From H3DII-39 to Nikon D3x; Best Lenses by Nikon

[Lust4Life]

I'm very seriously considering going from the Hasselblad H3DII-39MP to the Nikon D3x.
I'm asking this question in the MF section as I suspect those who have been using MFDB's are more prone to demand top image quality from any format they shoot.

Reasons:
1.  Cost - I'm just not getting enough time to be out shooting to deal with the dollar depreciation cost of the Hasselblad system
2.  Size/weight advantage for Nikon - at 62 years old on a long day hike, ANY weight reduction starts to be important!
3.  I've realized that I'm not going to generate enough sales to turn this obsession into a profitable business - I just am too busy with other areas of my life and would prefer to have my free time spent shooting rather than marketing and promoting my work.  Just want to do it for the love of it!
4.  Never print more than 16x20, other than the occasional pano image and then it's only 16" on one axis.

Now, with the advent of the D3x seems like I've got decent glass available to me (I tried the Canon 1DSMKII a couple of years back and was totally un-impressed with their lenses.)

With the Hasselblad, I shoot primarily with the 28mm lens, occasional the 100 and rarely the 150.
Topic is landscapes, abstracts and the occasional portrait.  My web site is http://www.shadowsdancing.com - click on Recent Works to see what I'm currently doing.

Looking at the Nikon line of lenses, dang, there are many flavors and I'm having a hard time figuring out what lenses are of the very best quality and can resolve the resolution and color depth of the D3x sensor.  I'm also very interested in the Perspective Correction lenses as I really miss my 4x5 with it's tilt, etc.

Thus, I'm asking for your guidance and suggestions.  Cost of the lens is not a factor, strictly quality of image produced by it.

Jack

[paratom]

Jack, here is my opinion:
1) 2 absolute impressing non Nikon lenses: Sigma 50/1.4 and Sigma 150/2.8 macro both ver sharp, detailed. The 50 with a very smooth bokeh and low vignetting (compared to the Nikon version)
2) The 24-70/2.8 is very good IMO, however I prefer the primes and the zom stays a lot at home.
3) I really like the 24PCE - not only for perspective control but also because I think it is very sharp and delievers very nice tonal transitions.
4) for a short tele all three of the following are nice: 85/1.4, 105/2.0 and 135/2.0 - however the 135 can flare if you shoot tino strng light. I would recommend to get at least one of them
5)the 14-24/2.8 great wide angle zoom (if not the best), but huge, no filter mount. A great lens but in the end I dont use it much. I more often bring the 24PCE
6) I was unimpressed with the 70-200/2.8VR and therefore sold it. The 200/2.0VR is absolutly stunning. Contrast, Sharpness even wide open is great, AF is blazingly fast, its big but can still be handled without a tripod. I also like the 180/2.8. Very nice colors, saturated and good contrast

Are you more interested in primes or zooms?

[Dustbak]

You should seriously consider the 14-24 & 24-70. I own the latter and find it great. I also own the AFS50/1.4 which I like because it is a great and small lens. This should cover your needs when comparing what you use with the Hasselblad. In the AF area I am eagerly awaiting a new 28/35 &  85.

I also own a bunch of Zeiss ZF lenses. These lenses I really appreciate and are totally awesome but are not suitable for faster work since they are manual focus, looking at most of your work this should not pose a problem. The one that is very high on my list that I don't own yet is the ZF21/3.5. The one ZF I am least content with is the 25/2.8. I really like the 35/2.0 and the 85/1.4. For stitching purposes the 50/2.0macro or 50/1.4 would be a great choice. You will appreciate the ZF lenses coming from the HC lenses.

These are the lenses I own at this moment (toghether with a whole bunch of old Nikkor macro lenses & 50/1.2's).

[PLLove]

I'm very seriously considering going from the Hasselblad H3DII-39MP to the Nikon D3x.
I'm asking this question in the MF section as I suspect those who have been using MFDB's are more prone to demand top image quality from any format they shoot.

Reasons:
1.  Cost - I'm just not getting enough time to be out shooting to deal with the dollar depreciation cost of the Hasselblad system
2.  Size/weight advantage for Nikon - at 62 years old on a long day hike, ANY weight reduction starts to be important!
3.  I've realized that I'm not going to generate enough sales to turn this obsession into a profitable business - I just am too busy with other areas of my life and would prefer to have my free time spent shooting rather than marketing and promoting my work.  Just want to do it for the love of it!
4.  Never print more than 16x20, other than the occasional pano image and then it's only 16" on one axis.

Now, with the advent of the D3x seems like I've got decent glass available to me (I tried the Canon 1DSMKII a couple of years back and was totally un-impressed with their lenses.)

With the Hasselblad, I shoot primarily with the 28mm lens, occasional the 100 and rarely the 150.
Topic is landscapes, abstracts and the occasional portrait.  My web site is http://www.shadowsdancing.com - click on Recent Works to see what I'm currently doing.

Looking at the Nikon line of lenses, dang, there are many flavors and I'm having a hard time figuring out what lenses are of the very best quality and can resolve the resolution and color depth of the D3x sensor.  I'm also very interested in the Perspective Correction lenses as I really miss my 4x5 with it's tilt, etc.

Thus, I'm asking for your guidance and suggestions.  Cost of the lens is not a factor, strictly quality of image produced by it.

Jack

Since you shoot mostly landscape, the D3x and 17-35 f2.8 AFS would be great!  You can use filters and it is stellar stopped down a bit (from f5.6 - f16).  The other wide option is the 14-24, which is optically better than the 17-35, but does not accept filters.  

The other lens that is just superb is the 24 f3.5 PC-E lens (http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2168/PC-E-NIKKOR-24mm-f%252F3.5D-ED.html).

Lastly, the other MUST have lens is the 24-70 f2.8 AFS.  I is incredible and my most used 35mm lens.  It is great for landscape and just about anything else!

For your purposes, you should be covered for landscape.  You might want to have a longer lens--180 f2.8 AFS (the 200 f2 is better but pretty heavy and hard to tote)

So, my suggestions:

Nikon 17-35 f2.8 AFS
Nikon 24 f3.5 PC-E
Nikon 24-70 AFS f2.8
Nikon 180 f2.8 AF-D

-Pat

[Lust4Life]

Agree - I definitely prefer primes, unless the exceptional zoom exists that can match prime lenses.
As I shoot the 100 instead of the 80, I rarely like the "normal" focal length lenses.

Good to hear the 24 PCE is a worthy lens.

What should the prefectionists lean towards of their lens designations:  DX, S, VR, DC, etc.
Want only the best construction and quality yet I find their designations don't indicate where in the pecking order the lens fits.

Thanks,
Jack

Jack, here is my opinion:
1) 2 absolute impressing non Nikon lenses: Sigma 50/1.4 and Sigma 150/2.8 macro both ver sharp, detailed. The 50 with a very smooth bokeh and low vignetting (compared to the Nikon version)
2) The 24-70/2.8 is very good IMO, however I prefer the primes and the zom stays a lot at home.
3) I really like the 24PCE - not only for perspective control but also because I think it is very sharp and delievers very nice tonal transitions.
4) for a short tele all three of the following are nice: 85/1.4, 105/2.0 and 135/2.0 - however the 135 can flare if you shoot tino strng light. I would recommend to get at least one of them
5)the 14-24/2.8 great wide angle zoom (if not the best), but huge, no filter mount. A great lens but in the end I dont use it much. I more often bring the 24PCE
6) I was unimpressed with the 70-200/2.8VR and therefore sold it. The 200/2.0VR is absolutly stunning. Contrast, Sharpness even wide open is great, AF is blazingly fast, its big but can still be handled without a tripod. I also like the 180/2.8. Very nice colors, saturated and good contrast

Are you more interested in primes or zooms?

[Justin Berman]

I'm very seriously considering going from the Hasselblad H3DII-39MP to the Nikon D3x.
I'm asking this question in the MF section as I suspect those who have been using MFDB's are more prone to demand top image quality from any format they shoot.

Reasons:
1.  Cost - I'm just not getting enough time to be out shooting to deal with the dollar depreciation cost of the Hasselblad system
2.  Size/weight advantage for Nikon - at 62 years old on a long day hike, ANY weight reduction starts to be important!
3.  I've realized that I'm not going to generate enough sales to turn this obsession into a profitable business - I just am too busy with other areas of my life and would prefer to have my free time spent shooting rather than marketing and promoting my work.  Just want to do it for the love of it!
4.  Never print more than 16x20, other than the occasional pano image and then it's only 16" on one axis.

Now, with the advent of the D3x seems like I've got decent glass available to me (I tried the Canon 1DSMKII a couple of years back and was totally un-impressed with their lenses.)

With the Hasselblad, I shoot primarily with the 28mm lens, occasional the 100 and rarely the 150.
Topic is landscapes, abstracts and the occasional portrait.  My web site is http://www.shadowsdancing.com - click on Recent Works to see what I'm currently doing.

Looking at the Nikon line of lenses, dang, there are many flavors and I'm having a hard time figuring out what lenses are of the very best quality and can resolve the resolution and color depth of the D3x sensor.  I'm also very interested in the Perspective Correction lenses as I really miss my 4x5 with it's tilt, etc.

Thus, I'm asking for your guidance and suggestions.  Cost of the lens is not a factor, strictly quality of image produced by it.

Jack

As a long Nikon user, the following lenses are what you should consider for absolute top quality optics:
Wide End:
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 (rivals the old Zeiss 21 in terms of corner to corner sharpness, but no filters. Wider than just about anything though, and incredibly sharp through its entire range at f/4)
Zeiss 21mm (Just rereleased in F mount, accepts filters, about as wide as your 28mm)
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 (accepts filters, not quite as sharp as the 14-24)
Nikon PC-E 24mm (Sharp to the corners, Tilt Shift, takes filters)

Normal:
Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (if you like autofocus)
Nikon 58mm f/1.2 (If you don't need it)
Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Macro (Sharper then either, but slower)

Telephoto to Long
Nikon 85mm f/1.4 (quite sharp, great bokeh)
Nikon PC-E 85mm f/2.8 (Super sharp, tilt shift, 1:2 without tubes)
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR (Tack sharp at mid-macro range, reasonable performer at distance, great bokeh)
Nikon 200mm f/2 VR (Biting sharp, blazingly fast AF, incredible bokeh, huge price, heavy as heck)

There is a nikon 200mm macro, but it is quite long in the tooth and supposedly up for replacement.

I know this sounds like a ton of lenses, but I have played with all of them at one time or another and if it were me, I would go with:
14-24 and 24 pc-e at the wide end, 58mm f/1.2, 105 macro.

If manual focus was out of the question, then 14-24, 17-35, 60mm Macro, 105mm macro.

That would cover almost everything I do. I personally need a longer lens for people work, but it sounded like you don't.

[PLLove]

Agree - I definitely prefer primes, unless the exceptional zoom exists that can match prime lenses.
As I shoot the 100 instead of the 80, I rarely like the "normal" focal length lenses.

Good to hear the 24 PCE is a worthy lens.

What should the prefectionists lean towards of their lens designations:  DX, S, VR, DC, etc.
Want only the best construction and quality yet I find their designations don't indicate where in the pecking order the lens fits.

Thanks,
Jack

Stay away from DX lens on the D3x.  The Dx line is made for non-full frame bodies.

-PL

[PeterAit]

You should seriously consider the 14-24 & 24-70. I own the latter and find it great. I also own the AFS50/1.4 which I like because it is a great and small lens. This should cover your needs when comparing what you use with the Hasselblad. In the AF area I am eagerly awaiting a new 28/35 &  85.

I also own a bunch of Zeiss ZF lenses. These lenses I really appreciate and are totally awesome but are not suitable for faster work since they are manual focus, looking at most of your work this should not pose a problem. The one that is very high on my list that I don't own yet is the ZF21/3.5. The one ZF I am least content with is the 25/2.8. I really like the 35/2.0 and the 85/1.4. For stitching purposes the 50/2.0macro or 50/1.4 would be a great choice. You will appreciate the ZF lenses coming from the HC lenses.

These are the lenses I own at this moment (toghether with a whole bunch of old Nikkor macro lenses & 50/1.2's).

I agree with others on the Nikkor 24-70 - it's an amazing lens. Unfortunately it is very expensive, large, and heavy.

Peter

[paratom]

Agree - I definitely prefer primes, unless the exceptional zoom exists that can match prime lenses.
As I shoot the 100 instead of the 80, I rarely like the "normal" focal length lenses.

Good to hear the 24 PCE is a worthy lens.

What should the prefectionists lean towards of their lens designations:  DX, S, VR, DC, etc.
Want only the best construction and quality yet I find their designations don't indicate where in the pecking order the lens fits.

Thanks,
Jack

Both DC lenses (105 and 135) are made for portrait stuff and are ver nice for skin and give a very smooth bokeh. I prefer the 105 DC compared to the Macro because of this.

AFS is nice but with a D3-series body the other lenses (like the 85 or 35 or 180 AF lenses without afs) also focus quit fast.

DX doesnt make sense on full frame.

VR nice to have in a telelens.

[revaaron]

funny I shoot with a DX lens on my D3, you just have to be careful. I also love my 105VR f/2.8 and the vingetting from the 70-200 works really well for most things I shoot. I think I shoot probably 3000 frames a week with the D3+17-55DX. to each his/her own. you just have to be careful. it's quite usable and sharp on FF from 25mm to 55mm.


The 17-35 f2.8 has been panned for use on the D3/x. I got a used one from ebay and ended up returning it. It was exceptional at F/8 and I would have kept it, but the outer element rubbed while zooming.


If I had to make a list of "must haves" for the D3/x
24-70
50 f/1.4 (old model not the new g model)
If you shoot 28mm on hassy, get the 14-24 and you will be more than happy.

in the future, you can look for a 85mm f/1.4 or 105 f/2.8 or something longer.
I'm currently ebaying for a new 85mm f/1.4 as it's been on my buy list for years.

[revaaron]

Nikon 58mm f/1.2 (If you don't need it)

there is also the 50mm version and 55mm version of this lens.
I lust after it just to have in my collection.

[Dustbak]

The 55 I found disappointing. The 50 is really nice. The 58Noct is in a whole other league from the stories. It is also very pricey. Don't expect to find one below 2000USD. I currently own only a 50/1.2 from the 2.

I have owned the older 50/1.4 and now the new AFS version. The AFS is not quickly and feels very plastic-like but nonetheless I find it a very nice performing lens. It is quickly becoming one of my favorites.

[sc_john]

Jack,

I too have made conversion from MFDB to Nikon D3X, in part because of size/weight. Based on photos on your site and my experiences, I would recommend considering the following:

Nikkor 24mm PC-E... sharp, great color/contrast, movements
Nikkor 45mm PC-E... ditto the above
Zeiss ZF-100/2 Makro... incredibly sharp, Zeiss look for color/contrast (which I like; YMMV). Lens focus is smooth, and I find that I have to use VF focus confirmation very little. Standard D3X screen works very well with this lens. I realize your OP said "Nikon" lenses, but the ZF-100 is a very special lens, IMHO.

and if you want something longer,
C/V 180/4... Small, light, great image quality/look. Same comments as ZF-100 regarding focusing. Again, not Nikon, but a special lens (to me).

I have owned/shot the 14-24 and 24-70, but never really "bonded" with them (probably due to size/weight; plus, I have to admit a bias toward primes). I do agree with everything that's been said here, though, regarding their stellar quality.

Good luck with your decisions.

John

[AndreNapier]

Does anybody use Leica glass on D3x?
Andre

[Carsten W]

Does anybody use Leica glass on D3x?
Andre

It is not possible without changing the mount, so very, very few people do. I would also be interested to see if anyone here does? I know that lots of people use Leicas on Canons though, but probably not for people, just still life and landscape.

[rethmeier]

I recently "downgraded" from a Sinar Hy6/75LV with Schneider and Zeiss lenses.

Now I use a D3x with  the 24+45+85 PC-E lenses.
All of these are excellent,however the 45 PC-E does show some CA,however easily fixable in post.
Plus I use the 14-24 Nikkor and the Zeiss ZF 35/2 +85/1.4 and and 100/2 Makro.
The ZF 35 also shows some CA.

Love to have the Nikkor 200/2 VR,but for my sort of work I probably wouldn't use it that much.

I believe Nikon is coming out soon(I hope) with a new 70-200 zoom.

That's something I would consider.

All in all,I'm very happy with the ease of use with the D3x and all of the above lenses.

Best,
Willem.

[revaaron]

The 55 I found disappointing. The 50 is really nice. The 58Noct is in a whole other league from the stories. It is also very pricey. Don't expect to find one below 2000USD. I currently own only a 50/1.2 from the 2.

oh my...  I've only looked on ebay for the 50 cause I just want one. I would never use it.

I have owned the older 50/1.4 and now the new AFS version. The AFS is not quickly and feels very plastic-like but nonetheless I find it a very nice performing lens. It is quickly becoming one of my favorites.

really, I'm a little dismayed. I use the 50 f/1.4 all the time, but I don't own one.  my gf owns one and moved on to canon 5D 's from the nikon d2x.  But now she borrows my D3 for all her concerts.  It usually doesn't work out well for me. But now she wants to get a D700 which means she would take back her 50 f/1.4 and I wouldn't have it's small foot print in my bag anymore.  I guess I can just buy another used lens. I once dropped her lens off a table, it fell 4' on to cement, and bounced back up into my descending hand. I looked at the barrel and put it on my camera and shot with it just fine.

[revaaron]

I apologize for posting pictures cause everyone is going to hate on it, but I'm doing it anyhow.

I love the combination of the 70-200 and the D3

it's long enough to "get into the action" and I find it's really sharp

if you are more wide open with @ 70mm you see vignetting.
I never really noticed it on the Kodak slr/n cause I guess I never paid attention.
but after seeing this:

I realized that it showed vignetting on the slr/n too.

I like the way it looks, but like someone said to me "how to you get it to not vignette"
*zing*

[Dustbak]

oh my...  I've only looked on ebay for the 50 cause I just want one. I would never use it.



really, I'm a little dismayed. I use the 50 f/1.4 all the time, but I don't own one.  my gf owns one and moved on to canon 5D 's from the nikon d2x.  But now she borrows my D3 for all her concerts.  It usually doesn't work out well for me. But now she wants to get a D700 which means she would take back her 50 f/1.4 and I wouldn't have it's small foot print in my bag anymore.  I guess I can just buy another used lens. I once dropped her lens off a table, it fell 4' on to cement, and bounced back up into my descending hand. I looked at the barrel and put it on my camera and shot with it just fine.

I have not tried bouncing the plastic new AFS50/1.4 on the ground (yet). Even if it does feel plastic, light and cheap it would not surprise me if it is sturdier than you would expect. My main objection to this lens is the slow AFS focus, this is hardly faster than the old AFD50/1.4. The image quality is outstanding, it is just one of those truly ugly lenses that generates pleasantly surprising results.

BTW the 50/1.2 can be picked up for about 400/600USD depending on its state on Ebay. There are even new versions which are typically going at the high-end of that range. It is just the 58/1.2 that is ridiculously priced, I would love to have one some day if only for seeing myself what it can do. The 50/1.2 wide open makes lovely dreamy shots with a hint of sharpness. If you tend to shoot apertures smaller than 2.8 it basically is a waste of money, you would be better off getting a cheaper 50.

[revaaron]

I just want the 50mm 1.2 to say that I own it. I shoot a lot at f/2.0 when I can. the next lens I'm getting is te 85mm f1.4 for this. I have lusted after that chunk of glass forever.
I have the 105vr and wish that that was 2.0 and AF. I don't want to buy the MF version. f/2.8 doesn't have that same cleaved like a razor's edge look.

basically all the lenses I buy are a waste of money and I just use the same 1 or 2 lenses for everything and have to force myself to use something else.
Even more stupid is that I carry like 2 cameras and 5 lenses. then I just use one camera and one lens. Oh well.