Nikon's 'recommended' lenses for D800E

shawnino

TTJ wraps up with: "I have often wished they moved to 60mm macros for testing - then you know you are getting optimal results."

That is a very, very good idea.

Ade

I thought the whole point of the list for Nikon to give us the heads-up re: the new AF-S 50mm/1.2G they are announcing soon????

Golf007sd

I thought the whole point of the list for Nikon to give us the heads-up re: the new AF-S 50mm/1.2G they are announcing soon????

The day I can pre-order a Nikon 50 1.2 will be very much welcomed. I'm ready to hit the buy button right now!

TaoTeJared

I thought the whole point of the list for Nikon to give us the heads-up re: the new AF-S 50mm/1.2G they are announcing soon????

The day I can pre-order a Nikon 50 1.2 will be very much welcomed. I'm ready to hit the buy button right now!

I'm there with you - but for some reason I just don't see it yet. Maybe Zeiss will release another $4,000 lens so we can really kick the stones around our feet and grumble.

Msmoto

"Maybe Zeiss will release another $4,000 lens so we can really kick the stones around our feet and grumble"

I love this..... my vote for best comment of the day )

shawnino

AF 50mm f/1.2 (or 40mm, or 60mm, or 85mm) would be the type of lens I'd put the coffee pot on for to stay up to pre-order at 3am.

Zeiss = no AF on Nikon FX = no interest for me with the exception of the 15mm where I'm thinking AF wouldn't matter. If I had better eyes I would lust for the 100mm f/2 macro, but if "if"s and "but"s were candies and nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Xmas.

Ade

From 2010:

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/there-is-a-patent-for-a-new-nikon-af-s-nikkor-50mm-f1-2g-lens.aspx/

Come on Nikon, you can do it!!! [-O<

TaoTeJared

I like how you add - "From 2010"!


It kills me that the Nikon 1 system gets a f/1.2 and not FX.
NIKKOR 32mm f/1.2
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/12/1-nikkor-32mm-f1-2-lens-listed-on-nikon-usa-website-we-should-be-very-close-to-the-release-date.aspx/

FlowtographyBerlin

It seems like a badly assembled marketing list more than the result of real tests.

I know that's an extremely speculative statement[...]

That's not speculative, that's a fact. If a company selling items gives recommendations on which items to buy, it's by definition a marketing measure. And that's what this list has to be taken as, of course with a slight flavor of information to it. Just as:

Weather your lens is on the list or not...from my perspective it is irrelevant. What really counts is what you where able to produce with the lens you have on your D800. The list be damed...and I don't even have this body.

Having said that...6 of my lenses made it on that list and those that did not....well I know what they can do and cannot do.

Exactly.

As TTJ said, there are no "why are these better" aspects explained and it's more of a "recent lenses to market" than anything else. Did you notice that the 85 1.8G has been out for a longer time, but hadn't previously been included? To me, this looks like previously, they didn't include it because it's just one of the cheaper items in the lineup, but now that the lens has such a good reputation spread by sources such as DxO, they couldn't not include it anymore.

I personally wouldn't take own product recommendations of the manufacturer too serious. Especially I can't understand how people can be "confused" when they find that a lens they own and that they (for whatever reason) consider great is not on "the list".

Flow

FlowtographyBerlin

I like how you add - "From 2010"!

Yeah, but doesn't that suggest that it's likely to hit the market.... sometime soon? I heard that with Nikon lenses, it's something like 3 years between patent and market release.

Zeiss = no AF on Nikon FX = no interest for me

Same with me. Especially at an aperture like f/1.2. Or well, actually any aperture, and the modern focussing screens.

TaoTeJared

I like how you add - "From 2010"!

Yeah, but doesn't that suggest that it's likely to hit the market.... sometime soon? I heard that with Nikon lenses, it's something like 3 years between patent and market release.

Not at all - there are 1000's of Nikon patents that have never been made. Nikon patents every design variation so others can't use it. Last I looked I found over 15 f/1.2 patients filed, not one ever was made.

Now if a F1.2 "auto focus" lens patient came out, that would be news. Optical design patients are just "protecting territory" from other companies.

Ade

From a pure marketing perspective, the big question is: why didn't Nikon include the 50mm 1.4G in the "recommended" list?

Imagine you're a D800e owner, and you're ready to buy a 50mm lens. Nikon marketing is telling you: "wait, NONE of our 50mm offerings is good enough! We DON'T recommend you buying ANY of our three 50mm AF lenses! They're ALL sub-par!!"

Think about it -- that's a pretty astonishing messaging from Nikon marketing!! They're trying to get you NOT to buy a lens!! Why would they do that?

Assuming the folks at Nikon marketing are not complete idiots, such messaging would only make sense if there's a new, flagship 50mm lens around the corner, at a significantly higher price-point than the current offerings. An all-new 50mm/1.2 or a superbly re-designed 50mm/1.4 -- let's say around the $1,000 to $1,200 range.

There's a trade-off between current sales vs. future sales. ("A bird in hand is worth two in the bush"). I think if a new 50mm is not imminent, then we will soon see another revision to the "recommended" list to include the current 50/1.4G. Otherwise, expect a new lens. Or a few fired marketing folks.

tman

Japanese companies are very data driven, so I actually think they set a criterion they thought was objective and stuck to it. My suspicion is there is some requirement on center to edge sharpness through the F stop range the lens allows that sorts between the lenses on the list and the lenses that failed the list.

All the 50mm reviews I've seen talk about softness at some points within the image fully open.

spraynpray

Strange to not have them in there as the numbers in the tests I've seen aren't bad. :-?

TaoTeJared

50mm lenses have never had primary goal of resolution but cheap-er fast glass. That focal length is fairly simple to design for as well to get good results without much effort. They are not bad, but not earth shaking either. Zeiss and Leica showed what can be done with that focal range and Nikon is severely far behind in comparison.

FlowtographyBerlin

From a pure marketing perspective, the big question is: why didn't Nikon include the 50mm 1.4G in the "recommended" list?

Imagine you're a D800e owner, and you're ready to buy a 50mm lens. Nikon marketing is telling you: "wait, NONE of our 50mm offerings is good enough! We DON'T recommend you buying ANY of our three 50mm AF lenses! They're ALL sub-par!!"

Think about it -- that's a pretty astonishing messaging from Nikon marketing!! They're trying to get you NOT to buy a lens!! Why would they do that?

Well, that logic would count for any lens on offer but not included in the list. Marketing (in that sense) is about two things: Getting someone to buy your product (decision: buy it or not). And: Getting someone who has more money to spend to actually leave it with you. For the latter, you have to give him reasons to do so.

That's why I guess the 85mm 1.8 wasn't included previously: Nikon wanted to suggest that people need to buy the more expensive option (the 1.4) – of course, because the best (aka more expensive) is merely good enough. Now that the quality of the 1.8 has become common knowledge, it wouldn't be very credible to keep it off the list.

So, what if someone wants to buy a – relatively – low-priced 50mm? Is that someone going to not buy a lens because his original option is not on the list? Maybe, in rare cases, yes. But in most cases, people are gonna do what a manufacturer wants them to do when they release such a list: Get a more expensive lens instead.

So, the calculation is that a list like that doesn't keep people from buying lenses, it's to direct people's choice to the lenses they want to sell.

I'm not saying the lenses can't be a good choice to buy, it's just that such a list follows a straight marketing logic and one shouldn't be irritated why a list is included or not.

@TTJ: I'm not really exactly an expert in lens designs, but I heard that before, too. Do you happen to know how your statement for the 50s is valid for the 85 and ~135 length designs as well? It's striking that so many lenses in this range are so good – like the recent Nikon and Canon models.

shawnino

I would love to believe that the lack of a mention of a 50 was because a 1.2 AF was in the offing. Rather I fear it's more likely Nikon wants to steer the person who can afford the D800 to the 35mm f/1.4 at 3X-5X the price of the 50 1.4 lenses.

I own the 35mm. Taken on its own, I'm much more ready to praise it than bury it. It's lovely. But I'm not the target. The new shopper who does any reading at all knows about the new 35mm Sigma, and brick-and-mortar stores might get a higher percentage markup on the Sigma anyway, meaning they have no incentive to steer shoppers to the Nikon and may have incentive to steer them to the Sigma instead ("Buy the Sigma! Add that flash! Buy a memory card! You'll still have $300 in your pocket!").

Huge problem for Nikon's 35mm sales IMO. So, if they can up-sell from the 50mm lenses, that's part of the solution.

TaoTeJared

@TTJ: I'm not really exactly an expert in lens designs, but I heard that before, too. Do you happen to know how your statement for the 50s is valid for the 85 and ~135 length designs as well? It's striking that so many lenses in this range are so good – like the recent Nikon and Canon models.

Every lens has been designed for a primary purpose - even if that goal is "all around cheap kit lens." 1.4/1.8/2.0's shot wide open are made for bokeh as are 2.8s for the most part. That does not mean they are not outstanding or should be purchased for any body including the D800. Review sites (intended or not) created a perversion that "this" sharper lens is always better and you must have it to make better images - it simply isn't true.

Every lens is sharp at f/8, but situations arise that f/8 doesn't meet the photographic goal. At that juncture, "sharpness" becomes a lower need. How many people want their pores showing on a portrait? Does 10, 20, 100 more lines of resolution make any difference on any photo? No. You will see eyelashes with every lens nikon makes on the D800.

I buy lenses based on need/how often I use them, goal of output, and financial goals. For example, I needed a ultra wide for my D800. Option are the Nikon 14-24, 16-35, 17-35, 18, 20, Tokina 16-28, 17-35, 17, Sigma's and Tamrons. They vary in price from almost $2,000 - 500. It is a lens that will always be in my bag so durability is key. I will be shooting it at F/8 most of the time for interiors on a tripod. Distortion really bugs me so as little as possible out of the camera is always better. Finally, at the moment, I really didn't want to spend over $1,000 due to other purchases I needed to make but I could if I had too. Reviews put the N14-24 and the T16-28 at the top. Nikon was better wide open but they were equal at f/4. The Tokina seemed to be better at distortion, the rest had heavy-moderate distortion at both ends so it threw out all of the x-35s. So...Bam - Tokina 16-28 - and I'm thrilled with it. It has met and exceeded every expectation and image with ease.

At this juncture, every lens available at the different price points, really doesn't vary much from one manufacturer to another. There just is not that large of a gap between performance that one should choose one over the other. Zeiss's 55mm at $4,000 vs current 50mm-s at $500 or less will probably be the first "real" gap in performance we have seen in 35mm format for decades in terms of sharpness. The truth is that out of the options available for Nikon, there just is not that much difference between lenses. Their price is based on build quality, not sharpness.

Msmoto

My suspicion is the "recommended list" is purely a marketing ploy. I would not hesitate to use my 1960's lenses I have had converted on a D800. And, my strong suspicions are they will perform quite well.

Golf007sd

@TTJ. Well said. I totally agree!!!

ads

Sounds likeeveryone agrees the Nikon list was made under heavy consultation with the marketing dept.

How about we make a NR real world recommemded list? We obviously have a lot of smart people with D800s, and as TTJ pointed out, the best lens doesn't necesarily have Nikkor written on it...

TaoTeJared

I don't see the "marketing ploy" at all in regards to the list - just that they listed every updated lens. Not everything is some hidden conspiracy. People wanted a list - so they got a list. I seriously doubt if nikon believes any of their lenses are not worthy. If it was a true marketing ploy they would be releasing in effect a line of "X lens - made for the D800" - they are not doing that at all.

Sorry ads - I don't think any list is remotely realistically useful or makes any difference. As I said, there really isn't any large gap between lenses that would make a difference. All lists are just made to make people feel good for what they already own or envious of what they can't afford.

A better list is to get off the whole "sensor" idea, and get down to what lens to use for "X" shot.

FlowtographyBerlin

I don't see the "marketing ploy" at all in regards to the list - just that they listed every updated lens. Not everything is some hidden conspiracy. People wanted a list - so they got a list. […] If it was a true marketing ploy they would be releasing in effect a line of "X lens - made for the D800" - they are not doing that at all.

I think it is a misconception that "Marketing" is always somehow understood as some sort of "conspiracy" or "ploy". Also, what's "true marketing" versus not-so-true marketing?

The list simply IS a marketing measure, no matter how much effort and what specific thoughts have been flowing into it. It's a recommendation issued by the manufacturer of the recommended products, and it should be understood like exactly that. And not treat it like it was a list i.e. some long-time NR members compiled, based on lines-of-thought like the one that TaoTeJared explained.

So, this means that in 90% of the cases, if you ask:

"Why is lens XY not on the list?"

The answer simply is: Because they want you to buy a different one. And, once again, this is not a conspiracy or a ploy, it is simply a company selling their products, and it's normal.

Golf007sd

@FlowtographyBerlin: "The list simply IS a marketing measure.... this is not a conspiracy or a ploy, it is simply a company selling their products, and it's normal."

Agreed. Your understanding of this is right on. I would humbly ask my fellow NR members to take the "emotion" out of this and see if for what it is...as you have so eloquently stated.

spraynpray

Of course everything is marketing, there is nothing earth shattering in that statement. When we used the 'M' word we meant transparently obvious and unsophisticated - even cynical - marketing.

Nobody seems to have thought of it being simply a published response to a question Nikon were being asked a heck of a lot by owners or prospective owners of D800E's - perhaps there is not enough conspiracy in that explanation?