D600; Help me decide which lenses

<blockquote>

<p>if you mostly are using the tokina 11-16mm now, the logical equivalent for D600 would be the Nikon 14-24.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>maybe in terms of IQ, but... the 11-16 takes filters and the 14-24 doesn't. that's one of those FX gotchas. you spend $2000 on a lens and find you were better off with your old lenses. the 14-24 weights 35.3 oz, the 11-16 just 19.3 oz., and you can use ND grads or polarizers on it.</p>

" and don't forget that there are a TON of used AI and AIS manual focus Nikkors out there that are still as good (and

sometimes better) than their modern AF versions, and they can be easily found in mint-exc condition for very reasonable

prices."

 

Yes there are several "TONS" of old AI and AI-S lens out there, but as cameras get better (and strictly in terms of image

quality the D600 produces better technical quality images than the D3X) that they are as good as if not better than

contempory Nikkor G series lenses is becoming more and more of a myth, particularly with regard to lenses shorter than

85mm. Wide angle lens are hard to design well and wide angle lenses for digital cameras are very hard to design well.

Nikon, Canon & Zeiss are all doing that quite well currently.

<p>I second the recommendation that the wide angle lens should be a modern design; apart from the PC-E Nikkors, I use the 24-70/2.8 quite a lot for landscape and am very happy with the results. Also, the 70-200/2.8 II is nice. These lenses are somewhat big and heavy but used by many travel and landscape photographers. I also use 24 PC-E / 45 PC-E / 85 PC-E / 100mm ZF and the VR 200/2 II for landscape on occasion, and occasionally the 14-24. If I had to choose a landscape kit for FX, I would start with the 24-70 and 70-200 II. There may be an f/4 version of the 70-200mm coming that may be well suited to landscape, but without actual announcement and review, it's hard to say whether it should be recommended or not. I did not much like the 16-35/4 and 24-120/4.</p>

<p>The use of the PC-E Nikkors is somewhat time-consuming and requires care, and they are not always helpful, so it would not be where I would start. The D600 itself should be an excellent choice for landscape photography.</p>

<p>Trey, I used the 24/2.8 AF for years before I sold it. It's a compact lens, but not at the level of modern lenses. I have only briefly handled the 24-85 VR and read some tests about it, but I'm pretty sure that the old 24/2.8 would not be better in terms of image quality. Thus, if you want a compact and inexpensive solution at this point, I would recommend to get the 24-85 VR rather than the 24/2.8 and get, perhaps later, a high quality wide angle lens. To be clear, the 24-85 VR is a good lens and I found nothing annoying about it, but naturally a modern dedicated wideangle priced in the four figure range will perform better.<br>

The 50/1.8G and 85/1.8G are great lenses. For landscape use, the older 85/1.8 AF-D is just as good as the G, the G is better really at large apertures and manual focus feel. As I said, I'm now using the Voigtländer 90/3.5 for landscapes when I don't need a large aperture; it's smaller and flares less.<br>

It's good that you got out the number for lens usage; now you could plan to put the money into wides. It just happens that excellent lenses in the range 50-100 mm can be had relatively inexpensively, while wides cost progressively more the wider you go. I've shot with a 25/2, with a small Voigtländer 20/3.5 thrown in, but now I'm thinking that at some point I might want a 14-24/2.8 or a Zeiss 15, so I've run into these issues myself. In your case, a high quality zoom (14-24 is very good, 16-35 should be good when stopped down, haven't tried myself) or two high quality primes (e.g. Zeiss 15/2.8, 21/2.8, 25/2, Nikkor 24/3.5 PC-E) could be an option. It might be a bit too much at once though. You could also have the 24-85 VR and then get a couple of lenses to expand your capabilities, e.g. wide zoom or prime and a dedicated 85 mm lens.<br>

The great options are not cheap, but at least there are many options! OTOH, a D600 with quality lenses and a good tripod will be a big jump in capability over your current system.</p>

<p>It seems to me that zooms are the logical choice for landscape work because they allow fine-tuning one's composition to make the best use of available pixels. In many situations there's little or no ability to change the composition by moving closer or farther from the subject, so cropping is likely to be required with prime lenses.</p>

<p>(Yes, I know Ansel didn't use zooms.)</p>

<p>With my D700 I use some older primes, the 17-35 f2.8 Nikkor, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, Nikkors 105mm ais, 180mm f2.8 and af-s 300mm f4. I think it wish to put very good glass in front of the body. If you have a favorite focal length get the best for your needs. If a zoom get the best for your needs. I don't care for slow zooms even if I usually stop down to f5.6 or f8. A good tripod will help greatly, I hope you are using one. PC-E glass can be really helpful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the feedback! I am looking to increase the quality of my landscape shots and would like to print at 16x24 and 18x30; maybe an occasional 24x36!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Trey, seriously, do you really print that big for your landscape images?</p>

<p>Most people need to print that big either because they sell large prints (typically at $300, $500 or even thousands of dollars per print) or they need to print posters commercially. Otherwise, you probably live in a Mansion.</p>

<p>Two years ago I bought an Espon 3880 that is capable of printing up to 17" wide. I have yet to print one 16x24 on it and have printed maybe a few 11x14. Otherwise, most of my prints are 8.5x11. (But I save on ink even I only print 8.5x11 due to the larger ink cartridges the 3880 uses.) I live in a small house and there is not a whole lot of wall space to hang my prints.</p>

<p>My point is that make sure you really need to print that big. If so, there is definitely an advantage to go D600 or D800, but spending $2000+ on a D600 is merely the starting point. Those high-pixel DSLRs are demanding on lenses as well as technique.</p>

<p>I don't mean to sound offensive, but it is very easy to use big prints as a justification for a high-pixel FX-format DSLR. If you have the budget for the body and lenses, by all means go for it. It makes little sense to me to put mediocre lenses onto a high-end body. If you don't have the budget for the whole package, I would suggest re-examine the print size requirement.</p>

 

Trey, I'm in the situation of buying a new camera as my D300 reached its end few months ago. Neither the D600 nor the

D800 are the best solution for me and I am indeed looking also to good second hand D700. If you go for the D600 I would

suggest getting the 24-85 and look into the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 or the Tokina 17-35 f/4. Both are very good in built quality

and images production for 750 USD the first and 669 the latter. The 24-70 ain't the perfect lens but it is priced as if was. I

own the 85 mm 1.8 and it can be very sharp if stopped down but it has serious flare problems.

<p>Those who are dismissive of "30 year old lens technology" might want to take a look at Bjorn Rorslett's website where many of the top-rated lenses are manual focus Nikkors--and these are rated as used on the D3X and other leading edge Nikon DSLR's. Contrary to somewhat popular belief, you don't have to spend a ton of money on the latest gear to capture award-winning images.....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-70 ain't the perfect lens but it is priced as if was.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lol. the 24-70 is an awesome lens. i don't think any lens is perfect, and distortion at 24mm can be an issue with that one, but i am consistently amazed at the images it produces, even above the quality of the 70-200 II.</p>

<p>anyway, for the OP's purposes, landscape shots stopped down, the 24-70 wouldn't be the best option, since less expensive lenses can produce the same results. i still stand by my earlier recommendation of the 16-85+d7000. that would leave enough in the kitty to scoop up some inexpensive older primes, if the 24 PC-E is off the table.</p>

<p>I live in a relatively small apartment yet I quite commonly make A3+ and A2 (16x24) prints of my pics. I put them on my walls for a while to decorate and enliven the apartment and then take them down after some months, to be replaced by new ones. The print needs to be fairly large so one can see it across the room, or up close if so desired. I don't know how uncommon this is ... the cost is really very little, something like 6€ per print when I do it myself. The cost of these large prints is minuscule compared to the cost of photography, travel etc. I do make lots of smaller (i.e. A4, A5) prints that I keep in boxes e.g. for portfolio use and showing them around to people. Even in the small prints (i.e. A4), 24MP vs. 12MP is very obvious given proper technique.</p>

<p>It is not required to use some extremely expensive lenses to gain benefits from a high MP FX sensor. I printed some 12x18 prints from portraits made with the D3X and 135/2 DC (which some here say is not a sharp lens) for critique and interestingly, sharpness was very favorably commented on (and in that case the image is very nice, too, not just the technical side). Just about any modern lens of good quality will show benefits from the high MP unless there is some kind of severe problem with technique either during shooting or in post-processing or making the print. If hand-holding, of course the shutter speed may need to be high (i.e. 1/1000s) and the focus needs to be dead on, but these things are much less a problem for tripod based landscape work, which is normally done on a solid tripod with the lens stopped down. Of course, the movement of trees and leaves with the wind can cause blur. The nice thing about fast lenses also in landscape photography (which seem to be a combination the value of which is often rejected here) is that you can stop the movement due to wind by using a fast shutter and use the shallow depth of field as a compositional tool. E.g. when photographing with a moderate telephoto, I often use it at f/2.8 or f/4 (even f/2 though rarely) to create the impression of layers in depth. The benefit is that even in weaker light the movement is stopped effectively. I'll post some examples of this later.</p>

<p><em>The 24-70 ain't the perfect lens but it is priced as if was. </em></p>

<p>Really?! Recommending the 24-85 and putting down the Nikon 24-70 for someone wanting to make large landscape prints is a red flag and I fear that the irresistible urge to repeat information not obtained from first hand experience has contributed to your post. Near-perfect lenses can be made but they'd be primes and the cost of covering the 24-70mm range with those could easily take you to 10k€ and higher (even 20k€)). The 24-70 is good value and very consistent in its performance for a zoom, and gives much better corner sharpness than the 24-85 VR that you recommend. The 24-70 differs from its f/4 and variable aperture cousins by giving greater clarity, contrast, and evenness of color and luminance across the frame (stopped down to f/4 or more). And landscape isn't even the core area of competence of the 24-70 ... but nevertheless it is better at that too than any other standard zoom that I know of.</p>

I fear that the irresistible urge to repeat information not obtained from first hand experience has contributed to your post.

 

There is no need to get aggressive, I just said that the 24-70 is not the perfect lens as it has its weak points (no VR, very

heavy, distortion at 24) and it is priced quite expensive. Furthermore Trey said that weight matters therefore the 24-85

being half the weight of the 24-70 makes sense IMO. I understand that the 24-70 is part of the holy trinity but that doesn't

means that it is surrounded by dogma.

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that zooms are the logical choice for landscape work because they allow fine-tuning one's composition to make the best use of available pixels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting point. It's true that one may need a very particular focal length for the desired composition. On the other hand, with large pixel counts a few megapixels here and there are not a big deal. Lately, I've been shooting only primes on my D800 and haven't felt limited in landscapes (in sports I have, but that's another matter). This is because often I need to crop anyway, since the desired composition doesn't fit into the 3:2 aspect ratio, small differences in framing are usually not significant, I have a lot of pixels to work with and if needed, I can stitch several frames together. I'm also trying to pursue high quality across the frame and high quality primes are currently better for that than normal zooms. But for someone else the ability for freely choose the focal length might be a stronger criterion than the ones I presented. I have to think about this next time I'm out shooting.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Those who are dismissive of "30 year old lens technology" might want to take a look at Bjorn Rorslett's website where many of the top-rated lenses are manual focus Nikkors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lisa, if you refer to naturfotograf.com Bjorn hasn't updated in in a long while, as he is active on Nikongear. Thus, there's no data on the latest bodies there. Furthermore, Bjorn does indeed use all the latest stuff, including some very exotic lenses. There are indeed some excellent manual focus Nikkors, they are just not the wide angles that are the focus here. Since I have personal experience on a number of different wide angles, I don't need to ask Bjorn on his opinion on an old 24 mm Nikkor compared to the modern alternatives, but if Bjorn's opinion is wanted, I suspect he will answer if asked.</p>

<p><em>no VR</em></p>

<p>The 24-70 lacks VR because Nikon was able to make the optics as good as they are only by using an optical design which is incompatible with VR. So it is a feature, not a bug of the 24-70. The good corner sharpness and lower distortion may very well be a result of the VR-free design. Just compare 24-70 with 24-120/4 VR, or 14-24/2.8 with 16-35/4 VR. Both VR lenses have more distortion, focal length for focal length, and less sharp corners. For telephoto, VR design has fewer drawbacks (some claim it affects bokeh, but I haven't really witnessed this myself) as the light rays are close to parallel inside those. </p>

<p>In any case by activating or relying on VR, you can expect some blur at the scale of individual pixels. I made many tests with the 70-200/2.8 Mk II hand-held with VR and on a tripod without VR, and the difference in pixel level sharpness in favor of the tripod shots was striking. If the OP is interested in making wall size prints, tripod is his best friend, and VR is best left turned off except for unusual situations where a tripod simply can not physically be used (even then, it's quite possible that a high shutter speed would yield better results than using VR). Anyway, your mileage may vary; this is my experience. I also find that the tripod is preferable to hand-holding as it allows easier stitching of images with less image area lost at the edges, easier HDR as the images are precisely on top of each other (though HDR isn't my thing; many professional landscape photographers now use it routinely); finally, with the camera on tripod it is easier to get reproducible results and precise framing. </p>

<p><em>very heavy</em></p>

<p>A D600+24-70 is much lighter than the traditional instrument used for landscape photography, which is the view camera (i.e. 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, and so on, with lenses and tripod). It is also lighter than e.g. 24 PC-E + 45 PC-E + 85 PC-E, although arguably the latter have better close-up capability. If you want to make large, high-quality prints, you have to make some sacrifices in personal comfort. The 24-70 has enough range to cover many landscape photography situations so maybe a camera bag isn't even necessary, whereas if you carry a bunch of primes you need a bag.</p>

<p><em> it is priced quite expensive</em></p>

<p>Expensive is relative. The 24-70 is about one third or one quarter of the price of the PC-E trio. Since the OP has suggested they are interested in an FX camera (that costs about 2000€ or more), the lenses should cost at least a few times the cost of the body (I think 3:1 is a reasonable ratio between investments in lenses and bodies) so that the system is in balance. Otherwise it is probably a better idea to stay within DX and spend the money on better lenses.</p>

<p><em> I understand that the 24-70 is part of the holy trinity </em></p>

<p>I resent this kind of thinking that associates religious references with a tool. It is disrespectful of people with religious beliefs and it suggests that the person who is making the reference wants to elevate it beyond what it is, which is a tool. What's important is that it works well for the OP's application. As numerous others have suggested above, it is not a great idea to spend a lot of money on a camera body and very little money on lenses. </p>

A 16-35mm f/4G, 50mm f/1.8G and 85mm f/1.8G makes for a formidable lens trio for the D600. Not that expensive or

heavy.

<p>I hope that by the time this gets read everybody had just the right amount of coffee, so I'm not upsetting anybody :-)<br>

Is the 24-70/2.8 really that much better optically than the old 20-35/2.8 and 35-70/2.8 (which I personally own, but not the 24-70)? I like the lenstip reviews (http://www.lenstip.com/298.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_24-70_mm_f_2.8G_ED_Image_resolution.html), but unfortunately they don't have the old lenses.<br>

Otherwise that (used 20-35 and 25-70) might be the way to go, for less than half the price of a 24-70.</p>

<p>That should read '35-70', not 25.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the lenses should cost at least a few times the cost of the body (I think 3:1 is a reasonable ratio between investments in lenses and bodies)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, one could get a 85/1.8, a 50/1.8G and stich the rest while saving for the most desirable wideangle. Throw in a Zeiss 21/2.8 and the price of the lenses is roughly the same as that of the body.</p>

<p>Hmmm...landscape and backpacking...ok....how about...<br>

Ultra Wide to Wide: 16-35mm (est. $1000), takes filters, lighter weight than 14-24, 17-35, comes with VR II<br>

Telephoto: 70-200mm f/4 VR III ($1400), takes filters, lightweight, VR III, versatile zoom range, or 300mm f/4 AF-S G ($1000, might need tripod) takes filters, very lightweight. 300mm on a full frame isnt really that far<br>

Not sure if you need mid range, but I find I am usually either wide or super telephoto when taking landscape shots, mid range is more for the small things I find along the hike etc...If you need it, the new kit lens with D600 is awesome and super light<br>

24-85mm VR $500</p>

<p>For better budget, 80-200mm 2.8 D ($600, it's heavy tho), 24-85mm VR. If you are shooting at f/5.6 and above, the 24mm 2.8 D shouldnt be any sharper than the kit zoom at 5.6. That lens is kinda soft wide open.</p>

 

<p>Thank you all for your comments. I know it takes time to put together your thoughts to advise me and I very much appreciate that! I handled both the D7000 and D600 today at the local camera store. They both feel great, although the D600 fits my hand slightly better. I was very much impressed with both cameras.</p>

<p>Lately I've be looking into the Nikon 24mm PC-E (as Shun and others suggest) as I think it would benefit my shooting style. I really like to set up landscape shots with a foreground object and the near and far focus really appeals to me. I generally stop down to f16 to try to get it all in focus, but it's not always achievable. BTW I use a Feisol tripod with Markins ballhead, electronic cable release (or timer) and sometimes mirror up. I'm very careful with my setup and focusing, generally focusing manually. After looking into Canon's TS-E lenses, I would stay with Nikon, but wish Nikon would introduce a 17mm PC-E. </p>

<p>So, thanks to most of your suggestions, I've decided to get the D7000 and 16-85mm (sell my 18-200). This will give me the IQ I need for larger prints. I plan on keeping this system for a year or so, save money, then make the move to the D600 primarily for the 24mm PC-E lens. (I've always wanted to go into LF because of the movements and I feel confident that I will learn to use this lens efficiently.) </p>

<p>Most of my shots are from the Tokina 11-16 (FX 18-25) so it makes sense to purchase wide when I go FX. The 16-35 is certainly one I'll look at along with the 50/1.8G and 85/1.8G. When I move to FX and commit to the 24mm PC-E, I will be faced with another dilemma that I'm sure others have considered: I like to shoot wide and if Nikon does not come out with a 17-18 PC-E, then what.....Canon? I'll have to get opinions on that one or hope that Nikon will produce a UWA PC-E. Who knows, maybe I don't need to go that wide with a PC-E, but I have a feeling I'll want to. :)</p>

<p>Thanks again for all your help. I'm sure all your comments helped many others who are looking for advice like me. Feel free to comment on my decision and future plans.</p>

<p>Trey</p>

<p>You can print plenty large with the files from the D7000, that's for sure!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>If you indeed get the D7000, do not get the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E to use on the D7000. Those who suggest that combination apparently have never used those two together.</p>

<p>When I first got my D7000, it took like about 10 minutes to figure out how to mount te 24mm PC-E on it. All the movements on that lens have to be right even to mount the lens on the D7000. For a little while I was wondering whether it was even possible, but the D7000 menual clearly dicusses using the 24mm PC-E on it, so it is possible. Once I finally mounted it, most of the lens movements are not useable since the D7000 is so small and its viewfinder blocks a lot of things.</p>

<p>Additionally, after the DX crop, the 24mm is not all that wide on the D7000 (or any DX body).</p>

<p>Thanks Shun, I planned on waiting until I a got the D600. </p>

I shot landscapes for years with a 4x5 view camera - I still use the camera on occasion. Converting the focal lengths of

my view camera lenses to 35 mm full frame equivalents, every lens that I owned fell within the 24-70 mm range. This is

the basis of my suggestion that the OP can be productive for quite some time in landscape photography with one 24-85

VR while he saves up for addotional gear (perhaps the new 70-200 f/4).

 

I would enjoy having VR on my 24-70, but that would probably make iit even heavier. Optically, I doubt that it would

suffer. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is a sharp lens with integrated VR.

 

If you're determined and methodical, you can make great photos with any of these late model Nikon lenses. Good luck!