recommendations for set of lenses for d800e

[ksporry]

<p>As a question on the 135/2 DC (and 105 DC), The manual states that for Program mode or shutter speed priority mode, the lens needs to be locked on the minimum aperture. That implies that for aperture priority this is not required. However, when I tried it on my D800E, I had to set the minimum aperture lock to be able to shoot on aperture priority mode. If I didn't, rotating the aperture ring would result in an error "Fee" being displayed (Aperture error?) on my D800E. I understand that this lens was made way before the latest Nikon cameras, but if the aperture ring doesn't work for the latest cameras, should the manual be updated?</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Settings the lens to lock on minimum aperture enables the camera to select the aperture, and allows you to control the aperture from the body using the front command wheel in Manual mode. There's no need to use the aperture ring at all. [i know there is a way to enable the aperture ring, but I've forgotten how since there's little point in doing it.] </p>

<p>But what the manual says is still true of any non-G AF lens. If you want the camera to select the aperture (whether with the command wheel, Shutter-priority mode, or Program mode), you need to lock the aperture ring to minimum.</p>

<p>In response to your earlier comments: my 135/2 DC is pixel-sharp from corner to corner by f/3.2. It is pretty good at f/2.8, and soft at f/2. That is normal for this design. It's not a design that is optimized for maximum aperture. But at this focal length, f/2.8-f/3.2 gives you a pretty narrow depth-of-field. The depth-of-field at f/2 and close focus is as thin as a dime. </p>

<p>I suggest doing a real portrait or two with the 135 to get a feel for it. The character is stunning.</p>

[ksporry]

<p>Well, last week I went out to buy the 200/4 micro, only to find no one was selling it new anywhere, and even 2nd hand there were only on eor two around. I even went to the Nikon Experience centre here in Shanghai, and they don't have it on display (which surprised me a bit, since I hadn't heard they pulled it off the market).<br />So empty handed I did some reconsideration, and today I pulled the trigger on a 70-200/2.8<br />Yes, It's a bit heavy, and the VR is not as good as Canon's IS (I have a 2004 70-200/2.8 L IS lens), which so far seem unsurpassed (though the new version might be better), and I'm also considering getting the 300/4 on the long run. That one is pretty cheap these days (maybe because rumours are that Nikon is planing to replace it with a VR version, which of course would be significantly more expensive). If I do intend to get that one I will make sure I get a Kirk replacement collar, as I understood the original collar is rather poor on the 300/4. </p>