Getting D800 need New FX Lens

[johnny_kleso]

<p>My plan is to get a D800 after roll out..<br>

I now have a D90 and a few FX lens but my main lens Tamaron 17-55mm 2.8 is a no go for FX..<br>

I have a Sigma 70-200 2.8 HMS, Nikon 50mm 1.8G, Nikon 24-120 f4? VR and Tamron 70-300 LD DI also FX<br>

I can afford a Nikon 24-70 2.8 but really dont want to carry this huge lens around in public..<br>

Can I just fill in with some primes (which ones) or should I just buy the monster...</p>

<p>Thanks Much...</p>

<p> </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>(Hmmm, I see the affordability of the D800 call for this kind of questions... otherwise, nothing wrong with it).</p>

<p>It`s my personal point of view that with the D800 any lens (FX or full format, obviously) can be used. If you already have a 24-120/4 (is the "?" a typo?), 50 prime, 70-200, and 70-300, you don`t -have to- buy anything more. You`ll get the big images and huge files that you <em>should</em> expect.</p>

<p>But if you want to get the highest available resolution out from the D800, not only the best available lenses should be used, but also the right shooting procedures.</p>

<p>I was affortunate to use a Nikon loaned D800 camera for a bit more than one week, and tested it with a few lenses, 14-24, 24-70 and 50/1.4AFS. To my taste, all were good performers, being the best the 14-24. I think I didn`t used the 24-120/4 (I should check it, too many silly shots in a very short lapse... ).</p>

<p>Personally, I`d get the camera first, and once with it, I`d start shooting with whatever you have (well, DX lenses aside). You could find that you want another very different kind of lenses... e.g. manual focus ones, or that you simply don`t need anything else (on the D700, I find the 24-70 at "working apertures" indistinguishable from the 24-120/4).</p>

<p>BTW, I used to blame the use of manual focus lenses on AF cameras, and specially that cool german-japanese ones. Well, a few threads ago Ilkka told me about the difficulties of focusing the all great 14-24 on the D800... and after testing it, my "prejudices" changed radically... manual focus lenses, with this camera resolution and the improved Live View system, excels. I was impressed. So I`d take it step by step.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>+1 Jose.</p>

<p>Buy it, use it. Evaluate results. Then, maybe, go shopping!</p>

<p>Moving from DX to FX is obviously going to give your current lenses a FOV change and that may well be of more relevance to your style/subject matter than focal length <em>per se</em>.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Grrr, bad writing: <em>"... about the difficulties of focusing the all great 14-24 on the D800... "</em>.</p>

<p>Correction: There is <em>nothing</em> wrong with the 14-24 focus on the D800, <em>it works 100%</em>. My excuses.<br /> The thing is that the geared manual focus mechanism plus the shorter focusing throw of the lens, makes it a bit less sensitive than expected. Focusing with manual focus lenses are way smoother and sensitive, thus more than ever, optimal with this camera (Live View).</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"... </em><em>dont want to carry this huge lens around in public"</em> The 24-70mm really isn't that big. It just had a big sun shade that gives it the appearance of being a large lens.<br>

<br>

Since you already have the 24-120mm f4, why do you feel you need the 24-70mm?</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>+ 2 to Jose's line of thinking</p>

<p>D800+ current lenses > make some decent large prints > evaluate > act</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If you already have the 24-120/4 then I would just see how that goes and what kind of results you get. The 24-70 is big, and heavy but a little better in image quality especially at f/4 (and of course offers the f/2.8 aperture).</p>

<p>The 50/1.8 AF-S and 85/1.8 AF-S are getting good reviews (the 50mm I see you already have) and hopefully also the 28/1.8 AF-S so if you want bigger apertures than f/4 without sacrificing compactness then these would be a good solution. I often go about with the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 and I love shooting this way. The 24-70 I use when I'm shooting events and portraits (for head shots I typically use 85mm or 105mm; 24-70 for half-body, full body, and small groups) and also for some landscape and travel stuff. </p>

 

[richard_sheen]

<p>I would choose the 24-70 F2.8 if I were you, since mine offers excellent image quality even at F2.8 on a 4.9μm pixel density sensor (Which is approximately the same as D800) But since you already own a 24-120 F4, I wouldn't suggest you to replace it with a 24-70, since the 24-70 is only slightly better in optical quality, but is 50mm short and is heavier( 960g).</p>

<p>Before you consider buying a lens, you should first clarify what genre of photography are you into? Do you shoot landscape mostly? Or do you shoot portraits more? Or you seem to shoot everything that you find interesting around you like me? If you shoot landscape alot, I would strongly suggest that you get the legendary 14-24 F2.8, I don't think you need an explanation for that if your a landscape photographer :D. If you shoot portraits more perhaps the 85 1.4 would do nicely, but I really don't like the idea of portrait primes since you can't really do anything else with it apart from shooting portraits...</p>

<p>The D800 is a great camera mostly for fashion photography and landscape, things that doesn't require instant snapshots like sports or news photography. I would not consider getting a non-Nikon lens if I were to use it on the D800, since I cannot guarentee whether the resolution of the lens satisfies the D800's needs, especially in corners(My Tamron 70-300 is terrible at 300mm on my D7000, still terrible at F8) most Tamron/Sigma lenses are great in the middile, but terrible in the corners and don't seem to increase very well even when the aperture is stopped down. So if financially possible I would first suggest you to replace the Tamron/Sigma lenses with its Nikon counterpart just in case the D800 requires more lens resolution.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Only thing that approaches the 24-70 in image quality, offers an f/2.8 aperture and is smaller and lighter is Tamron's SP 28-75 f/2.8 zoom. I can vouch for it giving great image quality. There's also the recently introduced Tamron 24 - 70 VC lens, but I have no personal experience with that. The only thing that's really missing from your lineup is something wider than 24mm to cover full-frame. The little 20mm f/2.8 AFD Nikkor would fill that hole. Or maybe the 16-35mm f/4 zoom Nikkor - depending on budget and how wide you feel you need to go. In any case your 17-55 only covers the equivalent angle of a 24mm lens on FF.<br>

I'm guessing you're ruling out the 14-24 on the grounds that it's even bigger and heavier than the 24-70.</p>

<p>As others have said, you're pretty well set up with lenses already, so I'd just see how they fair on the D800 when you get it. If you then find them lacking, that's the time to be thinking of a replacement. </p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>If you have the 24-120m f/4 and a 50mm prime, then that should be enough to get started on FX. I'm also thinking about going to FX soon with a D800 (currently using a D300s), and I'm debating between the 24-70 and the 24-120. I like the range of the latter since it matches my current DX walk-around lens (16-85mm). I have the 17-55 also that I planned to use for events, but I just don't shoot that many events to justify getting a midrange f/2.8 zoom again. You may be in this same category. You should also ask yourself how much you need that midrange f/2.8. It probably got a lot of use because you have a D90 and may have needed the wider angle, but on FX the 24-120 may be enough to meet your needs.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The 24-70mm weighs 31.7 ounces and is 83mm x 133mm.</p>

<p>The 24-120mm weights 23.6 ounces and is 84 x 103mm.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is hardly bigger (3cm/1.2") or heavier (8 ounces) than the 24-120mm.</p>

<p>Not a <em>huge</em> difference. And certainly not big enough to call it a <em>huge </em>lens unless you are comparing it to small/light primes.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 24-120 does balance better on the camera if you have it hanging from your neck (compared to 24-70 which hangs downwards). Ok, not "huge" in the same sense as a 400/2.8 would be ;-) But still people come to me commenting how I have a big lens (when it's the 24-70) thinking it's some kind of long tele. At least I prefer not to be such center of attention.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I have the 24-70 hood permanently attached. Given the design of the lens, and the protection it gives, I think it`s a nonsense not to use it. In fact, I have a modified shorter hood for convenience.</p>

<p>The hood in the 24-120 is thinner, shorter and worst of it, attached to the telescopic front barrel of the lens. I rarely use it, and I don`t even think to store this lens in the bag with the hood attached. This way the feel is of a much more compact package. Not a fair comparison, but the way I use them.</p>

[johnny_kleso]

<p>Thank Much You All,<br>

The 24-120mm I have is not the newer <strong>N</strong> model..<br />I was under the impression this is not a great lens..<br>

Why I think the 20-70 is huge as I was just a party Saturday and a friend had his and I guess it could be the hood that was fooling me.. <br />I just dont see myself walking around a big city doing some vacation or street shooting feeling like a target is hanging around my neck :)<br>

I was thinking of buying a 35mm 1.8 and maybe a wide angle down the road..<br />I think I should just use what I have an then make up my mind..<br>

Are zooms and primes on a more even image quality these days?<br>

Thank You all for being a sounding board, I appreciate your comments greatly <br>

<strong>PS who should I order my D800 from?<br /></strong>I called the big three and they all said about two month wait..<br />Anyone have better luck recently?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Given the design of the lens, and the protection it gives, I think it`s a nonsense not to use it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i'd have to disagree there. obviously there are times when you dont need or want the hood, like shooting at night, or indoors, for instance. not using the hood noticeably slims down the 24-70's profile.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not a fair comparison, but the way I use them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />not fair at all. in fact, that's a double standard. but at least you're honest.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just dont see myself walking around a big city doing some vacation or street shooting feeling like a target is hanging around my neck</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if you want a stealthy FX zoom with decent optics, the tamron 28-75 is the lens to get.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> Are zooms and primes on a more even image quality these days?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the newer pro-spec zooms (14-24.24-70,70-200II) are equal or better to most older primes.</p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>The newer pro zooms are pretty sharp compared to the primes in their ranges. In fact, I was reading a review on the 14-24mm, and according to the review the only lens sharper than that is the 24mm f/1.4. I have the 70-200mm VRII, and really can't see differences between that lens and my 85mm f/1.4G and 105mm f/2.8 VR macro lenses...only marginal improvements.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Johnny, if you pixel peep into the extreme corners, the <em>only</em> full-frame wideangle that cuts the mustard is a zoom - and guess what? It's the 14-24mm Zoom Nikkor G N S IF-ED AS (add your own alphabet soup here).</p>

<p>Below is the 14-24 compared to my MF Ai-S 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor. No contest! The zoom beats the pants off that prime, and if I was contemplating spending the best end of $2K on a lens, it certainly wouldn't be the overpriced 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor.</p><div></div>

[kj_thomas]

<p>The decision for or against the 24mm f/1.4 depends on the photog and his or her style of shooting. Personally, I don't shoot much wide-angle stuff, but I do shoot a lot of concerts where the lighting is suspect, and I'd rather have two bodies (one clipped to my hip and the other on a Black Rapid), the 24 1.4, the 50 1.4, and the 85 1.4 over any 2.8 zoom. And the 24mm f/1.4 is sharper than the 14-24mm f/2.8, albeit not by very much (similar to what I see with the longer focal length comparison between 2.8 zooms and primes). The 24mm f/1.4 will be my next purchase so I don't have to rent this lens anymore. And honestly, all Nikon lenses are overpriced.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It's true the 24/1.4 is a bit sharper than the 14-24 at 24mm at normal distances. At close distances it's a lot sharper, actually; the 14-24 is not a good lens for close-ups. The out of focus rendition of the 24/1.4 is also better. According to an early test (was it by lensrentals? I don't remember) with the D800 suggests that the 24/2 Zeiss is still sharper than the 24/1.4 Nikkor. But these are quite fine points, IMO, they would not prevent me from using the 14-24 at 24mm in any practical scenario at normal distances if that's what I have with me. Close-ups at wide angles, showing a bit of environment and beautiful blur? The 24/1.4 is the ticket.</p>

<p>Whether something is overpriced is entirely dependent on what you're doing, what your expectations are, and how big your budget is. I didn't hesitate buying the 24/1.4 myself, in fact i think I should have a second for backup. The 14-24 I every once in a while entertain selling though - not because it's not an excellent lens - it is - but it's so big and heavy that I rarely have it with me. The 24/1.4 is more pleasant to use on the camera because of its relative compactness and the resulting good balance. And yes, I find its wide aperture very useful in certain scenarios. The only drawback is it's very tricky to autofocus if the subject's head is smaller in the frame than the sensitive area of the AF system.</p>

[chris_brandt1]

<p>Personally I think that you are not ready for a D800. If you do not already know the answers to your questions you should stick with the D90. You will know when you are ready to upgrade. And you will also know what lenses you need to capture your preferences. There's no rush.</p>