a common issue with relatively fast glass. It's visible as halos of different colors in out-of-focus areas - magenta (red + blue) in front of the focus point and green beyond.

Typical for most fast primes, the AF-S 85 shows noticeable bokeh fringing at large aperture settings, which can of course be reduced by stopping down.

In addition, these shots also show the slight focus shift when stopping down, which was mentioned in the MTF section.

--

When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do. - despair.com

correct, correct

I usually shoot landscapes not higher then f11, or f8 if I focus on subjects in foreground

Color is neutral, microcontrast conservative. Used on D700, though, not D800.

If you are concerned about budget, 20 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 are the most cost effective set. I would personally skip the 50mm, but I am not really a "50mm guy".

The 35 f2 is weak in corners at full aperture, and could prove problematic on serving the D800 pixel density. But I have also seen 35 f1.4 & D800 / E samples ruined by green fringing, so who knows.

I expect to spend my first weeks with the D800 dividing my Nikon lenses into "acceptable" and "not acceptable", like I did four years ago with the D700 (my first full frame).

Best regards,

M

--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com
http://www.romephotographyworkshop.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbenphoto
http://www.24per36.com/fotografi/mauro-benedetti

keep me updated on that one

I am just scared I end up with the 24-70mm. Its a great lens but is marginally too heavy for a walk about. It also looks to others like a long zoom and therefore subjects tend to shrink away more

I like a 50mm and the f1.4 and it should definitely have frequent use for me indoors.

so the question is what to use for wide walk-abouts. The 24-120 f4 might be the solution, having to live with only consistently sharp in the centre. Otherwise the 16-35mm or 24/35mm will have to do.

Interestingly, when I look at the blur index graphs at slrgear, I can't help getting the feeling that Nikon is better at making zooms then primes. The 16-35mm is so much better then the two primes , maybe for an extra 80g but a 20% reduction in cost I should go for it

Mauro.B said:

Color is neutral, microcontrast conservative. Used on D700, though, not D800.

If you are concerned about budget, 20 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 are the most cost effective set. I would personally skip the 50mm, but I am not really a "50mm guy".

The 35 f2 is weak in corners at full aperture, and could prove problematic on serving the D800 pixel density. But I have also seen 35 f1.4 & D800 / E samples ruined by green fringing, so who knows.

I expect to spend my first weeks with the D800 dividing my Nikon lenses into "acceptable" and "not acceptable", like I did four years ago with the D700 (my first full frame).

Best regards,

M

--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com
http://www.romephotographyworkshop.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbenphoto
http://www.24per36.com/fotografi/mauro-benedetti

Click to expand...

harold1968 said:

keep me updated on that one

Click to expand...

Sure !

harold1968 said:

I am just scared I end up with the 24-70mm. Its a great lens but is marginally too heavy for a walk about. It also looks to others like a long zoom and therefore subjects tend to shrink away more

Click to expand...

With hood, the 24-70mm scales at 1,15 kg. I almost stopped using it since it takes too much away from the "photo fun factor", it's like an anchor hanging on shoulder. And everyone notices when pointed. It's a great lens, even considering weak corners below f 5.6, though.

harold1968 said:

I like a 50mm and the f1.4 and it should definitely have frequent use for me indoors.

Click to expand...

Everyone has his own favorites. I usually feel more "35" than "50".

harold1968 said:

so the question is what to use for wide walk-abouts. The 24-120 f4 might be the solution, having to live with only consistently sharp in the centre. Otherwise the 16-35mm or 24/35mm will have to do.

Click to expand...

I rarely go below 24mm in "walkabout photography". I find wides tricky to use, unless in far / distant compositions, which do not happen that often.

I have tried a number of "walkabout" lenses on D700. Among recent designs, the 24-120 f4 was too big and not optically "up to"; the 28-300 f4 was a sort of disaster, due to extreme pincushion and lack of sufficient sharpness. In the end, my "light walkabout" is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8: it suffers from a bit of pincushion in the tele end, but is a sort of poor cousin to the 24-70. Poor, but still cousin...

harold1968 said:

Interestingly, when I look at the blur index graphs at slrgear, I can't help getting the feeling that Nikon is better at making zooms then primes. The 16-35mm is so much better then the two primes , maybe for an extra 80g but a 20% reduction in cost I should go for it

Click to expand...

It depends on your intended usage. The 16-35 is an outstanding lens, maybe excluding 16mm barrell and 35mm performance drop, but it is close to a coke can size-wise. Among people it can be a difficult proposition, as the 14-24 which I do not use anymore for reportage (switched to a "good" 18-35 sample).

I lately grew some kind of "size - fobia", probably increased by the availability of the M9 and, lately, V1 and by the fact that 90% of my photography is currently reportage, documentary and street - i.e. among people.

When I am out for landscape, it is huge zooms territory (and marvelous Summicrons when I also carry the M9).

Tough decisions for sure. I would advise to take your time and start by tightly defining your needs and priorities, since the lens game potentially leads to wasting money and time. But I bet you know that !

Best regards,

M

--
Mauro

http://www.maurobenphoto.com
http://www.romephotographyworkshop.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbenphoto
http://www.24per36.com/fotografi/mauro-benedetti

Wow i like that shot. Nice work

Colors are good. Micro contrast a tad soft on digital but responds well to USM.

Lens needs to be stopped down for usable corner sharpness on landscape shots.

Nice is the close focus capability and fairly sharp center wide open.

I like how it handles flaring.

KenBuse said:

Can someone bring some light on these test results and the validity of "The digital Picture. Com?"

Click to expand...

Don't really know - but I have heard on these dpreview fora (forums) that the site is somewhat biased toward Canon cameras and lenses - which by the way are fine cameras and lenses - again from what I have heard .