Don't use anything than the very best primes on D800?

[Bing Chow]

I agree. While I wouldn't call it sharp, it is still quite usable. But it does lack contrast.

 

[Chad Gladstone]

ianbrown wrote:

Was going to pull the trigger on a FF camera but was told " only use thpe very best primes" anything less and you should stick to APS with the best glass?

I know that the very best glass will give you optimum results but won't say a 24-70 f2.8 tamron on the D800 give you better results than the 16-85 DX on the 7100?

Ian

As far as affordable zooms, the 70-200 VRII is about the only zoom lens that comes close to prime quality and offers the additional versatility of a zoom (if you are willing to carry the weight and need to shoot below f/4). The 28, 50, and 85G lenses are outstanding and offer much better possibilities for capturing the best possible image and have the added advantages of being small, light and inexpensive.

However, as Roman articulated so well, finding interesting subjects, working on composition and managing light and the fundamentals of shutterspeed, iso and depth of field are all prerequisites to the secondary determination of lens choices. After all, an image with outstanding acutance and sharpness means little if all the other artistic elements are missing. Mastering those aspects will gain a shooter more traction than any "good, better, best" lens analsyis. Lenses will always represent trade offs and honestly simply embolden the shooter to have confidence in the lens as being wholly capable of capturing the image, without excuse, something not readily quantified by reference to an MTF graph or DXO report.

Primes, as sharp as they may be, are often inconvenient for framing and require discipline and are not alway practicable when a zoom would allow more latitude in capturing the image. The best quality is rarely ever exploited anyway, even in the most demanding of output requirements, but they make us brave and resonate with our uncompromising perceptions that the best is a prerequiste, even if something else will be virtually indistinquishable, except in the most extreme circumstances. Getting a few inexpensive G primes will remove any excuse but the photographer's lack of vision and skill, however.

 

[Ronan_M]

ianbrown wrote:

Was going to pull the trigger on a FF camera but was told " only use thpe very best primes"

By whom and what does he/she shoot?

 

[CeleryBeats]

ianbrown wrote:

Was going to pull the trigger on a FF camera but was told " only use thpe very best primes" anything less and you should stick to APS with the best glass?

I know that the very best glass will give you optimum results but won't say a 24-70 f2.8 tamron on the D800 give you better results than the 16-85 DX on the 7100?

Ian

False statement. BUT. You should get the primes anyway to enjoy! The 50 1.8 G and 85 1.8 G for example are lenses you really shouldn't miss. Plus they are relatively cheap.

I mean i just got the 85 and it's just wow!

--
http://www.facebook.com/jeroenselderslaghsphoto
http://jeroenselderslaghs.be/index.html

 

[grazuncle]

Ronan_M wrote:

ianbrown wrote:

Was going to pull the trigger on a FF camera but was told " only use thpe very best primes"

By whom and what does he/she shoot?

The owner of the shop he was in!

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Roland Wooster wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

Taken with the 70-300VR on a D800e (not mine.) Is this sharp enough for you?

https://flic.kr/p/dGU2op

Honestly, no, absolutely not. I would have deleted an image with this lack of sharpness. Yes, I'm quite serious, and respectfully, no I'm not trying to bait you.

I don't have the 70-300VR, but I'm quite surprised that this image would be provided as an example of sharp. I am confident my 70-200 VRII would yield sharper results than this, and ironically even having had said, it's actually in the mail back to Nikon because I'm not happy with the delta of necessary AF fine tune values across different focal lengths and distances.

With respect to the original conjecture, yes primes do the best on the D800. The 28 F1.8 and 85 F1.8 are incredibly sharp, and significantly out perform Nikon's top of the line zooms.

Roland.

You're nuts.

 

[olyflyer]

...until their maximum resolution is reached.

You don't necessarily need to buy the very top range but of course, if you need the absolute maximum resolution out of the camera for huge billboards or similar then of course you have to invest in those. At the same time, you must also invest in sturdy tripod and NEVER shoot hand held or use VR, and in fact, never buy a lens with VR at all. Also, don't ever use any filter at all since they always reduce IQ.

Another thing about the DX comment is that the D7100 has more resolution than the D800, so logically it should need even better lenses than the D800.

 

[antonoat]

RomanJohnston wrote:

I am a perfectionist....so I get where this question and statement is coming from.

As a landscape photographer....I am constantly refining my technique, looking for new ways to improve my craft and my final outcome for my customers I am so lucky to have purchase my work.

In all this frenzy to do the best and get the best I can from my work. I have to remember that a compelling shot is my first priority.

A well taken shot perfectly crisp, with all of my "Best shot practices" are being used is always my highest goal.

With that all said....taking a compelling shot is the HIGHEST and first rule to achieve. Other photographers might nit pick stuff to death if you posted a compelling shot with maybe the most minute of problems. But the shot in reality will still be a success. Most NON photographers will look at the esoteric merit of the shot and not notice that the light might be a bit off...or focus might be the slightest bit soft...or maybe the edges of a landscape shot might not be as tight as if the best lens was used.

Most photographers forget that the essence of a photograph while enhanced by perfect technique....is not lost if all is not followed to the nth degree.

So get some reasonably decent glass...and enjoy your DX OR FX camera.....and worry about capturing shots that mean something.

Enjoy your photography AND your world.

Roman

--
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science.
~ Albert Einstein
http://www.commercialfineart.com/
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

Wise words indeed, very well said.

cheers

Tony

www.tophotos.co.uk

 

[olyflyer]

cosmonaut wrote:

Thom Hogan stated in his book Nikon has recommended 16 lenses to use on the D800. I guess start there.

 

[coudet]

Roland Wooster wrote:

Honestly, no, absolutely not. I would have deleted an image with this lack of sharpness. Yes, I'm quite serious, and respectfully, no I'm not trying to bait you.

You probably have higher standards than 99,9% of users.

There is a lot detail in this picture (detail, which is what is important; not sharpness). I'd say it's even impressive, when you consider 70-300/4.5-5.6 is a cheap lens, and it was quite likely handheld at 240mm here.

I am confident my 70-200 VRII would yield sharper results than this

Yes, I would imagine so. 70-200/2.8 is the better lens, no one ever claimed otherwise.

 

[coudet]

ianbrown wrote:

Was going to pull the trigger on a FF camera but was told " only use thpe very best primes" anything less and you should stick to APS with the best glass?

D800 + 50/1.8 ($200) gives better image quality than APS-C with any glass. Just saying.

 

[olyflyer]

coudet wrote:

Roland Wooster wrote:

Honestly, no, absolutely not. I would have deleted an image with this lack of sharpness. Yes, I'm quite serious, and respectfully, no I'm not trying to bait you.

You probably have higher standards than 99,9% of users.

There is a lot detail in this picture (detail, which is what is important; not sharpness). I'd say it's even impressive, when you consider 70-300/4.5-5.6 is a cheap lens, and it was quite likely handheld at 240mm here.

I am confident my 70-200 VRII would yield sharper results than this

Yes, I would imagine so. 70-200/2.8 is the better lens, no one ever claimed otherwise.

Actually, I seriously question this. I don't think that in a side by side test anyone could see any difference in images taken with the 70-300 and compared with the 70-200 if the EXIF would not give it away or if the aperture was not opened to f/2.8 in the 70-200. The 70-300 is in fact excellent in the range of 70-200 and is fully acceptable between 200 and 300mm. The 70-200/2.8 is totally worthless if more than 200mm is needed. I am talking about real life, not chart shooting tests.

 

[nico1974]

Ansel Spear wrote:

Although primes are considered the best route, some people, especially Ken Rockwell, say that the 28-300 f3.5-5.6 VR is a brilliant lens on the D800.

I have yet to try it myself.

I would not trust a single word this person says - much more scientific approach from http://diglloyd.com/

 

[seahawk]

That is logical. You are kind of supersampling the image when downsampling to 12MP.

Back to the topic. Imho you do not need the best primes for the D800 even with a cheap lens it will still produce great images, yet you won´t get the most out of the sensor and depending on the lens and your shooting stlye, you will maybe encounter defects that you are not used to from DX. Soft corners, vignetting for example.

It is all a trade off. Luckily or unfortunately, depending on where you stand, there is no current alternative to the D800 in the Nikon DSLR line-up. So you do not really have a choice.

 

[M Lammerse]

ianbrown wrote:

Was going to pull the trigger on a FF camera but was told " only use thpe very best primes" anything less and you should stick to APS with the best glass?

I know that the very best glass will give you optimum results but won't say a 24-70 f2.8 tamron on the D800 give you better results than the 16-85 DX on the 7100?

Ian

Hi Ian,

The D800 is a specific need camera. So if you need the biggest images possible (or highest resolution) out of a Nikon DSLR and or broadcasting quality video, the D800 is the best DSLR you can buy. And yes, the better prime/zoom lenses might give the best visible results on the D800.
If you do not need that resolution (clients don't ask/you do not print huge), buy a D600 or DX camera.
It is as simple as that.

Michel

--
- To observe without evaluation is the highest form of human intelligence -
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.fotopropaganda.com/blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9240992@N05

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Thanks, Coudet. The 70-300VR is at its best at 200mm f8, and is every bit as sharp as the 70-200VR at that FL, only with a good bit less CA. It resolves the D800e, staying above 3100 lwph edge to edge. If anyone cares, they can download the full size jpg , zoom to 400% and start counting individual pixels left to right the way across the frame until they get to 7360. Want more resolution? You'll have to get a 50MP camera. The 70-200 has a bit better microcontrast and looks great at f 2.8, yadda yadda. But it won't show a single pixel more.

 

[ultimitsu]

ianbrown wrote:

Was going to pull the trigger on a FF camera but was told " only use thpe very best primes" anything less and you should stick to APS with the best glass?

I know that the very best glass will give you optimum results but won't say a 24-70 f2.8 tamron on the D800 give you better results than the 16-85 DX on the 7100?

D800 with a lowly 24-85 VR would produce image with more detail than D7100 with the expensive 17-55.

 

[Antony John]

M Lammerse wrote:

Hi Ian,

The D800 is a specific need camera. So if you need the biggest images possible (or highest resolution) out of a Nikon DSLR and or broadcasting quality video, the D800 is the best DSLR you can buy. And yes, the better prime/zoom lenses might give the best visible results on the D800.
If you do not need that resolution (clients don't ask/you do not print huge), buy a D600 or DX camera.
It is as simple as that.

Michel

--
- To observe without evaluation is the highest form of human intelligence -
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.fotopropaganda.com/blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9240992@N05

Wise words indeed. The weakest link will always dictate the final IQ.

However the D600 is still superior to DX though.

The 70-300 shot is indeed soft - sorry - but I wouldn't have binned it. Certainly doesn't show the D800(e) in it's best light.

--
AJ
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

 

[BasiliskPhoto]

Probably not much point buying the D800 without getting good (mostly expensive) lenses. For 99% of uses the D600 is a perfectly adequate, and cheaper, full frame option.

You could argue that, if you have a big investment in DX glass, the D800 crop mode is notably better than the D600 (though 12 Mp on the D600 is not that bad)

I got the D600 primarily for the dynamic range, full frame experience and DOF - when I got it, it was by far the best value FF option. Resolution is more than enough, and I can further save money with some last generation lenses - e.g 50 f1.8D, old Sigma 105mm macro - which are perfectly adequate and great value. For about half the money of a D800+latest lenses, I reckon I can get 95% of the quality - and I don't have that extra few grand just sitting around begging to be spent.

 

[toomanycanons]

Use any lens you want. Or if you have a bottomless wallet, sure, buy "the best". It's only money, right?