Lens line up for Nikon D800/800E/810

[PeterAit]

It depends on what you are going to want to photograph in Paris. It's hard to say otherwise.

Agreed. It also depends on your personal style. I, for example, am a framing fanatic, and depend on zooms to get exactly what I want in the frame. This lets me take full advantage of the resolution of my sensor. Primes are sometimes theoretically better, but suppose I use a 35mm lens to take a photo that really needed a 60mm lens. I crop 50% in processing and all of a sudden my $3200 36MP camera becomes a $1000 18MP camera. Is this good? I don't think so.

[markdavisleica]

thanks again.  No need to respond to my question re 28mm as I have gone ahead and ordered the Sigma 35mm, which I will get tomorrow.  Happy times!

[markdavisleica]

thanks Peter.  Our postings crossed.  That is an interesting point and probably leads to the conclusion that something like the 70-200mm f/2.8 would be an excellent and versatile lens for a D800/E/810 over the long term.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

There is a blog at lensrentals.com about 70mm from 24-70 and 70-200 both Canon and Nikon. Basically the Canons are excellent and the 70-200 Nikon also. The Nikon 24-70 is lagging somewhat.

I have gone with the 14-24 and 70-200 f/2.8. I really like them both.

Had a copy of the Sigma 35 Art and saw the potential. Razor sharp but mine had a slight decentering problem so refunded and never got around to getting another.

[Rory]

I was in Paris with a 35mm this summer and ended up doing a lot of panos.  If you are not used to doing panos I'd suggest you do some practicing before you go and come back with some fab shots ;*).  Luck!

[muntanela]

thanks Peter.  Our postings crossed.  That is an interesting point and probably leads to the conclusion that something like the 70-200mm f/2.8 would be an excellent and versatile lens for a D800/E/810 over the long term.

Only the 70-200 f. 2.8 VRII

[Jan K.]

thanks Peter.  Our postings crossed.  That is an interesting point and probably leads to the conclusion that something like the 70-200mm f/2.8 would be an excellent and versatile lens for a D800/E/810 over the long term.

Oh! a longer lens? If interested in one, take a long look at the f/4 version... speaking of excellence and vesatility...

[BernardLanguillier]

Oh! a longer lens? If interested in one, take a long look at the f/4 version... speaking of excellence and vesatility...

Agreed, the 70-200 f4 works great!



Cheers,
Bernard

[Kevin Sink]

Since we've drifted into longer lens discussions for the Nikon D800e, I have to plug a lens I've rented twice from LensRentals.  The Nikon 200mm f2 is big, heavy, obnoxious, and one of the most beautiful lenses I've ever used.  Wicked sharp and the bokeh is more beautiful than a Mary Oliver poem.  I did find out that putting the camera on tripod, without VR, and using both the mirror up and a 3 second shutter delay gave the best results.  And by best, I mean holy crap that looks incredible!  I did a bunch of pano stitches from a trip to Utah with this combination and the results were superb when the photographer picked the right scene!

[BernardLanguillier]

Since we've drifted into longer lens discussions for the Nikon D800e, I have to plug a lens I've rented twice from LensRentals.  The Nikon 200mm f2 is big, heavy, obnoxious, and one of the most beautiful lenses I've ever used.  Wicked sharp and the bokeh is more beautiful than a Mary Oliver poem.  I did find out that putting the camera on tripod, without VR, and using both the mirror up and a 3 second shutter delay gave the best results.  And by best, I mean holy crap that looks incredible!  I did a bunch of pano stitches from a trip to Utah with this combination and the results were superb when the photographer picked the right scene!

The new 400mm f2.8 E FL is in the same class IMHO. But it is a bit pricey.







Cheers,
Bernard

[markdavisleica]

Thank you Bernard.  The images are stunning!

Thanks to all for the advice previously on ideal lens line-ups for a weekend city break.  I ended up buying the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and taking that with me to Paris along with the Nikon 16-35mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.4.  I found that I used the 35mm and 16-35mm fairly often for architectural and cityscape shots, but had the 50mm on most of the time as I wandered the streets.  Its size and weight made it the easiest to carry around and the image quality, especially for street photography, more than adequate.  Some of my Paris images are on flickr at markdavisleica - https://www.flickr.com/photos/124595163@N05/.

Numerous posts about longer telephoto zooms have got me reading all the reviews and it seems to me that nobody who gets the Nikon 70-200 f/4 is at all disappointed, or wishes they had gone for the considerably more heavy and expensive f/2.8.  Please shout now if I am wrong about this, as I am going to get the f/4 this weekend.

[BernardLanguillier]

Numerous posts about longer telephoto zooms have got me reading all the reviews and it seems to me that nobody who gets the Nikon 70-200 f/4 is at all disappointed, or wishes they had gone for the considerably more heavy and expensive f/2.8.  Please shout now if I am wrong about this, as I am going to get the f/4 this weekend.

I like the 70-200 f4!





Cheers,
Bernard

[NancyP]

Bernard, I really like that first green roof detail photo. Thanks for posting.

[synn]

I'm a big fan of the 70-200 f/4 on the D800 too.

http://www.sandeepmurali.com/p356709065/h73f3c959#h73f3c959

[PeterAit]

I'm a big fan of the 70-200 f/4 on the D800 too.

http://www.sandeepmurali.com/p356709065/h73f3c959#h73f3c959

Me too, the 70-200 f/4 is one of my very favorite lenses ever. Unless you really need that extra stop, the f/2.8 seems like a waste of money plus more weight to carry.

[synn]

I sold the 2.8 v1 to get the f/4. The latter outclassed the former in every way.

[Jan K.]

... Numerous posts about longer telephoto zooms have got me reading all the reviews and it seems to me that nobody who gets the Nikon 70-200 f/4 is at all disappointed, or wishes they had gone for the considerably more heavy and expensive f/2.8.  Please shout now if I am wrong about this, as I am going to get the f/4 this weekend.

Mansurov did a direct comparison test... http://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8

I used to link to this, when people was claiming better bokeh on the 2.8.  

Btw. I never bothered getting the tripod mounting ring for the lens. It's actually not that much heavier than my wide angle...

[Peter McLennan]

I sold the 2.8 v1 to get the f/4. The latter outclassed the former in every way.

Exactly what I was going to say.  It's just excellent. I don't miss my old 2.8 at all.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

You all make a strong case for the f/4. It didn't exist when I got the 2.8 but I will have to look into it. The weight/size might be worth a swap. But I am happy with the images from the 2.8.

[BernardLanguillier]

Exactly what I was going to say.  It's just excellent. I don't miss my old 2.8 at all.

To be fair, there are cases where I have missed the extra stop for low light action situation though.

Cheers,
Bernard