I have been researching lenses for my new D800 and I have been disappointed by the snobbery that surrounds the D800. Yes its a fantastic camera and of course you should endeavour to get the best glass you can afford for it. So far I have the 14 - 24 and the 28 - 300. I don't agree much with Ken "growing family" Rockwell, but he is right on one thing: I don't care what the charts show, they make me yawn. I don't want to take photos of charts and lines, I want to take photos of landscapes and cityscapes with perhaps a bit of macro and if there is some passing wildlife I'll grab that too.

I went on safari some years ago and I'd love to do it again. What lenses would I like to take with me? A 300 or 400 prime, of course! Which will be most practical? I'd pack the 28 - 300 for sure. I'll be getting the 70 - 200 VRII at some point, but don't want to pay rip off Britain prices for it> I may well also get the 24 - 70, but there are times when you need simplicity.

Yes I could grab a crop camera, but why should I? The only reason I use my Canon 7d (yes I know that's a swear word here) is for extra reach. There are many uses for the 28 - 300. Is it the sharpest lens out there? I'm experienced enough to know that a 10.7x range isn't going to be the sharpest lens. Is it still sharp? Yes it is. In the real world it's a good place to start, yes even on the holy grail that is the D800. Will it live on your camera? Possibly - until you can afford the best glass, but it will be one you hold on to as although it may not be the best glass, it is practical, and not that heavy. Compare it to the Canon 28 - 300L (which I have) and it's as light as a feather.

So to anyone looking for glass for a D800 - don't be a lens snob. Get the best glass you can afford. If all you can afford at the momemt is the 28 - 300, you will still get good results. By all means save up for better glass, but the 28 - 300 is a great lens to have as a walkabout lens, and yes any camera can be a walkabout lens - my 645D is often such an animal. I'm rarely out and about without a camera - sometimes the iphone just wn't cut it.

As usual YMMV.

If I knew that I'd eventually buy the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens and spend $1800 USD for it like I did, I'd probably buy the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 with that money instead as a first lens. With a 35mm lens a few steps forward gets you the equiv. of 70mm and a few steps back for about 24mm equiv. The reason is personal...I've grown to love the feel of primes when I'm holding my camera. The 35mm f/1.4 is supposed to be a true gem as well. Plus, what Wataru said above, if necessary with the D800 the FX 1.2x crop gets you about 42mm, and the DX 1.5x gets you about 53mm if in a bind.

@lynne24: I am going to use the 20-35 Nikkor (an older lens) on my D800 when I close on it. I did test that exact combination as a store let me do it. It was almost my favorite lens on the F5 I still own and never will part with. The D800 is an amazing camera. Buying a 20-35 Nikkor might be a problem. B&H does not the used ones away=expensive. Since I already own mine and love it, that will be my first starting point with the 70-300VR. For me it looks like the lens to add to what I already have would be the 24-120 Nikkor VR.

If I had to do it over again, I'd start with primes. With the D800 they act as zooms (cropping and or DX mode), they take up less room in the camera bag, and they are faster. VR is great for camera shake, but doesn't stop subject motion. In that case you need primes.

The 24, 50, and 85 1.4s are a good place to start. I have taken more exposures with these than the Trinity.

YMMV

I agree with image zone, apart from the x2 coverter with the 70 -120

This is not a combination I would reccomed with a D800 ( Yes, I have a D800, the 70-200 and a X2)

With the x2 you need to stop down to f8 and even then it does not cut the mustard

My recommendation. Purchase the 24-120mm F/4.0 EX VR, it is an all around go to lens and has great specs and MTF. If you use telephoto get the 70-200 f/2.8 it is a supper lens and has better contrast and resolution then the 80-300. Check out the MTF charts. Also if you really need 300mm then add the 2x Tele-converter and that will give you 140-400mm f/4.0. DON'T BUY CHEAPER GLASS. THE RULE IS, buy a cheaper body and buy the best glass you can. Its the glass that gives you the sharpness and contrast. Also stay with full frame FX.

Here is a thought about the Tokina.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/370/(brand)/Tokina/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/221/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/0

I do not own any of these, but there are some who suggest these are very good. Read the review carefully and decide. Of course, the 24mm f/1.4 is probably the best one, unfortunately I have that neither.

lynne24 said:
or my original choice the 24mm f1.4

I do not have this lens my self but all my friends rave about it
unless you really need something wider than 24mm
combined with a D800, for stage and weddings, the 24 f1.4 it is going to very hard / impossible to beat

msmoto said:
Well, for a lens built in the 1990's it is apparently good, but not as good as the 14-24mm f/2.8. Ken Rockwell has stated it is sharp, about like the early 17-35. For $700-800 USD for a used lens, I would consider the new 16-35mm f/4.0 VR for about $1200. The VR is of no value for action, but it is a sharp lens and the coatings on the newer lenses may be more resistant to objectionable issues due to reflections internally, an issue in stage settings. Of course, the 14-24mm f/2.8, well this is the first class ticket but at the $2000 price level. You may wish to consider the new 28mm f/1.8G. It would be the price of the used 20-35mm and would no doubt be a better lens and of course one and a half stops faster.

I am not a fan of used lenses unless it comes from a reliable source and can be fully tested prior to final sale or at least returned if unsatisfactory. But, others may have opinions which include some who may have used this lens.

Many thanks for the reply @msmoto. The 14-24mm f2.8 is way too heavy, expensive and specialist for me. The 16-35mm f4 sounds a great lens but I really do need fast lenses for low light work and 28mm doesn't quite give me the width I need for full stage shots.

I think my realistic options are the 17-35mm f2.8, 20-35mm f2.8 or my original choice the 24mm f1.4 which is similar price to the 17-35mm but is 2 stops faster and will have the resistant coating. I have no doubts about the 17-35mm and the 24mm for the D800 but it would be nice to pay so much less and still get the extra range of the 20-35mm. I do share your apprehension about buying old used lenses. Never done that before so not sure of reliable sources in the UK. There's also the thought that manual focus override might be very useful when using autofocus for video. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has experience of the 20-35mm f2.8 on the D800.

lynne24 said:
Anyone know how well the Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 performs on the D800? I would need a high quality fast wide zoom mainly for weddings and low light stage work. I know the 17-35mm f2.8 is very slightly better at most things but is bigger heavier and around 3 times the price of a used 20-35mm. I've heard there isn't a huge difference in sharpness. Both are quite old and pro level. I'd prefer the extra range and manual focus override but wonder if the 17-35mm is really worth that much extra?

Well, for a lens built in the 1990's it is apparently good, but not as good as the 14-24mm f/2.8. Ken Rockwell has stated it is sharp, about like the early 17-35. For $700-800 USD for a used lens, I would consider the new 16-35mm f/4.0 VR for about $1200. The VR is of no value for action, but it is a sharp lens and the coatings on the newer lenses may be more resistant to objectionable issues due to reflections internally, an issue in stage settings. Of course, the 14-24mm f/2.8, well this is the first class ticket but at the $2000 price level. You may wish to consider the new 28mm f/1.8G. It would be the price of the used 20-35mm and would no doubt be a better lens and of course one and a half stops faster.

I am not a fan of used lenses unless it comes from a reliable source and can be fully tested prior to final sale or at least returned if unsatisfactory. But, others may have opinions which include some who may have used this lens.

msmoto said:
Just one more thought...add the 70-20mm f/2.8 VRII, and a TC-14EII or TC-20EIII Teleconverter.... very nice performers...

The 70-200 2.8 with the TC-20EIII is what I used on the drag boats a couple of weeks ago and it worked great, with my D800. I'll be using that combo today on some planes at a flyin.

I think the best all around lens that is affordable for the D800 would be the 24-120 F4. I'll be using it today as well, it's my favorite go to lens.

Anyone know how well the Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 performs on the D800? I would need a high quality fast wide zoom mainly for weddings and low light stage work. I know the 17-35mm f2.8 is very slightly better at most things but is bigger heavier and around 3 times the price of a used 20-35mm. I've heard there isn't a huge difference in sharpness. Both are quite old and pro level. I'd prefer the extra range and manual focus override but wonder if the 17-35mm is really worth that much extra?

msmoto said:
Just one more thought...add the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, and a TC-14EII or TC-20EIII Teleconverter.... very nice performers...

The the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII,is one of Nikon top lenses but

Sorry I cant recommend the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, and a TC-20EIII with the D800

if you have D800 you are going to have fork out for the 200-400

or a 300 and a TC-14EII

thank you msmoto.. will surely check them out. however i doubt if i can buy them now :(

my last question: my vendor is telling Nikon has stopped the production of SB700 and he is suggesting me to buy SB910!! should i go for 910 or search for 700 elsewhere as the price difference is substantial.

Just one more thought...add the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, and a TC-14EII or TC-20EIII Teleconverter.... very nice performers...

@Zok: Thank you for your reply. if things go well i might buy both the lens at once. else 70-300 will have to wait for some days :(.

and will surely carry my tripod when i go on trips :)

@msmoto: Thank you for your reply. i am really bad with numbers and those charts are out of my understanding :)

but i did read through both the threads. i will be buying 50mm f1.8G with D800. will buy 70-300 after some days.

Prathap,

I just got a D800 with a 50mm f/1.8G to start out with also. My old 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G lens works fine with it, and the pictures from it are noticeably better than my old DX body. I consider this impressive for a fairly cheap lens that was probably designed for casual consumer use, and I've flown mine around the world many times, thrown it in backpacks, luggage, etc. I even shattered the uv filter it was wearing once, and soaked it with condensation repeatedly.

However, now that the camera is better than the lens, you're going to think "hmm, maybe my retirement fund isn't as important as spending the $6k on the 300mm f/2.8G right now", so be warned.

It also seems like a little bit of blurriness due to camera shake is a lot more noticeable now due to the higher resolution, so you might find yourself wanting to put it on the tripod more often now.

A couple of threads which deal with this

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2425

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=274

Hii all..

I am planning to buy D800 this weekend. with it I will be buying 50mm f1.8G. I wanted to know how is 'Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED' lens on D800?

Thank you.

JForhan said:
Was able to get a few shots. I added them to a set on Flikr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/81843262@N06/sets/72157630462101792/

Thanks Jeff.

Was able to get a few shots. I added them to a set on Flikr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/81843262@N06/sets/72157630462101792/

Sorry Bossa, it was taken with my 28-300.

If the weather cooperates tomorrow I will try to get some shots with the TC + 70-200...

Later,
Jeff

Nice shot but the only sharp part is the eye really. At least at 100% that's the only sharp part of the image that I can see. That's not meant to be a criticism but an observation. The DOF is so thin anyway that it's hard to judge the lens combo. If you had some shots of buildings it would be more helpful. Your image has less CA than I was getting though.. maybe I had a dud TC.

PS: Was that pic taken with a 70-200 + TC or a 28-300?

PS2: I must be having a bad day understanding text.. I see that it is the 70-300.

It id not take long since I have Comcast DOCSIS 3.0...Besides the JPEG I uploaded was only 12MB. I exported the NEF with LR4. Has basic LR4 processing for lens, etc.

I think it is a great shot too. Like I said, I guess my 28-300 was a good sample. And a gray market one at that. Got lucky!

:-)

Later,
Jeff