Best zoom lenses for Nikon D810?

[sim_jo]

<p>For some time I've been using my Phase One IQ180 for all things, but it sucks with motion and at high ISO, so I'm looking to purchase a Nikon 810 for animal and street action photos. <br>

What are some decently priced portable hand held zoom lenses that will cover me from wide to 200mm? It could be 1, 2 or 3 different lenses. I always shoot at f16-f32 </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The 16-35/4 and the 70-200/4 would be a great combo, but leave a bit of a gap. So you could keep a 60/2.8G Micro in the bag for that middle zone and then also have its macro capabilities for certain kinds of subject matter.<br /><br />Regardless, street and action photography at f/16+, no matter how good the body is at higher ISOs, is certainly going to introduce some style and subject matter limitations.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you indeed always shoot at f16 or smaller, there is no point to use a 24MP FX body, let alone 36MP, as diffraction will rob most of your sharpness anyway.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>How wide do you call wide? If you're going to be at f/16 - although f/11 would be closer to the same DoF on a 135 sensor as f/16 gives you on an IQ180 - you're not being nearly as demanding as most on lenses. I'd almost suggest a 28-300 would be worth a look as a start, though it won't max out resolution (but, as Shun says, there's not much point in a D810 except for the low-ISO dynamic range). It won't be as sharp as the 16-35 + 70-200 pair, but you'd get convenience and some extra range, which may matter to you. If you decide you want larger apertures, though, the 16-35 and 70-200 do better. For slightly better quality, a 24-85 VR is pretty good and cheap; the 24-120 loses a little in performance and adds some range, depending on how much you need for "animals".</p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>For action shots (street, animals...) you don't want to have to change lens to often as the best action is guaranteed to happen when you are switching lenses. So I would go with one or 2 zooms max. If you always shoot at f/16 or smaller you don't have to worry about corner sharpness wide open.<br>

But first you should ask yourself why you shoot as these settings. Do you want everything in focus?<br>

1) As Shun mentioned you start getting diffraction when lenses are stopped to their smallest aperture. So you loose sharpness. The sharpest setting are usually around f/8, f/11.<br>

2) Action shots are about focusing on the action so isolating the main subject (the action) is often preferable and the most effective way is to use the lens wide open or close to it. That's why pros pay so much money on the big lenses, to get fast lenses (wide apertures). By choosing such an aperture you render the background out of focus thus reducing distractions from the action itself.</p>

<p>As per lens selection I have been very impressed by my last acquisition, the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G. I have owned all the iterations of its faster cousin (F/2.8) but was enticed by the weight and size reduction of the smaller lens. So far it has proved sensational.<br>

On the wide end the AF-S16-35mm f/4G is great. But you could also go with a prime lens such as the AF-S 28mm f/1.8G or the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G. I have the former, it's really good. These 2 primes would be great for street photography.</p>

 

[dan_brown4]

<p>Some lens I have tested and used at length that I consider very good to excellent on the D800<br /> 28-70/f3.5-4.5D-AF (excellent general purpose zoom)</p>

<p>28-105/f3.5-4.5D-AF (very good, excellent close-up)</p>

<p>35-105/f3.5-4.5D-AF [new][push-pull] (very good, solid, compact for its range, love the zoom range)</p>

<p>24-85/f3.5-4.5G-VR (very good, use dist. correction)</p>

<p>70-200/f4.0G-VR (excellent, some distortion)</p>

<p>70-210/f4.0-5.6D-AF [push-pull] (very good)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>as others have mentioned, shooting a 36mp FX DSLR beyond f/16 is a very bad idea. diffraction sets in on the d800/d810 at about f/8-11. also, shooting action at that narrow of an aperture is going to require very good lighting. if you persist in doing this, it literally wont matter which lens you use. at f/8, you wont see much of a difference between a $300 lens and a $1700 one in most cases. if i were you, i'd either rethink your shooting style or rethink your camera choice. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I have to join the chorus in emphasizing that at 35mm the use of small apertures is counterproductive for getting the most out of high resolution sensors. I rarely shoot with an f-stop beyond f/5.6, but f/8 is okay. In bright sunlight, I will stop down to whatever is necessary to get the shot without over-exposing. Just because one has the high resolution sensor does not mean that every shot one takes with the camera has to take advantage of the high resolution potential.</p>

<p>As for lenses, I shoot almost exclusively Nikon now, but, when I bought the Canon 5D in 2006, I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 (with image stabilization). Those two lenses covered many if not most of my photographic needs for several years. I think that the same is true for the two corresponding lenses from Nikon. These days, however, I have to watch my spending more, and so I am relying more on second-hand lenses. I got the 17-35mm f/2.8 on eBay, along with the 28-70mm f/2.8. I wanted the 24-70 but just could not afford it.</p>

<p>I have gotten rid of my long (70-200) Nikon zoom. It was the mark I version, not great in the corners. I still miss it, though. Now I get by at the long end with a 300mm f/4 with a finicky (but functional) auto-focus, as well as a manual focus 600mm f/4 (an Ai-S) lens that looks terrible cosmetically but has great glass and gets great shots.</p>

<p>I have to say again, though, that if you are truly committed to going with zooms, it is hard to beat the versatility of the 24-70 and the 70-200. I am one of those who cannot seem to get by without a decent mid-range zoom, and my second-hand 28-70 f/2.8 does quite well--even though I often miss those four millimeters at the wide end that the 24-70 has. (My own copy of a slower version of the 28-70 was the worst lens I have ever used from Nikon.)</p>

<p>You might try renting and see what you like. Since shooting 35mm is partly about portability and convenience, one will inevitably make adjustments regarding lens selection when moving from MF. The two-zoom solution is a good start toward finding out what you like about 35mm.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Shun is right. If you are going to limit yourself to F/16-32 you should not buy an 810. There is no good lens on an 810 at F/32.</p>

<p>So you mind telling us why you believe you ought to shoot at these apertures? </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i can understand wanting the d810 for medium format-like IQ in a walkaround package, but you cant shoot a d810 like you would a MF camera. if you read Ming Thein's <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/07/29/nikon-d810-vs-d800e-to-upgrade-or-not/">comments </a>on it, he noted:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The D800E required very high shutter speeds to handhold consistently; even lenses with good VR such as the <a title="Photoessay-review: the Nikon AFS 70-200/4 VR and Havana cityscapes, part I" href="https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/05/30/review-nikon-70-200-4-vr-havana-cityscapes-part-i/" target="_blank">70-200/4</a> I found could be used down to perhaps 1/focal length at best; everything else was 1/2x (borderline) or 1/3x + (consistently sharp). This obviously limits the shooting envelope of the camera significantly."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the d810 is apparently better in this regard, but the point is that care must be taken with shooting parameters. even with a VR lens, you're not going to be shooting at 1/15 and hope to expect sharp pictures; this obviously has some bearing on selected apertures. if you insist on using narrow apertures, diffraction isnt the only issue since you will limit the shutter speed you can use, which could induce blur, or less than critical sharpness, into your shots, thus defeating the purpose of having a high-resolution body in the first place. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>To be fair, without using the electronic shutter, you probably can't shoot a Nikon DSLR like a medium format camera with a leaf shutter and expect to avoid vibration. Though flipping a Hasselblad's mirror out of the way isn't quiet. If you consider a Pentax 645 with a focal-plane shutter, however, it has exactly the same problem. (Or at least, my film 645 tries to jump out of my hand and scare small children when I use it. It's why I'm not sensitive to the D800's loud shutter, though the quieter one in the D810 is on my "reasons to upgrade" list.) Not all medium format is the same.</p>

[sim_jo]

<p>Thanks for the thorough input guys, but I was really only asking about specific full frame zoom lens tips. I have been a professional photographer for 20+ years, but thank you for your interest in helping out with all aspects of my photography. Since I only plan to use this camera until a higher resolution camera comes out, which might be soon, and a canon, I'll probably look into the cheaper used lens options on ebay. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em> it sucks with motion and at high ISO</em><br /> <em>I always shoot at f16-f32</em></p>

<p><br /> I think these things may be related. For any kind of moving subject (which is in my case typically a person or people) I normally use apertures from f/1.4 to f/4. This way I can easily get 1/1000s or faster to freeze the movement (in daylight) and avoid movement related blur (while separating the subject from environment). By shooting a moving subject at a small aperture (such as f/16 or smaller) you are virtually guaranteed poor quality results, unless you're specifically going for blurring the movement intentionally (in which case why the high resolution?) or use flash instead of daylight. If you want more to be in focus I would try compromising at f/5.6 or f/8, but not further than that. <br /> <br /> Good medium-priced zooms for Nikon FX include 24-85 AF-S VR and 70-200/4 AF-S VR which both would be somewhat suited to the applications though personally I'd choose the 24-70 f/2.8 instead of the slower zoom as focus tracking moving subjects tends to work better with a faster lens and it's better quality in any case. For the telezoom the same is true: f/2.8 will focus a bit faster but there is no image quality disadvantage to the f/4 and it is less expensive and lighter to walk around with. For longer than 200mm, which you probably need if you want to photograph wildlife (what is meant by animals here?), 300/4 AF-S is economical and high quality. You can substitute second hand 70-200/2.8 in place of the current telezooms and 28-70/2.8 for 24-70/2.8 if you like.</p>

[edwardchen]

AFS 28-300