D810 plus one lens...spend my money!

mack

Hey everyone, I'm new here and I need some help. I have a D7100 I love and some cash burning a hole in my pocket. I want to preorder a D810 but I can't decide what lens or lenses to purchase with the body. I have a some DX lenses, a 300 f4 and a 50 f1.8 already. My budget is the body plus 2300 dollars. This puts some really excellent f2.8 lenses within my range or some Sigma Art series plus something else. Someone help me, spend my money!

--Mack

Edit: almost forgot I primarily shoot landacapes, wildlife and concerts. As I read that I realize that doesn't help much.

WestEndBoy

OK, I will bite. Let me make one stipulation. If you can buy three lenses for the price of one, that would be OK.

I will also assume that the DX lenses that you listed above are actually FX lenses.

You have three different subjects. I will comment on the first that I shoot, landscapes:

I would buy the 20 and 28 in my signature. You will note that they are manual focus. There are auto-focus versions but you don't need them and the manual focus lenses have far superior metal construction - they are the pinnacle of Nikon's manufacturing art.

You don't need auto-focus for landscapes because you are "typically" going to shoot between f/5.6 and f/11 - faster for the 28, slower for the 20 where these lenses perform best and focus on the hyperfocal point. You will then buy step up rings to 77 (you will need two) and some nice ND filters (ideally a 3, 5 and 10 stop). You can then standardize all your lenses on this. If you think that you are going to buy an important lens with a larger filter size, you might want to standardize on that size.

I have just spent about $2,000 of your money.

Another option is the 14-24 in my signature. However, if you want to use filters for that, you need a special filter kit and you will likely be spending another $1,000 (in addition to $2,000 on the lenses) and you will still not have glass filters that also will not be compatible with your other lenses. Did I mention triple the weight?

The 14-24 has superior optics at 2.8, but at 5.6 to 11 that you will be shooting for landscapes, they are the same, if not the 28 being superior (especially at 5.6).

One gotcha with the 20mm - it has some weird distortion that you will notice if you are shooting flat lines (ocean horizons and architecture say) that the 14-24 does not have. You will not notice the distortion otherwise. However, the 28 does not have this distortion and for landscapes with flat lines, I would typically use this one. You will notice it on some architecture - it does not matter to me because I use my 14-24 for that - the 14-24 is possibly the best architecture lens ever created barring the PC lenses.

I will let others comment on the other two subjects. I am sure that I could steer you in the right direction, but you will appreciate advice from people that actually shoot these subjects.

With the 28, you can get shots like these:

sevencrossing

I primarily shoot

landscapes Nikon 16-35 f/4G ED VR
wildlife and concerts Nikon 80-400mm AF-S FX VR G ED N

WestEndBoy

I primarily shoot

landscapes Nikon 16-35 f/4G ED VR
wildlife and concerts Nikon 80-400mm AF-S FX VR G ED N

The 16-35 is the best landscape option if you want a zoom.

Elvishefer

Everybody will have a different take depending on their style, so here goes mine:

You have a 300 f/4, so if you shoot it with your D810 you can use it in FX or DX modes, handily covering the long end. This should cover off wildlife, compressed landscapes, and the ISO gods willing, concerts from a distance.

So I wouldn't buy a long lens (your budget doesn't allow an upgrade to a modern super telephoto).

There is definitely a gap at the wide end, but here it gets tricky because a well shot pano can compensate for (and sometimes exceed the abilities of) a purpose-built lens. If you like panos, and if they fit your landscape style.

Personally, I find that when I shoot with my 14-24 it's for crazy ultra-wide effects, not so much for traditional landscapes. I'm more than happy at >24mm for landscapes.

If I were you, I'd look at the gamut of modern wide lenses and choose something like the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art, taking advantage of its versatility and sharpness for my fancy new 810 sensor (wide low light for concerts, relatively low focal length distortion for panos, environmental portraits, etc.). And it's cheap as chips (relatively).

With the leftover $1,500 in cash I'd take a week off work and go somewhere to shoot, getting to know my new camera and lenses.

The other alternative, and the toughest choice to make, would be to get your 810 and shoot with it for a month or two with your existing lenses and see what focal length you're missing or relying on. Then, either fill the gaps or upgrade a lens you have to a higher quality alternate.

So hard to do with $2,300 burning a hole in your pocket...

WestEndBoy

Or... you can save $1000 and buy a reburbished D800 from Nikon USA and purchase the excellent Nikon 24mm/1.4g and the Sigma 35mm/1.4 Art and come in at $4900. This leaves you with $900 left over and you will have super-premium glass at both focal distances. The quality differences in glass that you can buy for $1000 more will likely affect your image quality more than the differences between the cameras.

That would work really well too. The 24 1.4G is a fabulous lens.

TaoTeJared

Skip the body and just buy lenses. Chasing bodies before you have lenses is just dumb. I have seen so many people buy FX bodies with no lenses only to want to upgrade 2-3 years later, and still don't have lenses because they spend it on bodies. It is just stupid. Lenses will last you 10+ years and a body maybe 4 when it is worth 25% of it's original price (if that.)

About $6,000?
Landacapes/wildlife: 24-120vr F/4, 16-35vr, 70-200vr f4
Concerts: 28mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8G (you have your 50 already.)

With that you would be set for years to come and ready for the next FX body or when the prices fall.

WestEndBoy

Then buy a refurbished D600 and spend the rest on lenses.

Msmoto

Having just acquired a D800E, I am planning on carrying this with either the 24mm f/1.4 Nikkor or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. With the 24, I can always crop and both are nice for landscapes, unless I want wider…then 16-35mm f/4 VR, which is very sharp but has lots of barrel distortion, easily corrected in LR.
Then, for longer, 85mm f/1.8G, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, and so on. The new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 would also work as a "longer" lens in crop mode, but I do not have that one….yet.
A versatile carry around might be the 24-120mm f/4 VR, although it has its limitations. It is the lens Nikon shows in the D800E Instruction Manual…….for whatever that is worth…...

Golf007sd

@mack: Our members have given you good advices here. I personally will lean toward what TaoTeJared has recommended. For landscape and wildlife, the D7100 will yield very good results. For concerts, it all comes down to the lighting situation. This is where good glass comes into play.

I have a feeling that this is not your first rodeo, take a deep breath and invest in good glass.

Lastly, I hope you have a good study tripod system, if not, then WestendBoy and I have some great recommendation that we know will be a great investment....for a life time of photography.

WestEndBoy

Tripods! Yes, Golf and I love to spend other people's money on that.

JonMcGuffin

I think because he's considering moving to a new sensor, it may not be a bad idea to invest in a new body and the D810 is probably about as bullet proof of a body you could have that should last you for many years. Would you dare consider buying a Tokina 11-16 2.8 for your D7100 and shoot your landscapes with that setup (It's like shooting a 16-24mm Full Frame).

Then turn around and get a D810 + 70-200 2.8 for your concert and event work? If you think you could live with primes for the concern work, maybe the 35mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8?

TaoTeJared

I don't know, TaoTeJared: normally I would agree with you, but he wants to shoot landscape. I think the 7100 to an 800 is a major upgrade, though and 800 to an 810 is a minor one.

I look at it this way - Is one more limited on achieving an image goal/vision by the camera body, or by a lens?

If one is making a living on their work, D800/810 no question. If not, what is the "real" increase that $2,000 gains one? Landscape shooting one should be using a tripod and shooting at native ISOs. It is very hard to distinguish various bodies at ISO 400 on down and the gains are few. Wildlife and Concerts are about higher ISOs. D800 is better, but a stack of fast primes will offset the stop or two gained by a FX sensor. And really, if concerts, low light type shooting is the majority, a D4/s or the DF would be better choices since they retain more dynamic range and color longer, and noise control is better.

My camera bodies have changed many times over but the lenses remain the same.

Pistnbroke

you have the same cameras as I do . Why dont you dedicate one to each function ..the D810 to landscapes with a 16-35 and the D7100 to the other stuff and forget all this prime rubbish you never going to shoot the thing at f1.8 if you want to make the D810 multi function stick a 28-300 on it

If you shoot the same object/view with a D800 and a D7100 on say 28 and18mm to match framing and go to 100% or even 200% on the same object in each you will have great difficulty to tell the difference.

sevencrossing

forget all this prime rubbish .

+1

BUT If you are going to get a prime, get something a zoom cannot compete with

24mm f1.4 G AF-S ED
or the
400mm f2.8 AF-S E FL ED VR

JJ_SO

That makes two of us, @PitchBlack )

donaldejose

Yes, Pistnbroke's comment is extreme. But remember the context within which he works and shoots; nothing ever enlarged more than 8x10 and always at aperture around f5.6 or f8; volume production not art. Within that context, I doubt people would be able to tell the difference between DX and FX or between a prime and a zoom. His error is to assume others shoot in the same context (but to be honest most of us are not the "artists" we want to be). Note his comment "you never going to shoot the thing at f1.8." Pistnbroke's context is exactly the opposite context PitchBlack shoots in so successfully so of course they strongly disagree. Ken Rockwell does tend to say at f8 all Nikon's lenses perform pretty much the same so to that extent Ken would tend to agree with Pistnbroke. There is some truth in what everyone says when you limit the comment to the context from which that person speaks. For example, I was shooting portraits with my 85mm f1.8 because it was so sharp. I had to switch to my 24-85 zoom recently because I needed to quickly move between one (85mm) and two (50mm) people and did not want to be changing lenses back and forth. The zoom's sharpness was lacking until I set it at f8. Then you couldn't tell the difference between the two lenses in a 5x7 or 8x10 print which is what the people wanted. I was surprised how much that zoom sharpened up at f8. It was more than adequate for the purpose at hand.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Who is ken rockswell?
I would like to say that as long as the AF issue is not present on the D800 that everybody suggests to get or you have some warranty go for that. Otherwise the D810 is the newest big boy in town. You will have more options vs the D610 they might be minor besides the sensor.

As for lens
While 35 is not very very wide the sigma 351.4 is great.
Landscape 14-24
85mm 1.8g for concerts and crop (thanks to the sensor)
Otherwise the 70-200 2.8v2 will save you and you can still crop.

You have plenty of good advice here.
I choose the D800 over the d600 because of the viewfinder curtain, better body grip, sensor,
Shutter sync and 1/8000.
Now you may want to go to nikon's website and compare some bodies against each other to help you narrow it down.

My vote is for the D800 family

sevencrossing

Who is ken rockswell?

I think he might be Pistnbroke

donaldejose

Remember too Pistenbroke says he is shooting weddings for under $1,000.00. At that price you cannot afford to take time postprocessing. And he says many of his clients don't order albums or if they do they fail to pick them up once printed and paid for. I think these clients are just looking for "web and cellphone adequate" photos. In that context, the extra quality offered by a high price prime won't be visible to most such consumers. I constantly am depressed over how much detail is in my work and the people only want a 5x7 which does not adequately display that detail. Might as well be shooting them in DX with an 18-55 kit lens!

WestEndBoy

I strongly agree with Pitchblack. I also agree with Donaldjose that Pistnbroke makes a common mistake, namely everyone does, or even worse, should shoot like him.

I also agree with Donaldjose that everything looks the same, when applied to the average consumer with an IPhone.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Who is ken rockswell?

I think he might be Pistnbroke

Makes sense.

Not all glass is created equal.

donaldejose

It is good to have different points of view expressed. We should not expect that we all agree. I believe in "the free exchange of ideas" (even those contrary to conventional wisdom or political correctness) in which various ideas are freely expressed and freely debated (rationally not emotionally) so that the best can "rise to the top." The important thing is really not what you believe by why to believe it. Expressing just an an opinion is not persuasive; only expressing the why you hold that opinion can hope to persuade others it is correct. Ken Rockwell, for instance, seems to be "the man people love to hate" but his site does provide quick access so much data and a few of the things do make sense when taken in context. His opinions are most valid when he demonstrates them with photographs; for example, his tests of sharpness comparing different lenses shooting the same subject at the same f-stop at the same distance in the same light. PitchBlack's opinions have great persuasiveness precisely because he supports them with outstanding images. Pistenbroke's opinions have not been supported with images.

WestEndBoy

"Creative disagreement" is one of the foundations of all knowledge, from scientific to the boardroom. The views on this site, Ken Rockwell and even Pistenbroke certainly present a variety of views.

sevencrossing

. The level of detail you achieve with the 85/1.4g at f8 is mind-boggling and can't be reproduced with the 70-200, let alone a consumer-grade zoom. .

I am sure this is true
but I have seen people abandon a new, quality VR zoom , for a used, dated, prime, as they have read, primes are better than zooms

WestEndBoy

. The level of detail you achieve with the 85/1.4g at f8 is mind-boggling and can't be reproduced with the 70-200, let alone a consumer-grade zoom. .

I am sure this is true
but I have seen people abandon a new, quality VR zoom , for a used, dated, prime, as they have read, primes are better than zooms

Let's assume that you are not talking strictly image quality.

For many people, a prime with mediocre image quality will be better than the latest professional zoom.

And strictly on image quality, some used, dated, primes are better than the new, quality VR zooms. The 85 1.4D and my own 135 DC 2.0 come to mind.