Best lenses for the Nikon D800/E ?

ekopuls

Best lenses for the Nikon D800/E ?

http://www.nikon-tutorials.com/2013/12/best-lenses-for-the-nikon-d800e/

What is your suggestion?

sevencrossing

what do you want to photograph ?
How much do you want to spend ?
how much gear are you prepared to carry ?
Nikon do not make any bad lenses

ekopuls

Would spend about $ 800 ... and photographed to nature

ekopuls

....1200$

Elvishefer

In that price range I would suggest the 105 f/2.8 VRII micro new.

Used, you might be able to get something else, but for the 'best' lenses, for arguably the best body on the market, $1200 isn't a lot to work with if buying new.

WestEndBoy

Best lenses for the Nikon D800/E ?

http://www.nikon-tutorials.com/2013/12/best-lenses-for-the-nikon-d800e/

What is your suggestion?

This question is always backwards.

Subject begets lens begets camera.

WestEndBoy

Can somebody tell me the best camera for my lens?

WestEndBoy

Yeah, that is a tough one. It would have been better to get a D610 and put the money in more glass.

sevencrossing

Can somebody tell me the best camera for my following lens?

You already have it the D800

WestEndBoy

Can somebody tell me the best camera for my following lens?

You already have it the D800

Yeah, I was just emphasizing my previous point. Pardon my vagueness. But thanks for validating my decision.

ThomasHorton

I have the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and the Nikon 85mm 1.8 and I an very happy with the sharpness of both lenses

I am looking forward to reading reviews of the Sigma 135mm that is coming out.

donaldejose

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-for-your-Nikon-D800

Maximusphotography

From Experience Nikon Cameras does have serious dust problems, and if you supported that with frequent change of Lenses than you will be increasing the chance of dust getting on your sensor.

Now lets face it, Nikon has some of the best lenses ever, i actually prefer Nikon over Canon because of the Lenses quality. So playing it safe by selecting the 3 best lenses 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 is fail safe plan, still it will cost you around 6000$ (+/-) and most of us not making money from this hobby so its allot of wasted money.

I highly suggests after experience selecting the following lenses :

1. For everyday use (90 - 95%) of standard photography : Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm F3.5 - many will say its not F2.8, well for those i can reply 1 stop is not going to hurt your 95% of your photography , especially when using FX body, this lens is very fast, very sharp and it will replace your entire bag of lenses. It has VR normal and Active, suitable for sports, wild life, portrait, etc...
This lens will replace the : Prime 35mm F2.8, 50 & 58mm, 85, 90-110 (Macro), 200 & 300mm.
Never judge this lens before actually using it. Price new : 920 - 1100$.

2. Ultra Wide Lens : 17-35mm F2.8 The quality and sharpness of this lens is unspeakable, its just so perfect in a way i cannot imagine my life without this lens. Price New : 1600$, Price Used = 850 - 1100$.

3. Prime Lens : 50mm F1.8 : Many still prefer the 1.4 however check the comparison on DXO between the 2 lenses you will be quite shocked that the faster lenses doesn't handle light the way you expect. Price : 110 - 200$

The 3 option above will cost you around 2130$ while any of the lenses mentioned in the video will cost you around 1900 - 2000$.

Don't buy things simply because its just been newly released or its 1% better than the older model, think of your type of photography and think of ways to better invest in your business or hobby.

WestEndBoy

+1 on the 17-35 2.8. This is an under appreciated lens.

Maximusphotography

+1 on the 17-35 2.8. This is an under appreciated lens.

In practice this lens is technically much better than 14-24mm, in terms of image quality i never complain for the quality of 17-35 i'm in love with it.

The 17-35 is more creative lens with the ability to use filters.
more ranges up to 35
And no worries about the front lens to be scratched.

i will go with 17-35 all the way, no question asked.

WestEndBoy

Yup. The filters are huge. Even though I have the 14-24, if my primary focus was travel and I wanted to go the zoom root, my travel choice would be 17-35 2.8D, 58mm 1.4G, the 70-200 2.8G and a 2x tc for that occasion that may only come up once on a trip.

I bought the 14-24 2.8 because it is the best lens at 14mm and OK at 24mm.

tcole1983

If by nature you mean animals...I say the 300 F4 which you can get for your budget. More flexible and expensive the new 80-400 VR. The 70-200 F4 wouldn't be a bad option, but won't give you the reach especially with FX. If you want to go cheap the 70-300, but not sure it is great on the D800.

If you are looking for longer....longer lenses = $$$$ and there really isn't any way around that...especially for quality which is needed with the D800. 300 on FX still isn't really long enough unless you can get pretty close.

hawkdl2

I have the 300 f/4, 50 f 1.8 and 85 f1.8, among a half dozen other lenses and they all work very well with my D800. And all are within your budget, particularly if you buy the 300 used, as I did. I also ordered the 16-35 with the current rebates after months of deliberation over the 17-35 for all the reasons cited many times, and for me the most important being that for "nature" I would almost never use f/2.8, so weight, VR, filters, and IQ at the apertures that matter most to me, trumped the older 17-35. And the 16-35 is currently rebated to <$1000.

TriShooter

The Holy Trinity is not sufficient for me because my fun for, avocation shooting is wildlife. For my portrait work, and for general shooting on my D800 the newer 24-120mm f/4 is what I use about 90 percent of the time for portraits, and event shooting. If I could not afford this lens I would buy the 24-85mm f/4 to f4.5 which is also an excellent lens.

Alternatively the 28-300mm is a very decent lens for most people. Bottom line is that almost every lens I won, which are many, work beautifully on the D800. Nikon has made a few awful lenses like the older version of the 24-120mm f/4 and the first VR version of the middle Holy Trinity, but most of their lens are more than enough for most purposes. Do not let the magazine experts run your life, and you will be a happier, and better shooter.

Amazingly, I've noticed that my absolute best lenses on the D800 are my old 85mm ais f/1.4 ED, and the old 400mm ais f/3.5, which has a very minor amount of chromatic aberration. both a manual focus lenses, are awesome performers on the D800.

paulr

Trishooter I am confused , you say middle lens in the Holy Trinty, so I assume the 24-70 2.8 lens This has never been a VR lens, Do you mean the 70-200 Mk 1 I agree with you on the 85 1.4 D lens , it brings amazing results.

TriShooter

@paulr, sorry, I was running out the door for a shoot this afternoon.

I meant the first 70-200mm first version VR. It is a good lens but is soft edge to edge, and has obvious vignetting with light backgrounds. People used it for years, and liked it, but why buy it today when better is available.

At the studio shoot today, not a single pro was using the 24-70mm. I mentioned it, and we all agreed that the 24-120 was more flexible, four of us were shooting D800s. The major advantage of the 24-70mm is that when you are are working in its zoom range shooting with, or without, strobes the bouquet is about as good as it gets in a zoom in this focal length. But, the 24-70mm does not have VR which the 24-120mm has making it good for 3 f stops on a still subject. Still with the D800 you could crank the ISO up 3 F Stops 100 to 800, and still be okay.

Even good lenses are a compromise. In this case if shooting action shots the 24-70mm has the advantage but is short on zoom range, and the 24-120mm is superior for portraits, except for bouquet. Even with this you can still crank the ISO up to 800 with the D800 with very good results, and even 1600 if you need to do it with the 24-120 to get a very good result, or turn on your flash and freeze the action if you can without distracting, or annoying your subject. Plenty of things to consider.

The key to me is that most of the wedding photographers I know whether Nikon, or Canon, shooters will use the 24-120mm as much as 90 percent of the time. Going under 24mm for people pictures is a gamble for event pictures so why put the temptation in play. The other 10+ percent can be anything up to 300mm which is great for portraits if the subjects don't freeze like a deer in the headlights with a big lens in their face (even the 70-200mm VRII has this deer in the headlights effect on quite a few people.)

This said the 24-70mm is a great lens, but not as flexible to me, even with its excellent bouquet.

Saying which lens is best is dependent on what the shooter wants from his lens, and the physical environment. Shooting with strobes, or available light, moving or static subject, color or black and white create different needs for the equipment. This is my personal point of view based on my shooting, Other people's opinions are equally valid, and worthwhile to consider because they may be closer to your shooting expectations.

Personal shooting styles also get into it, For example, I like to get close to my subjects so I can help them pose if necessary, and chatter with them to put them at ease so they know I am there to make them look good, not just taking snapshots, while they are still chewing, or talking which also effect my lens choices. Nevertheless, I know that sometimes a shot of people having fun at a distance with me out of mind can be awesome.

paulr

Interesting point of view, I personally use the 24-70 most of the time with a Fx camera, It just suits my working format, I have a plethora of Nikon lenses but this lens is No 1 in my workflow. In real terms it does not matter what lens you use, as long as the right results are attained.