Re VR Beso and kyoshinikon, you are right, point taken, I concede. I have seen a small laser mounted on the barrel of a lens and aimed at a wall of a building 100 mtrs away with the student told to hold the camera as steady as possible, boy you should have seen the spot on the wall dance. A good demonstration of how blur can occur I thought.

I use my 14-24mm on my D7000 and it is tack sharp. Doesn't the D800 have a close pixel pitch to the D7000? I never have an issue with sharpness even in low light... Around 1/10th of a sec is where is start getting motion blur. Then again I find Vr useless as I do sports...

MikeFrewer said:
Any suggestions for a suitable lens for landscape photography with a D800 would be very greatful.

Mike, I have been using both the AF-S Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 and the AF-S Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 for landscapes. I like them both equally well and the images are incredibly sharp, even at very slow shutter speeds. Obviously the 14-24 is better for very close work but the 24-70 provides great flexibility and it has become, for now, my walk around lens. My belief is to get the best glass you can to maximize the D800's 36MP sensor.

As for VR, I have not found this to be an issue and virtually all my shots are hand held with these two lenses. If one follows the rules regarding good technique, maintaining steadiness should not be a concern. Here is a link to a shot I took with a 1 second exposure hand held resting against a handrail with the 24-70: http://www.flickr.com/photos/79203622@N02/7333223054/in/photostream/

Congratulations on your impending purchase and I look forward to seeing your work with the new gear in PAD.

Thanks for all of your advice and comments. As soon as the cameras are withus, we'll put them in PAD.

earthsea said:
Ha ha, absolutely love it Mike. I am a full time landscape painter and have put exactly the same case to my wife. Its all good, and I have had my D800 on order now for 3 months. Actually, it just landed at my retailer and will be shipped to me tomorrow.
Re lenses, I have gone for a nikon 24-70mm as most of my shots will be taken from a tripod, if you are doing hand held shots then really I would consider a 'VR' lens.
Just not sure how to approach my desire for a 14-24mm lens to complete the kit though. Any tips Mike would be appreciated.
Best post here for a while!

Ha ha, absolutely love it Mike. I am a full time landscape painter and have put exactly the same case to my wife. Its all good, and I have had my D800 on order now for 3 months. Actually, its just landed at my retailer and will be shipped to me tomorrow.
Re lenses, I have gone for a nikon 24-70mm as most of my shots will be taken from a tripod, if you are doing hand held shots then really I would consider a 'VR' lens.
Just not sure how to approach my desire for a 14-24mm lens to complete the kit though. Any tips Mike would be appreciated.
Best post here for a while!

sevencrossing said:
I use a D800 for landscapes and use the 24 -120 vr f4 ( mostly at 24 mm )
I also have the 16 -35 f 4 vr but it does not seem as sharp as the 24 -120

The 16-35 is significantly sharper at 24mm. At least my copy vs. a 24-120 I've tested. I know for a fact that the 16-35 has massive variation problems and so you may have been unlucky with your copy.

As for the original question. Shot at f8 a good copy of the 16-35 will be almost as sharp as it gets in the central area on the d800, corners will be ok too, but not quite as good as it is in the case of the 14-24, but using nd grads and the lack of bulb like front element is a big plus on the 16-35 and also whatever ppl say VR really works on it, it's well calibrated for wide angle usage (unlike on semi super zooms like the 24-120)and it's not blurring my photos at fast shutter speeds, as normal vr2 used to on other vr2 lenses I've tried, but I cannot emphasize the sample variation enough, when I was in the process of buying a used 16-35, out the samples tested I've concluded that out of the 5 lenses 3 were lemons, 1 was slightly blurry. (Lemon aka usable, but not 800eur good) If you can rent them, that is a good idea, if maximum clarity is the main goal, grabbing a zeiss 20something mm would be great too.
I personally wouldn't bother with the Tokina 16-28, especially not for landscape use.

I'll throw out the Tokina 16-28mm.

I would rent some contenders and test them out for your needs before dropping the cash though.

I have to vote for the Distagon T* 2,8/21 (link below) It is absolutely amazing lens. I would buy this lens again all day long. The lens is super sharp and the contrast is amazing. It is a manual focus lens as are all the Zeiss but for landscape and what you would use this lens for that shouldnt matter. I also put a link in to a picture I took with this lens with my D800, check it out and let me know what you think.

http://500px.com/photo/7842510

http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/products/slr/distagont2821.usage.html

Contrats Mike, and an interesting story. I wound up with a D7000 in a similar way. My wife told me she wanted to get me a new camera for Christmas 2 years ago and was about to buy it. I stopped her and told her I wanted "that new Nikon D7000" that I'd recently learned about. She went online and ordered it a couple of days later. After Christmas I asked her just out of curiosity what was she planning to get for me had I not said anything. She went to the B&H web site and pulled up the Nikon D700 (FX) and said "that's what I was going to buy for you, but thanks for saving me $1,200, ha ha." Well, I've enjoyed the D7000 and learned a lot with it but guess I've come full circle with the D800.

As for lenses, I can't offer any more advice than you've already gotten in this thread. I do like the 24mm view on full frame for general landscape work but I'm a big fan of that distorted look when taking pictures from a low vantage point and with a large object (tree, pillar, plant, etc.) on one side of the image. Thus, my vote is for the 14-24mm f/2.8.

I find my 16-35mm f/4G VR and 24mm f/1.4G both to be extremely sharp lenses, and I actually prefer the 16-35 more often for landscapes since I can keep the ISO at 100, stop the lens down, and use a polarizer in less-than-ideal lighting and let the VR take care of a slow shutter speed.

Congrats, Mike! And glad to see some reviews and examples of the 14-24!

PB PM said:
If landscapes are the primary subject matter the 24mm PC Nikkor would be a dream come true, due to the lack of distortion.

True, but if Nikon would hurry up their development of a PC-E 17mm f4 then landscape photogs would really rejoice. And as much as I covet the PC-E 24mm for its movements and the quality of its lens elements, its not really such a huge feat to have a relatively distortion free 24mm lens. The Distagon T* 2,8/15, however, manages to give distortion free photos all at the ridiculous focal length of 15mm. But, as you said, you don't shoot all that wide, so this is all somewhat irrelevant.

If landscapes are the primary subject matter the 24mm PC Nikkor would be a dream come true, due to the lack of distortion. That lack of AF may be an issue for some though.

Personally I don't find the need for super wide angle lenses in landscape shooting often enough to warrant buying one. I had the 20-35mm F2.8D for a year and sold it because I rarely shot wider than 24mm, thus I went with the 24-70mm F2.8G.

Well, I am a 16-35VR person, as the difference between this and the 14-24 2.8 in angle of view is 95 vs 89 degree horizontally. The VR can really allow the shutter speed down below that of the f/2.8. The $750 USD difference for the f/2.8...well, this would buy in addition an 85mm f/1.8 and leave you with $250 in your pocket.

Having said all this, the 24mm PC Nikkor is really nice, but of course not as wide. Allows some wild perspectives if buildings are an interest.

Maybe a fisheye? Whichever Nikon Pro lens you decide on, the result will be good.

TaoTeJared said:
Squamish you are just pulling me towards that 14-24. I am a bit stuck between the 16-35vr or the 14-24 for a wide angle.

I can understand that dilema. The nice thing is that you can't really go wrong with either decision since both lenses produce fantastic results on the D800. I do envy the VR, but its worth noting that when shooting handheld at 14mm you can get away with slower shutter speeds than you could with a 16mm lens without VR employed. Its kind of like how the gains of having f2.8 can be outweighed by the VR of the 16-35mm, but the fact that you can build an array of filters for a lot cheaper than even the cheapest options available for the 14-24 certainly makes the decision difficult. Lots of people already have the filters from other lenses since its in a standard size, unlike the Distagon T* 2,8/15 from CZ that has me drooling but also cringing at its definitely-less-than-standard 95mm filter size. I can't imagine Im going to find any quality filters for that any cheaper than the filter kits like the one offered by Fotodiox for the 14-24mm, although its complete lack of availability and its $3000 price tag have me inclined to just enjoy the lens I've got. But I digress...

As you said "ehhh decisions..." :]

MikeFrewer said:
She has just returned from work and announced that she would like a Nikon D800

I want a wife just like yours .... ;-)

Awesome.

Squamish you are just pulling me towards that 14-24. I am a bit stuck between the 16-35vr or the 14-24 for a wide angle. I'm a bit leaning towards the 16-35 because of other work as the VR would be more helpful than the 2.8. I'm going with one body for a while so the zoom is more useful as well. ehhh decisions...

@MikeFrewer - I have been playing with my lenses and taking test psudo test shots (nothing scientific to my madness) and the one thing I am seeing is that whatever you go for, stick with anything released in the last 5 years or the very high end pro glass from the past - especially from zooms. The fuzzyness of older zooms really peaks in, even at F8-16.

So far the 50mm 1.4G, 105VR, 70-200VR are more than great! The older 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 ED version (ED version was known to be a very, very good lens) really showed it's age. Not so hot of a lens for the D800. Especially for landscape.

I'll be watching this thread as well for those who are shooting a D800 with various lenses.

You'd be robbing her of one of her best weapons if you didn't get her a 14-24 f2.8 Below is a shot taken with the D800 and the 14-24 to give you an idea of what its capable of. Good luck with the new toys whatever you end up choosing. :]

I like the 14-24. The 24 f/1.4 is also wicked sharp on the d800. With the D800 I shoot from a tripod for landscapes and so VR doesn't matter (and screws you up if you forget to turn it off). I also like the 24-70 f/2.8. I'd consider one of the wide zooms (14-24 f/2.8, 16-35 f/4 or 17-35 f/2.8) If you need something longer, folks seem very pleased with the 24-120 f/4.

I use a D800 for landscapes and use the 24 -120 vr f4 ( mostly at 24 mm )

I also have the 16 -35 f 4 vr but it does not seem as sharp as the 24 -120

if I need to go wider than 24mm I tend to stitch 6 "portrait" shots together

if I need really high resolution. I use the 100mm f 2.8 macro on a gimbal / pano head and stitch several rows together

for maximum color fidelity use 100 ISO

For those of you that don't know. My wife is very artistic and in her spare time does her own oil paintings. She is very critical of my photos, even more so than I am. It has been an uphill battle trying to justify my future purchase of a new camera with her. She has just returned from work and announced that she would like a Nikon D800 to take landscape photos so that she can make oil paintings of them. I nearly fell on the floor. So now I have the OK to make my next camera purchase, I also have to buy a D800 for her hobby as well. Things are looking up in our household as she has agreed that my new camera will come first (as long as the local camera shop doesn't get any stock of D800s in the near future.
Any suggestions for a suitable lens for landscape photography with a D800 would be very greatful.