All the lenses you have will work with the D800 as there is a setting on the camera which detects which lenses are full frame (FX) and which are 1.5 crop(DX). This being said, you will need to buy the best lenses to get the best results. Because the D800 has such a high megapixel rate if you use cheap lenses it will show every flaw in your images. PM me if you need more help. theoldnikonian

@ Gitzo

The answer is in the forum rules posted by {NR} admin:

"I changed the edit post function - now you can edit your posts up to 24 hr after posting it, after that the edit button will disappear."

.

It's phine. Don't wurry about it.

Here's a question for anyone understanding how this website "works".............how long does one have, after making a post, to go back and edit the post in order to fix a "typo" ?

I just now noticed, in the next to last paragraph of my reply to the OP, I mistakenly referred to his "percent" camera, when I SHOULD have typed, his "present" camera.........also, in the last paragraph, the seventh word from the end should be "thorough", rather than "through".......(ugghh !)

(Maybe I should fire my proofreader ?)

@ bydavidrosen

Are you still with us? Maybe you can shoot some photos and post on Photo-A-Day....We always like to see what folks are shooting.

bydavidrosen asks / says........

I'm a little confused though about something. I was thinking about possibly at some point upgrading to a Nikon D800. Which if any of these lenses will be compatible? From what I understand there are two types of mounts, DX and FX, and the D800 is an FX mount, but I can't seem to get a grasp of which kind my 3 current lenses are (i believe the Sigma is a DX though). And if they are DX, will they work and if there are any shortcomings.

Hi David;
You're getting a lot of advice, but before you even think about buying another camera, something you said in that statement tells me that you are a bit mixed up about "something"........Quote: "I understand there are two types of mounts"............
The "mount" refers to the physical "attachment" on the small end of the lens which enables it to "mate" (and physically "attach" to ANY Nikon camera body; (and it hasn't changed "physically" for years and years now, although newer Nikon bodies have various electrical contacts that were lacking on older film bodies.

The "DX" and "FX" simply refers to the size of the sensor used in a particular camera; The FX sensor is called "full frame", as it presents approximately the same size "format" as used in 35mm film cameras. The DX ( or "APS-C") size sensor is about 3/4 as big as the FX sensor. Now..........

All lenses are designed to collect light from a "subject", then bring that light "to focus" on the sensor; this was a bit easier to grasp in the days of 35mm film cameras, because regardless of how much the particular camera cost, they ALL had the same 35mm "format" (of 36mm X 24mm), because they ALL used the same 35mm film. With digital cameras, the sensors come in a "bunch" of sizes, (the inexpensive "point & shoot" cameras have sensors much smaller even than the so=called" DX bodies; but because they don't have interchangeable lenses, we can forget about them for the moment.

A so-called DX lens produces a "light cone" which is just ample to cover the smaller DX sensor; If you put it on an FX body, the cone of light would be too small to cover the larger FX format; however.......as FX lenses are designed to produce a somewhat bigger cone of light, it WILL cover the smaller DX sensor; however.........if the FX lens is say, 50mm in focal length, when you bring that size cone of light to focus on the smaller size DX sensor, the same lens nows has an "effective focal length" of 75mm. ( This is all very confusing unless you happen to be an optical engineer / lens designer, which I definitely AM NOT !)

As "confusing" as it may seem, until you throughly understand it all, I would advise sticking with your percent camera, take a lot of pictures, read everything you can get your hands on, and you may "be ready" to "upgrade" to FX surprisingly soon; ( in the meantime, you can take excellent photographs with your present camera, assuming you throughly understand it's capabilities and know how to operate it.) (and GOOD LUCK !)

The goal of any photographer should be to take "great pictures". Using expensive, "high end" cameras DOES make taking great pictures easier, but ONLY if the photographer has progressed in his / her "knowledge" of the basics of photography to a point where they have a through understanding of the equipment being used.

No chance!

Postman said:
Thanks folks, divided opinion

Hahaha

Did you think we would all agree on the one best lens? Never!

Thanks folks, divided opinion - I've just read through the recent dpreview article on Iceland. Shot with a 5DII mostly with the Canon 16-35 @ 16mm, that visit being my immediate concern is swaying me to the 16-35. I'll certainly end up with the 24-70 at some point, but after the 16-35 I imagine.

That being said, a (relatively) cheap 20mm 2.8 AF-D could be a good alternate wide route. I've read mixed opinion on its wide open performance but stopped down, it sounds a bargain if I can find one 2nd hand.

Thanks again.

@Postman I can't comment on the 16-35 since I've never shot with it but the 24-70 is simply amazing. It's incredibly sharp all over and maybe it's just me but I think it renders colors more vibrantly than any other lens I own. You'll also get more versatility with the 24-70 since you'll still have your 10-24 for UW if you want.

OTOH, I say if you're more into UW shots and think majority of your shots will be so then the 16-35 seems like the more appropriate choice.

msmoto said:
Great thread....but the real issue is I believe not about purchasing a new body, but instead about just advice in general.

+ one
If you have a DX camera, concentrate on Dx glass (generally it's a lot cheaper)

if you win or inherit lots of $$$$$ and move to Fx, sell the lot and start again

Postman,

i am not usually into giving advice, but I will try here. I have been to Iceland (El-Pickerel has too). I would suggest the 16-35. I have the 24=70, which I had with me. I wish in some cases it had been wider. Because the 24-70 isn't as wide as I would want, I now have the 20mm Nikkor, which works well, but many here may not feel so. So the 16-35 for landscapes with the 50 and 85 for other situations.

So, I'm in a similar boat to the OP.

I recently arranged a trip away for my parents as a Xmas present, the earliest Xmas present I've ever, ever bought. Unfortunately as I'd kept it a secret (as you do) I hadn't told them so have been very aware of them making plans on the dates in question. Sod's law crops up and they start to make plans so I'm forced to (sort of) tell them. Anyway, they're over the moon and in return they decide to tell me that a D800 is basically coming my way. I can't believe it.

Anyway, I have two FX ready lenses, the 50mm 1.8G and the 85mm 1.8G. These will be great for the low light people shots but I'll be stuck with nothing wide for what is essentially my primary passion, landscapes. I have the 10-24mm for emergency DX mode I suppose, but I really want to avoid that if possible. I'm going to Iceland in February next year for what will primarily be a photographing jaunt.

I've decided to get myself either the 16-35mm f4 or 24-70mm f2.8, but I can't decide which. Both have their pros and cons for me. 24mm is quite wide, around 16mm in terms of angle of view in DX terms, but I do shoot my 10-24mm at 10 or maybe 12 most of the time. I can't decide if the 24-70mm would be a better 1 lens on the body solution or would the 16-35mm be better, with the 50mm being easily pocket-able in size for where I want an aperture wider than f4.

I would rate the 70-300VR lens as the single most important field telephoto lens Nikon makes. I have owned well over $100,00 in just lenses. There is a huge trade off in size of lens, speed of focus, and a whole batch of complex factors in using tele glass. I have owned the 70-200 2.8s (Nikkors) and the 80-200 2.8. But without use of the TC 2.0 often the 80-200 2.8 just isn't enough reach and the resultant rig is just plain too heavy. Even the 70-300 D Nikkors are very good. But they are NOT VR and ARE HARD TO FIND. So take the many here who have advised the 70-300VR Nikkor. It is almost my single favorite lens. Is it perfect? NO! But it is fast, quite excellent, and the price is WONDERFUL! Too bad I can't say the same thing for the 80-400VR Nikkor which is well over twice as heavy and twice as expensive. And the 80-400VR is SLOW! If you get the 70-300VR please keep us posted!

Absolutely get the 70-300, and as tcole said, maje sure it's the VR version. It a very good lens and it will complement your 18-105 quite well. While it can be a little soft at 300, it is very good throughout the rest of the range. Look around for a good used copy, they seem to be fairly easy to find.

drskb74 said:
I own a Nikon D7000 since about an year. Have already got the kit 18-105 lens, also bought Tokina 11-16 for wide angle and :1.8 / 35G lens. Now I need a zoom lens. What should I go for? I cant afford 70-200 lens. I am not a professional photographer. I need to choose between 55-200 / 70-300 lens.

That is an easy one. 70-300 all the way. 55-200 is just ok and is gping to overlap the better 18-105 so there isn't much point in the 55-200. Just make sure you get the vr version of the 70-300. Another option might be one of the third party 70-200 but still more expensive then the 70-300.

I own a Nikon D7000 since about an year. Have already got the kit 18-105 lens, also bought Tokina 11-16 for wide angle and :1.8 / 35G lens. Now I need a zoom lens. What should I go for? I cant afford 70-200 lens. I am not a professional photographer. I need to choose between 55-200 / 70-300 lens.

The numbers are not really the point. I think sqaumish made the point. With a D90 one can get absolutely great photos. The glass is more important. And rather than spend all the money on a D800, more good results for the buck can be had by purchasing $3000 in lenses. And starting a nice collection of full format glass so the eventual transition to full frame will not be such a shock is possibly the best advice once one figures out what types of photos one wants to take.

I would say $12000 is high, but not totally out of the range of getting good glass to go along with the D800. I easily have over $4000 worth of lenses for my D5000 and I don't even have a single lens of the holy trinity (which is around $7000+ new) Add that to the $3000 for D800 and you have $10,000. That being said you can shop around, buy used, buy older versions and come in well below that number. I however have learned that scrimping on the lenses isn't the best idea even for a body such as my D5000.

Im sorry, but $12,000 is a completely outrageous suggestion. By no means is that a necessity for owning a D800. Its just a camera like any other. Of course the camera shines with exotic glass, but so does every single DSLR Nikon has ever made. Ask anyone here that owns the 105mm VR how amazing it is on their D40, D90, D5000, D5100, D7000, D700, D3 respectively. For well under $2000 one could equip a great variety of lens kits for use with a D800 that would cover most needs for a variety of photographic styles. Be it a couple used pro zooms to cover the range or a handfull of 1.8 and 2.8 primes to do the same, its easy to imagine spending less than $5000 total to give yourself the same range you have now with a FX kit instead. Get a D700 and keep the same $5000 budget and you could really go wild with the glass and probably be just as happy if not happier.

msmoto said:
Great thread....but the real issue is I believe not about purchasing a new body, but instead about just advice in general.

So, from a D90 owner, my suggestion is to first decide what you want to photograph. A few thoughts...portraits....maybe you could invest in either an 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor G, or if your goals include some longer range like race cars or wild animals, go with the 70-200mm f/2.8VRII Nikkor. If wide angle for architecture/landscapes is your bent, maybe 14-24mm f/2.8 NikkorG. All of these are full frame lenses and if you decide to upgrade to a D800, you will have some glass to go on the front end.

The format of either 23.9mm x 36mm (full format, FX) or 23.6mm x 15.8mm (cropped sensor, DX) is the critical issue and the lens data should describe what the coverage is. In any case, The cost of a D800 while it appears is $3,000 is in reality more like $12,000. If you do not have the lenses to go on the front, the D90 will serve you just fine IMO.

Get the glass, learn the lingo, here on Nikon Rumors Forum if you like, and see what is done with the various cameras. Lots of excellent D90 shots. And I have no problem shooting my D90 right along side my D4.

great info. thank you. and exactly. just trying to learn and connect the dots. been learning for the last couple years but there's still lots of stuff for me to understand. this is all helping a lot.

Great thread....but the real issue is I believe not about purchasing a new body, but instead about just advice in general.

So, from a D90 owner, my suggestion is to first decide what you want to photograph. A few thoughts...portraits....maybe you could invest in either an 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor G, or if your goals include some longer range like race cars or wild animals, go with the 70-200mm f/2.8VRII Nikkor. If wide angle for architecture/landscapes is your bent, maybe 14-24mm f/2.8 NikkorG. All of these are full frame lenses and if you decide to upgrade to a D800, you will have some glass to go on the front end.

The format of either 23.9mm x 36mm (full format, FX) or 23.6mm x 15.8mm (cropped sensor, DX) is the critical issue and the lens data should describe what the coverage is. In any case, The cost of a D800 while it appears is $3,000 is in reality more like $12,000. If you do not have the lenses to go on the front, the D90 will serve you just fine IMO.

Get the glass, learn the lingo, here on Nikon Rumors Forum if you like, and see what is done with the various cameras. Lots of excellent D90 shots. And I have no problem shooting my D90 right along side my D4.

If i remember right, Tamron designate their crop only lenses as DI ii, sigma as DC, Nikon and tokina as DX. Both your 28-75 and your 50/1.8D are FX compatible. Perhaps you could sell the 18-200 and get a 70-300 VR or since you are considering buying a D800, perhaps even a 70-200 2.8 VR2

SquamishPhoto said:
Sell all your gear. If your budget allowed you to afford a $3000 body, yet you can't find the means to upgrade your glass then you'll benefit more from the cash from selling your gear than you would by trying to modify your kit around those lenses.

I am going to go +1 here. You don't have much money invested in your glass. The 18-200 isn't going to really be usable at all or at least I wouldn't use it. They 50 and 28-75 could be used, but you could probably do better. I would sell them all and get something like the 24-120 to start with instead. Or maybe at least keep the 50.

tcole1983 said:
Hmm...you are going to get a $3000 camera, but you don't know if you lenses are fx or dx? Not to mention you need some better glass if you are really planning on a d800. Without looking them up I know you nikon is fx. You other two are dx...you can use them but keep your d90 if you plan on that.

My bad. Was on my phone or I would have noticed the 28-75 is an FX range lens. That being said...I would still invest in some glass before I spent $3000 on a new body. As for how to figure out which lens is what type...most of the time you can look on either the manufacturer website or other retailers (quick search on Amazon "This remarkable zoom lens also focuses down to 0.33m (13”) (1:3.9 magnification) at all focal lengths for satisfying close-up performance and is compatible with APS-C and full-frame-format SLRs. Not surprisingly it is widely acclaimed as a classic.") and it will specifically say if it is for FX or DX. I believe one usually also uses DX in the name for their DX lenses as well.

Anyway...the Tamron isn't my cup of tea. I have tried it out. I actually like Sigma more, but I have heard more complaints about Sigma it seems. I only own Nikon lenses now and they are all great...so don't really see any reason to get another brand unless they make one for a specific use that Nikon doesn't have.

And...maybe research more. IMO the difference between FX and DX is a fairly uncomplicated idea and something most enthusiasts should know. Not knocking your skills or knowledge specifically, but maybe read up more and figure out what is going on. I mean that is a big jump from a D90 to D800 and you aren't sure if your lenses will even work. Not to be a total ass, but...just throwing it out there.