Best lenses for the Nikon D800E camera

DxoMark published a series of articles on the best lenses for the Nikon D800E camera ($3,296.95). This would be an interesting feedback for anyone that already has the D800E or is planning to purchase the new D800s (or D810?) when it gets released next month (the D800E and its successor do/will not have an AA filter). Here is a quick recap of DxOMark's findings:

With certain lenses, the Nikon D800E is up to 30% sharper than the regular D800:

Next, the best lenses measured on a D800E camera based on the optical metric scores:

This time the best lenses measured on a D800E camera based on the DxOMark test score (read more on how DxOMark generates their scores):


Top 5 best wide-angle prime lenses for the Nikon D800E:

Lens Model Lens Price DxoMark Score Sharpness P-MPix
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A $899 43 30
Carl Zeiss Distagon T 25mm f/2 ZF.2 $1,700 38 29
Carl Zeiss Distagon T 35mm f/1.4 ZF2 $1,843 38 23
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED $1,929 37 23
Samyang 35mm f/1.4 AS UMC $449 37 20

Top 5 best wide-angle zoom lenses for the Nikon D800E:

Lens Model Lens Price DxoMark Score Sharpness P-MPix
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED $2,000 31 24
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED $746 29 24
Tokina AT-X 16-28 f/2.8 PRO FX $639 27 19
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR $1,256 25 19
Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED $1,759 23 14

Top 5 best standard and short telephoto prime lenses for the Nikon D800E:

Lens Model Lens Price DxoMark Score Sharpness P-MPix
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* Otus 1.4/55 ZF.2 $3,999 50 33
Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 ZF.2 $2,122 44 36
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G $1,599 44 30
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G $497 44 27
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T 100mm f/2 ZF2 $1,840 40 23

Top 5 best telephoto primes and zoom lenses for the Nikon D800E:

Lens Model Lens Price DxoMark Score Sharpness P-MPix
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED VR II $5,799 44 34
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm F2.8G ED VR $8,999 39 33
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II $5,779 38 33
Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD $1,499 33 28
Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM S $3,599 32 29
This entry was posted in Nikon D800, Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Jeff Hunter

    I’ve read that the difference in sharpness between the D800 and D800E is only noticeable at f/5.6 through f/11. And even then, it’s not that much. I have the D800. Does anyone on this board have both cameras? If so, how do they compare in real-world settings?

    • Yes,

      I have both the D800 and the D800E. 30% is certainly an accurate estimate if not an under estimate. I have had both cameras for a few years. I shoot most of my work on the E. I only break out the 800 for back up. The D800E I can zoom in much farther or blow up the images much larger.

      • Jeff Hunter

        Thanks for the report. I too really value the ability to crop in on a section of the frame. Has moire ever been an issue?

        • In 100 weddings I have only seen it a few times. One time my computer screen was the issue with moire, after the photo was at 100% or greater the pattern was gone.

          • Jeff Hunter

            Interesting. Thanks!

          • anjan

            30% better?!

            before i sulk with my D800.. just wanted to confirm if photoshop sharpening will make D800 images as sharp as D800E… or cannot be achieved?

            • anjan,Sharpen would not do the same thing. You should rent a 800E for the day to see the difference.

            • anjan

              Thanks Robert. Will get D900E next time. I had a suspicion of less sharpness using 85mm @ f 1.4 to 2.0 – even using a tripod (which i don’t use for events)… but never compared with D800E….

            • jk

              the better a lens you use on the E , the more serious resolution and micro contrast advantage you will see, so only when you use the best Zeiss Nikon and Sigma Art primes , you see the huge difference. if you use cheap zooms or old design primes such as the 80-200D,16-35mmf4VR kinda low quality zooms ,or 35mm f2D kind of old old primes you will never see the huge difference.
              but once you use the E with the 85mmf1.4G or 135mm Zeiss or something similar , you will see the huge 30% difference that some of us talk about here. I sold all my normal D800 cameras since I think Nikon is choosing better A grade sensors for the E and B or C grade ones for the non-E.

            • Ronan

              Sigma Art lens? LOL… Did you see how they score? Sigma’s latest technology is only as good as Nikon’s previous generation glass.

            • Danzig

              You’re either delusional or a troll. Did you fail to notice that all of their ART FX lenses are on the list above and I am sure the new 50 1.4 ART will be on the list once it’s fully tested. The 35 1.4 ART is on the top of the wide angle primes by a huge margin. Let alone that they cost a fraction of what the other ones on the list cost. So how are they “as good as Nikon’s previous generation”, i.e. the Nikon 35 F/2 AF-D which wouldn’t make it on the best lenses for the Nikon D300?

            • Rob

              The list is meant to show the resolution of two cameras, not how how sharp the lenses are. They are all sharp lenses. Most lenses are these days especially when stopped down.

            • Danzig

              Rob, you’re right the first list shows the D800 & D800E’s resolution, however, all the remaining lists show which lenses have the best resolution tested on the D800E using different criteria for each list.

            • Les

              Yep, have to agree here, the colour accuracy (skin tones), white balance, brightness and contrast in the RAW files is marginally better on the D800E. I think this may have something to do with the make up of the 3 x non-aa filter parts on the D800E compared to the 3 x aa filter parts on the D800.

      • Guest

        Depends what you are trying to do.

        I’ve just printed a bunch of 100x130cm for an exhibition using a D70, D300, and D800 on some sort of
        canvas. The print house insisted that they wanted no more than 100 ppi.

        I can’t tell and no one else can tell which prints are from which camera.

        30%? Completely meaningless.

        • Vin

          If you wanted ultimate sharpness you would never print on canvas,

          • Vin

            If you were trying to show ultimate sharpness you would look for printing options in 300dpi or 600dpi or even consider a light sensitive emulsion on a smooth surface, even a fine art archivel fiber paper can distort some sharpness. Of course when looking at prints and different processes it’s subjective and equally discriminating as different monitors. My opinion is I have yet to find canvas that really gives the super sharpness that is being discussed here.

            • Vin

              But taking that into consideration, I do like canvas as a surface, I think it depends subject,

          • Andy Aungthwin

            If you want to show an exhibition which is going to withstand rain, sun, hail and God knows what else, “Ultimate sharpness” doesn’t even come on the list.

            But I suppose you have a heap of extreme sharp images that you have on exhibition somewhere.

            • Vin

              It seems canvas might have been your only option here. It would be hard to hang frames on a wire. Of course paper would not hold up to rain either. Maybe printing on plastic would also work. I believe there is some good higher resolution printing on plexiglass.

            • Vin

              I thought this was a discussion of high resolution?

            • Andy Aungthwin

              Sure, my point is that this claim that the D800E is 30% sharper than the standard is completely meaningless.

              I’m not saying that DXO ratings have no value but one lens being better than another by 1, 2, 3 or 4, do have mean anything?

              BTW, how on earth did he get this number 30?

            • Vin

              It is interesting discussion, people seem to live and dye by this, I have been recently comparing my 85mm 1.8G to my 85mm 1.8D. The G is definitely on the D800 E, although the 85mm D has a nice look in the out of focus area. So it is subjective, at some point the numbers are trivial.

            • Vin

              I am more curious about a comparison of the D7100 vs D800E with a lens of “ultimate sharpness” perhaps some close up detail of a coin where line details are best seen. I would think the smaller pixels would demonstrate a perceived sharpness better then the D800E?

            • neversink

              Bad assumption.

            • Vin

              We will see when next is a 54mp full frame, well see how DXO scoresheet shows the D900 or D900E,/S?

            • Vin

              I only have the E, so I can’t confirm. I can see the difference in it compared to other sensors, although in sharpness alone my Fuji X-E1 has some nice sharp images and I don’t even have some of Fuji’s newest fast lenses. DXO has not even been able to give Fuji a good test of image quality. We are seeing more cameras with less AA filters.

            • jk

              it is huge to me and to many, this is why many of us sold out 5Ds or D800s to get the E.

        • Vin

          It looks like you uploaded all the same image, it would be interesting to see a D70 image vs a D800 image on canvas. Can you show the detail of two similar canvas prints?

          • Andy Aungthwin

            It’s there. I’m the Guest. Somehow I posted the same images multiple times.

            The second image is from a D70, the third is from a D300 and 4-5-6 are from a D800.

        • I used to work at a print house, and canvas is what we would suggest if the client wanted something printed *much* bigger than the file resolution would normally allow on glossy paper.
          The heavy texture of the canvas hides pixels and compression artefacts remarkably well.

        • Michiel953

          Completely meaningless? What do you mean, it’s a lot more than 25%, and unfortunately less than 35%!!!

          • Global

            Unless they are claiming 30% more pixels are visible — and I don’t think they are saying that at all — then when one talks about “detail” it becomes a gross exaggeration to throw around the “30%” claim too loosely. Whatever they are measuring is not meaningless to be sure. But it would be helpful to know how this is defined so as to convey a more realistic interpretation.

          • Andy Aungthwin

            Get a print from a standard D800 and the E and ask 1000 people to look at them at normal viewing distance.

            Ask them to pick out which is sharper and by what percentage.

            How many do you suppose will:
            1. pick out which is which
            2. how much (%) sharper is one from the other

            I’d bet London to a brick that no one will be able to tell why one is 25, 30 or 35% sharper than the other.

            Therefore this claim of 30% – whatever this means – is completely meaningless.

            • nobody cares

              I think Andy is right. I’ve never done a test like this with Cameras (I don’t have 2 cameras of this quality to test with), but I’ve done comparisons of audio files that were EQed (and sometimes mixed) very differently and asked friends who were very familiar with the music (if not the actual recording) and they couldn’t tell the difference.

              Honestly, there are times I look at images on review sites, and I have trouble telling the difference between images and sometimes I prefer the “lower” quality image.

              Now maybe I’ll see a difference on a d800 vs d800e (I have the d800, because early reviewers indicated I’d see no benefit in many cases and would have moire issues). Honestly, I doubt it’d matter for me, since I mostly shoot in very low light at ISO 1600-6400.

              At lower ISOs, (say 400), I use to get images on an ancient d90 that was more than acceptable at 16×20 (give or take a few inches). I also find that sharpness often is far more apparent when pixel peeping than when printing, but you boys and girls are probably better than me. For now this is a hobby that I wish was something more 😉

            • Ronan

              D90 is far from ancient.

        • Fantazia

          I do large printings every day, print sizes (framed) for hotel and house decoration even up to 140X300cm mostly on canvas. I own D800 specific for this reason. Believe me I always do some sharpening on each photo. D800E makes no difference in real word. Most of photos customers bring for printing come from compact (cheap?) cameras. The most important is the photo. Just take photos, don’t pixel analyse this and that.

          • Andy Aungthwin

            Unfortunately, people like you who actually know what you are talking about is completely ignored.

            Plain common sense will show that the D800/D800E in print will be so close that they would basically be indistinguishable.

            But when someone comes out with a crazy number like 30% whatever you say is going to be swept under the carpet.

            As a side note, I say to people that when you process a standard D800 you can bump up the capture sharpening to counter the AA filter. Then before you print you could add a small but additional sharpening if for whatever reason you want to “match” the D800E.

            This would make the D800 and D800E basically identical for all practical purposes – less any issues or moire.

            • Vin

              I do some sharpness in Photoshop , & edge sharpness, even to my D800E images even with my sharpest lenses, but then you are just manipulating pixels after the image is taken and not as the image is taken.

            • Andy Aungthwin

              It’s true what you say but there is one difference.

              Before you go into PS you can do what is called capture sharpening. That is specifically to counter the effects of the AA filter.

              With a D800E there is no need to do this since it doesn’t have the AA filter. Doing so only makes the image worse.

              However, since the standard D800 doesn’t have an AA filter the image benefits a little bit.

              So, by the time you get into PS the files from the Standard D800 are almost as sharp as the E.

              And as I said, if you apply a second slight sharpening at the end to the standard D800 image, the two files are now so close that it basically doesn’t matter.

              Remember, when you view an image for printing you view it at 50% because this is how it’s going to look – in PRINT! Sure, at 100% on the screen the E might/still be a tad sharper, but at 50% I don’t see how anyone can tell the difference on the monitor. And in print? Common.

              This is why it gets under my skin when people make such stupid statements like the D800E is 30% sharper than the standard D800.

              Photography is about printing. If you don’t print, you don’t have a photograph. All you have is an image.

            • Fantazia

              I am on Digital printing more 12 years now. I shoot to print. Big, really big. That’s why I got D800 instead of D800E. Better to invest on lenses if budget is an issue. Full frame is a real thing, AA filter started form marketing I think. Patterns and fabrics sometimes got problem with the E.

          • nobody cares

            I think cheaper compact cameras hurt you at higher ISOs. I’ve used a cheap lumix shot over my head in bright light and caught an Image I’d never have gotten with my D800 (for a variety of reasons unique to the situation). However, that camera can’t shoot worth a crap at ISO 800, while even my old d90 was more than acceptable at 800.

            Hell, wasn’t there an SI swimsuit photographer that shot with a Kodak Instamatic in the 90s?

        • jk

          but if you had the E or the A7R or MFDB , then they would have been much better.

      • jk

        but the D800S might eveb be better than the E, so we all need to sell our D800Es and A7Rs to get the D800s.

        • D800s? or D9300?

          That’s the thing, d800s WILL have superior AF, with 12 point center APS-C instead of 9 , and it will have better moire control than D800e. oh my god the camera will surpass D800e so much (lucky I have d800).

          Only question is, should one wait a little bit, because instead of buying essentially “same but mega much better” version of same body, one could wait for the crop body D9300 ?? That one could be really good if its 7-8fps. Let’s hope nikon is smart enough to make it 16-18 megapixel and not some 24megapixel shite, some of us value the low light performance too..

    • Russ Barnes

      I owned the D800 from initial release. At that time in the UK the price premium was £500 for the E and I didn’t think it was worth it to this day. After the body dropped out of warranty when it came to 2 years I got it converted to infrared – the results are amazing. I bought a D800E for conventional work last October while I was hatching this plan. Yes, as others will confirm, there is a difference, significant enough to make me feel very satisfied with buying the D800E now. Do I regret buying the D800 initially? No. The only difference is that minor sharpening of the files was still needed with the D800 to just lift them that bit, but with the D800E no sharpening is required at all, ever. I concur with DxO’s results.

    • Thom Hogan

      A bit the opposite. As I wrote in my review, “visibly noticeable” differences only occur at apertures FASTER than f/5.6 between the two models. Above f/5.6 diffraction starts to equalize them very rapidly, at least visually. There’s still a difference in measured MTF numbers, but it isn’t as dramatic as it is at f/2.8, for example.

      For someone shooting at f/11, I doubt that the difference is enough to make the extra cost worth it for the D800E.

      • Jeff Hunter

        Maybe it was your review I read. Thanks for refreshing my memory Thom!

      • reilly diefenbach

        If the Imaging Resource resolution charts and the DPR sample still life raws are any indication, and I believe they are, the difference is quite visible on the peep right through f11. Starting from unblurred helps at any aperture. Opening the IR res chart raws as aligned layers in Photoshop and switching off the D800, the difference will be obvious. Converging lines reappear, not to mention higher contrast. Not earth shattering by any means, but why wouldn’t you want the highest res file?
        If there were a lens that made that much difference, we’d all be bouncing off the walls.

      • neversink

        Ah, but I find myself shooting the f/2.8 at f/2.8 quite often in certain situation and love the results.

    • Global

      You have to also keep in mind the difference between “Technical spec/pixel-peeping” and “Actually perceived/working level”. 30% sharper doesn’t mean it appears to have 30% more pixels — at 36 mp the amount of data is far too much for nearly every print imaginable at handheld size (other than a monitor) and is not easily “perceivable” if even a modest amount of sharpening is used on the D800. Obviously, if you spend all day looking at pixel-level details in front of a monitor out of a labor of love, you are going to notice the difference. But keep in mind that it doesn’t make a good photograph any better at most sizes (even framed and on the wall). No one was ever complaining about the D800, D700, D3, D4, D4s, etc. So there is no need to invent a problem of sharpness.

      The more common sharpness problem comes from MOTION BLUR — not from the D800 sensor, which is excellent. The D800 and D800e will blur the same. Resizing images throws the whole thing into another discussion.

      And while the D800 image can be sharpened to crisp sharpness, the moire from a D800e cannot be removed except with difficulty. Luckily, some photographers don’t have to worry about moire; but others find it all the time in their subjects with much frustration. If you’ve never noticed or cared about moire in your works, then the D800e might be the best choice! If you’ve seen moire in your output and hate it — D800 is going to be better. That’s how simple it is.

    • jk

      the E is quite much sharper and A7R is even a bit sharper than the E but you need the best Zeiss or Nikon glass to see it, and all great Nikon or Zeiss primes are std to tele primes. this means that when you shoot std zoom or wide angle lousy prime , you will never see the difference between the E and the none E. I love my 21mm f2.8 Zeiss , 25mm f2 Zeiss , 35mm sigma, 85mm f1.4G Nikon and 135mm f2 APO, I had the Otus for a couple of weeks and used on my E and A7R but I dislike the size and ergonomics and returned that lens, the Otus is just too big for a 35mm format camera, it was like MF leaf shutter lens in size and weight.

  • StevenP

    interesting that the 70-200 f4 is on the list, but the f2.8 is not…

    • d800E_shooter

      I’ve used both, the f/4 is a better lens (less breathing, better VR, lighter weight and just as sharp). The f/2.8 works better with TCs and the AF is a tad faster – that’s it.

      • Russ Barnes

        I’ve used both, owned the 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII for years, bought the f/4 and sold it. Bokeh on the f/4 was not as smooth, colour rendition was dull by comparison and it felt like a cheap package when compared to the f/2.8. The only real advantage to the f/4 is the weight difference in my view, but that’s where it ends. There are margins to every lens choice and sharpness is not the be all and end all when assessing a lens.

        • JuanE

          Most people think that we pay a premium for a 2.8 just to get an extra stop of light. There is so much more a pro lens offer; the F4 might be sharper but that’s only one of many variables of choosing a lens.

          • maybe tamron

            wouldn’t a tamron 2.8 be better though? It costs less and has similiar results

      • Mansgame

        I prefer the 80-400. The range and flexibility is amazing though it’s slower.

        • reilly diefenbach

          And boy is it ever sharp at 80mm!

      • Thom Hogan

        All correct IMHO, except the bit about TCs. In my experience, the f/4 lens is far better defined by a bell curve and much more likely to be tolerant of a TC than the f/2.8 version. Whether you get good TC capability on the f/2.8 version depends a lot upon luck of the draw. I’ve seen TCs with tolerances that can’t be dialed in on f/2.8 lenses with tolerances that drift the same direction. Not so on the f/4 lenses.

        Which brings up a point that I haven’t made elsewhere that I know of. Frankly, Nikon’s internal designs (other than the exotics) were a bit clumsy and immature right up until the f/4 lenses started to appear. Too much slop and tolerance in some of the internal fittings. Canon tightened up their lens tolerances before Nikon did, and it showed.

        On the other hand, Canon apparently only uses center-only techniques in aligning elements while building lenses, so they can have element tilt in them direct from the factory. Nikon uses five-point techniques in aligning elements, so gets this more consistent. Still, if the internal cams aren’t up to keeping everything where it should be, especially after being bounced around the world a few times, all that precision alignment at the factory can degrade. I’ve seen that happen on two of my lenses over the past decade.

        • Mohsen

          Man, how you know such details facts about the making of lenses in Nikon & Canon? Amazing!

          • Thom Hogan

            I’m a Silicon Valley geek by birth. I’ve long been interested in the technical details of things because they are predictive of products and events. Thus I seek out sources of information that help me with that.

            Also: pay close attention to what Roger Cicala is doing at LensRentals with his new toy, excuse me, test equipment. Funny thing is that they’re starting to amass some of the better sets of tools for evaluating the nuances of lenses. He’s starting to prove out some of the sample variation issues that many of us have seen over the years.

        • neversink

          Thom… On this I disagree. I have had no problem using TCs on the 70-200 f/2.8. I don’t use them often but have for sports when I didn’t want to lug my 500 f/4 lens. I’ve tested the f/4 alongside the f/2.8 and found the 2.8 to be superior (slightly) in most areas. Since I need the extra speed, I kept the 2.8 and did not replace it. I have no creep on my f 2.8. Surprised you do. You state the f/4 is “more likely to be tolerant of a TC than the f/2.8 version” because of “luck of the draw”. Are you sure “luck of the draw” has no play in the f/4. This is why I test all individual lenses immediately after purchase, because there are individual lemons in batches of the same lens. I am thankful I have a great version of the f/2.8.

          • Thom Hogan

            You’re always on the luck of the draw when you add another mount and its tolerances.

            However, what I was referring to is that when you take dozens of 70-200mm’s and map them to a single known reference camera, the f/4 lenses will form a fairly tight bell curve around 0 AF Fine Tune. The f/2.8 lenses will be randomly spaced from -20 to +20. The problem this causes is that if you have anything else that needs a lot of AF Fine Tune (camera or TC) to the same side, you’re not going to be able to dial focus in. I’ve seen repeated instances of this with f/2.8 lenses, none with f/4 lenses. Nikon’s AF “fix” on the D800 made this problem worse, as most D800’s coming back from Nikon repair all had a +12 bias in them.

            I’ve seen samples of the 70-200mm that work with a TC just fine. My f/2.8 works great with my TC-17E, not so much with my TC-20EIII.

            • neversink

              Thanks….. I guess my testing is worthwhile. I’ve been going to the same camera salesman since the early 1980s and he knows how picky i am, and that I might over test the lenses I purchase. But in the end, they are my workhorses.
              I don’t use DxO products and don’t really feel their tests are objective.

  • djm

    No mention of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art?

    • Nikon User

      DXO is a pro Nikon …

      • FredBear

        Maybe because they haven’t tested it yet? (They have only tested the Sigma 50mm ‘non-Art’)


        What about scored higher than Nikon. Leica scored high also. Canon still producing cameras like it is 2008. You know this. I know this. Except Canon.

      • megadon357

        Or……they do objective testing and report the actual results.


      The Nikon version of Sigma is just now being shipped out. A 45 plus score…???

    • Mansgame

      What is this lust with this lens?

  • guest

    This is pure bullshit. The sharpest Nikkors on my D800E are the following:

    60/2.8G Micro
    200/4D Micro
    105/2.8G VR Micro

    • d800e_shooter

      i have used all the f/2.8 and f/4 pro zooms, plus a good chunk of the latest f/1.4G or f/1.8G primes, all nikon – and the DXO findings very closely match my own observations.

      The 70-200 f/4G and 85/1.8G are the sharpest nikons that doesn’t cost a fortune.

    • Sashimi

      They forgot to include price in the equation when bringing out the list you mentioned 🙂

    • Russ Barnes

      Can’t say I disagree with DxO based on my experience. Sharpest lenses I own:

      Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G over Zeiss 21mm ZF.2 (Sold)
      Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art over Nikon 35mm f/1.4G (Sold)
      Nikon 45mm f/2.8 PC-e (if they tested this I expect it would come close to or equal the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art)
      Nikon 85mm f/1.4G over 1.8G all day every day for me
      Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G produces incredible results sold the f/4.

      Only weakish lens I use is the Nikon 24mm f/3.5 PC-e.

      • Sharpness

        Yeah, remember, sharpness is the a and o of photography. You got it pal.

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          Yes, the other reasons why you would want the faster lens don’t matter at all. Right? When I was early in photography I cared a lot about sharpness and almost nothing about anything else. I tested extensively and found that the faster lenses were almost always better at some point or other. Then I discovered all the other things and at that point I was really glad to have the better faster lenses.

          The things I found that disagree with what I just wrote and some of the things that disagree with general opinion include:
          The 20 f3.5/f4 is way better than the f2.8 except at the closest distance and infinity.
          The 24 f2 isn’t quite as good as the f2.8
          The AIS 85 f1.4 is useless. For anything other than head shots, use the f1.8.
          The 105 f1.8 is completely better than the 105 f2.5 that everybody raves about, with a minor limitation close up.
          Beyond 35 mm and under 200 the zooms are quite good and only the best primes will compete.
          And you should know that a fast lens stopped down one should always provide a lot more color saturation than a slow one at it’s weakest setting. It should also have sharper and brighter corners.

    • Kynikos

      +1 for the 200/4 micro.
      Have not used the rest extensively enough.

  • nek4life

    So does this mean if you spend more on the camera body you can save money by purchasing cheaper lenses later? You know for those of us on a budget.

    • Jeff Hunter

      Unfortunately, no.

    • Hans

      I have the Sigma 24-70 HSM on my D800. It is excellent for the money. Sure, the Nikon 24-70 will be just a tad sharper at f/2.8, but I was amazed at the quality. On my previous body (D90) the lens was far less sharp at f/2.8, and the fact I wasn’t able to microadjust didn’t help. But right now, I have 99% of the quality of a Nikon 24-70 for 50% of the price. So you can spend less on lenses provided you are willing to sacrifice a little.

      • Henridv

        Do you also have other lenses? I used the Sigma 24-70 and it is the worst autofocus zoomlens I ever used… Soft, lot’s of CA, bad bokeh,… Tamron 24-70 VC is the only alternative to the Nikon (Nikon is much sharper for landscapes, whilst the Tamron is a tad sharper under 5meters).

        • Hans

          I have the Sigma 70-200 OS HSM and the Sigma 105 Macro as well. 50mm Nikon too. 70-300 Nikon as well. 18-105 too (but that’s my DX kitlens). As said, it was soft on the D90 at f/2.8, but at f/4 it is excellent. Found no CA issues. Bokeh looks fine to me too, but I haven’t done a real comparison with other lenses.

          My colleague has the Tamron 24-70 VC (upon my advice). I had the Sigma 24-70 on my D90 and it was ok, and Tamron had just come out with that lens, and saw the raving reviews. I would have gone for the Tamron too back then if I had the chance. Although:

          Nikon 24-70: 1449 euro
          Tamron 24-70: 881 euro
          Sigma 24-70: 689 euro

          Those are the current prices (in the Netherlands). Sigma still 200 euro cheaper..

          With my D800, I recently made a pixelpeepfest between my colleague’s Tamron, and my Sigma, and they were indistinguishable, even zoomed in.

          On the D90, I once had the pleasure of pixelpeeping between the Nikon 24-70 and the Sigma 24-70, and then I definitely saw the difference at f/2.8, but at f/4 those differences were gone. Haven’t had the same pleasure with my D800 yet 😉

    • reilly diefenbach

      Yes, absolutely! Cheap lenses stopped down a bit work great on the “e.” It’s sharper every time with say a $119 50D at f5.6 than the OTUS on a D4, and that’s hands down, buddy.

    • 24×36

      Yes, you’ll get endless assertions that it is no use buying a D800/E/S unless you use it with the best lenses. Bunk! It’s a two-way street. You ALSO don’t get the best out of your LENSES(no matter what lenses) unless you put the highest resolution sensor behind them. Think of a D800/E/S as an upgrade to every lens you own.

  • Sashimi

    Zeiss might be like even 200% sharper, but with no AF, please explain how you think you can achieve such precise manual focus without any decent optical (stigmometer) or electronic (focus peaking) assistance, and within a reasonable amount of time and shooting a moving scene. (taking fifty pictures in a row, checking focus sharpness at 100% on the backscreen every single time, in a trial and error fashion, is not a viable answer).

    thanks in advance.

    • Ishan

      Most of the times I use Zeiss, also for portrait work. After some practise with the DK-17M and the APO SONNAR 135mm it’s no problem for me.
      But I’m not an action photographer

      Images with the APO SONNAR are threedimensional, sharp and with wonderful colors and bokeh.
      The combination with the D800E is so good that it is like shooting with a middleformat system for 30000 $.

      • orpickaname

        Come to think of it, that Otus/D800E sharpness result is a bit weird… shouldn’t it be at least tied up there with the APO 135/2? You wouldn’t think that the Otus would have the most marginal improvement with D800E over D800 (compared to the other lenses on the list).

    • Thom Hogan

      Your point doesn’t just apply to manual focus lenses, but AF ones, too. Frankly, the toughest thing about using a D800E is making sure focus is EXACTLY where it should be. The AF system has too much tolerance, especially at distance.

      • Sashimi


        Just read an interesting (and pretty depressing) page straight off Zeiss’ website :

        So their conclusion leaves me a bit puzzled : they make wonderful lenses no doubt, but there is no DSLR to actually fully enjoy these lense. The only way is to hack the DSLR body to add a stigmometer, but you lose warranty on the body, and risk to f* up exposure & autofocus measurements…. (and will surely have to send the body to service for alignment, which, out of warranty, will cost).

        Pain in the bum…

        • FredBear

          Live View?

          • Sashimi

            Do people actually enjoy taking pictures with liveview ???
            @135 f/2, no stab, liveview at 100% to see if precisely focused, must wiggle like hell. => tripod mandatory :/

            • FredBear

              If you want to get the best out of any lens then a tripod is mandatory, yes.

            • neversink

              Try carrying a tripod while shooting a demonstration or a cheetah bringing down a gazelle. Good luck.

            • FredBear

              Good luck trying to keep up with a cheetah with or without tripod.
              I said ‘to get the best out of a lens’ – I didn’t say ‘you always have to use a tripod’.
              Hopefully the difference isn’t too subtle.

        • duck

          The future dslr offerings shall have HD evf, the paradise for mf shooters.

    • Anonymous Coward

      I guess nobody ever took a sharp photo before autofocus was invented…

    • neversink

      I used to use manual lenses all the time when I was working with film. Hardly had any out of focus photos and I covered riots, sporting events, and all sorts of editorial and industrial subjects. What’s your point?

      • Sashimi

        didn’t you have an optical focusing aid in the viewfinder ? (split / microprism….)

        • neversink

          On this I agree.

  • Yoyo

    Wow. We knew the D800E was sharper, but I was not expecting such a difference!? If all users seems to concur with the results, I guess I made the wrong choice chosing the D800 by safety… especially since I often print large and have to blow the pictures up to 140mp. What an idiot!

    • Les

      Have have both the D800 and D800E cameras. The D800E is just a bit better than the D800 but not much in it at all.

      The bigger difference is the date of manufacture, the newer models manufactured from April 2013 to now for both the D800 and D800E are much better adjusted than the original cameras manufactured in 2012. I have an original D800 purchased in June 2012 at work and the color, white balance and contrast (Raw files) just seem much better on my own D800 and D800E cameras purchased in December 2013.

      • Guest

        Really? That’s unreal. I thought that should be fixable by firmware?

        • Les

          I think there is calibration data for the individual CMOS image sensors that is stored separately from the firmware. One issue is the colour garment changed in the D800 with firmware update A:1.01 / B:1.02 in April 2013 (not just the display on the camera monitor!). This fixed issues such as green white balance using flash for example. Unfortunate this also required new CMOS image sensor calibrations which are now out on the models older than April 2013.

          I have compared the new D800 with the old 1012 D800 models and there is a marked difference in the white balance, contrast, brightness and colours.

  • Ren Kockwell

    30% difference? Seriously? If that’s the case the price/performance ratio of the E seems to be worth it. Is there comparison image we can see? Is that detectable by pixel peepers only?

    • JXVo

      They qualify that statement by saying it applies only with the best lenses that are sharp enough to resolve to the D800E’s potential. Many of the more common lenses, and especially zooms, cannot even fully utilise the potential of the D800 and thus will not show up the difference as clearly.
      For example the 24-70 f2.8G and 24-120 f4G VR that are quite popular with owners of the D800/E do not feature anywhere in DXO’s list and even though both are regarded as quality lenses, I don’t think they will show up as 30% sharper on the E.
      It is better to go and read the DXO article than to draw conclusions from the brief snapshot posted here. Some interesting results for those on a budget.
      I would also like to know, on the same basis, how much sharper the D800 is than some of the other high resolution options such as D7100, D610, 5DMkIII

    • Global

      With one caveat: Its not worth it if you cant stand the extra moire most likely for certain professional reasons. That was always the trade off. The D800 resolves as well as any other Nikon and with more than enough mp, the D800e just has a certain advantage if you dont mind moire flare up. Moire is a serious problem for many subjects with D800e, whereas D800 can just be sharpened. The software is getting better though and i guess thats what Nikons banking on in a followup camera.

  • fonald duck

    quack quack quack

  • BestDecisionD800e

    Where is the Sigma 50 1.4 Art ?? Will be eventually better than the 35 Art….second place after the otus 55???….Time will tell…

    The king of vignetting (internal camera CPU off), the new Nikon 35 1.8 (FX ED G) is missing as well…..

    Sadly….1.8/2 wide open vignetting, locas etc……what a bummer…sigma so fuccing heavy but remarkably less vignetting wide open…carry or being upset….

    • Ricardo


      They should advertise the new 35 1.8 FX lens in Nikon terms……


      but already too long….

  • DXODork

    Yawn, DXODork. Their pointless shortlists are the main reason why I don#t touch their products.

    • Is there a testing website that you prefer, or is any attempt at objective, standardized testing pointless?

      • neversink

        DxO is not really objective. But their tests are interesting. I wouldn’t base my choices of camera or lenses based on their subjective scores.

  • Seb1

    No nikkor 70-200 VR II :D? Tamron wins

  • Benno

    I think there is one very important point missing here: How this extra resolution can be achieved. Only under certain circumstances, I suppose, such as mirror up, tripod etc. So, what does this mean for situations where this much of control is not possible, f.e. shooting a wedding? Not ranting, this is a serious question.

    • peteee363

      you do have a point. I find for quick street shooting, the d800e might not be the best solution. for high quality shots it is awesome. my d700 is still better for quick stuff, which is why I am considering getting a df.

      • neversink

        You can shoot up to 1/8000 of a second on a D800. How is the D700 faster except for a few fps. Who cares? I use the D800 for all sorts of editorial and other assignments.

        • peteee363

          some street shooting is low light. not night time, but low light. and I shoot mostly aperture priority, and like depth of field. so when trying to shoot at a lower iso, and high f stop, I shoot at slower shutter speeds, handheld. and the d800e is unforgiving of any movement or shake. where the d700 is. I am hoping the df might offer even lower light, while being more forgiving.

          • neversink

            True. I have no problem shooting the D800 (I don’t have the E) in low light. Just keep the camera as steady as you can. The D4 (same sensor as Df) is slightly better in low light than the D800. And at 16 mp, you might like the sensor results better than that of the D700, and might find it to be more “forgiving” than the D800E.

            • peteee363

              for landscape work the d800e is awesome. even with wide open shots of portraits. but at below 125th second you must hold very steady. my d700 I have shot at 1/2 second with sharp results.

            • neversink

              1/2 second…. Yu must have very steady hands!!!!!!

            • peteee363

              yes, with short lenses only. and only if the conditions are right. a test I do for students is to see how slow they can shoot. it is very simple, only takes a single candle, and a manual camera setting. knowing how slow you can shoot helps with judging the settings when using aperture or shutter priority settings.

    • iamlucky13

      The fact would remain that the D800 is a fantastic camera. You just might not be getting the most you can out of it.

      And it won’t necessarily matter. You should still be getting as much or more as you were with a lower resolution camera.

      Especially if it allows you to see limitations in your technique that you learn to improve upon.

      And on the flip side, recognizing the challenge in getting the most you can out of a D800 might also suggest that upgrading from, say, a D700 is not as urgent as you might otherwise think.

  • Dave

    DXOMark’s sharpness rating is meaningless, you can’t represent lens performance with just one number. The number means something like the sharpness in the centre of the frame at some optimum aperture. That’s a useless piece of information. It says nothing about the performance across the full frame and aperture range.
    Oh and their RAW converter sucks too.

    • I don’t know exactly how DXO comes up with their sharpness rating. That said, one number, for example, the amount of non redundant data in an image file, certainly could be used to describe the overall resolving capability of a lens. Obviously one number doesn’t fully describe a lens’es performance (check out this excellent summary: ), but that doesn’t mean the DXO sharpness rating is “meaningless”.

  • Anoobis

    Both Nikkors: 85mm. f/1.4 and f/1.8 are equally sharp. And 70-200mm. f/4 is not sharper than f/2.8. It’s cheaper, and lighter.

    • iamlucky13

      I’ve yet to see, but would like to, a true comparison of the 70-200 F/2.8 II and the F/4 at the same apertures and of the same subjects under the same conditions.

      I suspect at worst, they’d be very close – enough so that no one should have any reservations about choosing based on whether they have greater need of affordability and portability, or a wider aperture.

      • E.J. Peiker

        Comparison review I did when the f/4 lens first came out:

        • Dpablo unfiltered

          I think you did a good review there. The only question I have is regarding the vignetting. Were both lenses at max aperture or did you have the faster lens stopped down one so they were both at f4? You can understand why this makes a huge difference. Also, I trust photozone a lot and their results showed the faster lens being substantially sharper at all lengths and apertures. They also showed more vignetting at the long end for both lenses than what you noted. I’m sure they are using different equipment regarding the vignetting and I’m thinking that the differences in resolution may be because you compared a new lens with one that had ingested a lot of dust.

          • E.J. Peiker

            Oh I should have specified this, thanks for catching the oversight. In each case the lens was wide open.

        • iamlucky13

          Cool. Thanks for that. Good report.

  • frank

    When you use exp. comp. can it show in 1/3 stops in the finder as you adjust it??

  • This Nikkor Guy

    Glad I just upgraded from the 800 to the E.

  • peteee363

    I just did a test. the 24 1.4g lens is great, but it lacks a small enough f stop for landscape. sometimes a f/32 is what is needed for max depth of field. and on the d800e it seems the nano coated lenses seem to offer the best sharpness. so I used the 24 pc-e lens, as a normal unshifted lens. it looks weird, but does work great, as it does stop down to f/32.
    the 24-120 does stop down to f/22, but does not seem as sharp as the 24 1.4g, or the 24 pc-e.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      no doubt

  • Frank

    But does the exp. comp. work in 1/3 stops and show it in the finder?

  • Spy Black

    Until you get “down” to the Sigma on that list, the lenses listed are either esoteric, or stuff you’d use if you were doing some sports or wildlife work. And though sharpness is nice to have, some of the greatest work I’ve seen was handheld with motion blur, and the shot worked regardless. So I wouldn’t get too hung up on all this. Just shoot with what you got and make sure YOU make the shot happen.

    • Jeff Hunter

      Yes, I agree, super-sharp images are not always a requirement or even preferable in many situations. Although, you can start with a super-sharp image and soften it in post, you can’t start with a soft image and sharpen it significantly.

      • Spy Black

        The camera that you own and the lens that you use on it will not be the ultimate reason for sharpness.

        • Marc W.

          I keep telling myself that when I use a holga. 🙂

          • Spy Black

            What’s wrong with a Holga?

            • Marc W.

              Nothing. But you said that the ultimate reason for sharpness is not the camera or lens. So my first thought is the Holga.

      • neversink

        It’s not just sharpness, it’s bokeh, chromatic aberration, fall off, distortion, etc…. Some of these things are not measured by DxO…. You will get sharpness with Sigma and other cheaper third-party lenses, but you will get lousy QC, break-down issues, firm ware issues, and harsh and ugly bokeh on many of these types of third-party lenses (excluding Zeiss – and not all their lenses are the best.)

    • Mr. Mamiya

      I have to agree and not. A 135/2 is a highly useful lens, nothing esoteric. (In fact it made me sell my 70-200/2.8) A “normal” lens such as the 55/1.4 is a very common lens that should be in in every photographer’s bag. 85/1.4? Another classic portraiture lens. The lenses on the list are the most expensive of their kind though – because they are the best. Pity!

  • peterw

    Is ‘word blind’ correct English for reading something which isn’t written:
    I wonder why a used version of the tamron SP 70-200mm F/2,8 Di VC has made it to the list. I guess some of us would like to know how a new one would rate.

  • Mansgame

    What, the 14-24 24-70mm lenses are chopped liver?

  • moah

    Sharpness is all you need~~~

    • FredBear

      John Lennon?

  • Curtis

    It’s not 30% sharper. It got a 30% higher DXO “Sharpness Score” whatever that means.

  • Vin

    I am interested in why optically we don’t see a higher sharpness score on the wider angle lenses like 18mm-24mm. Is the test only on center sharpness or overall average of image field? I recently have become more interested in wider options, I would like a compact lens in the 20mm range. It seems the old 20mm 2.8D is still valued high.

  • quale

    I agree this is another futile, quasi-scientific effort to drive people to buy a costlier gear for what, in fact, is the nigligible perceptual difference. When quantifying the sharpness of the actual photos, engineers too often neglect the difference between what is actually there and our impression of them. It is like comparing seeing water as a set of H2Os with microscope, and seeing it as water in naked eyes. We need cognitive neuroscientists and not optical engineers to provide evidence that the difference in the amount of sharpness is really felt for us, otherwise they make the same mistakes.

    • Bigeater

      True. There are a lot of visual tricks that you can use to increase apparent sharpness. They include the use of well-defined specular highlights, using contrasting colors to outline the subject, adding negative space around the main subject, generating nice sharp shadows, lighting the subject from an angle to produce edge highlights, and leaving lots of distance between foreground and background. Nevertheless, I’ve rented that Zeiss 135 and the 85 1.8 nikkor and they definitely have a different look to them on a D800E, much more medium-format. Will most people notice? Probably not, but to me it has proven that in photography and video, you get what you pay for.

    • While I realize that this exotic gear provides an advantage when doing certain types of photography, for the most part it doesn’t bring enough value to justify its purchase. As a smaller-scaled pro in a small market here in Boise, ID, I’m not holding my breath to get that high-paying assignment from Tiffany, shooting diamond necklaces on exquisite fashion models. So, I simply can’t find a reason to spend $4,000 on a Zeiss Otus like the small handful of New York and LA pros lucky enough to have that kind of client base. But, I CAN take advantage of what humans do well. First, what we don’t do well in most cases is have the ability to look at something and judge it in ABSOLUTE terms. That is, by itself. But, we do a VERY good job of comparing one thing with another, which is why that flower sitting two feet above the grass in your garden looks like it’s going to jump right out of your computer or off the paper you’ve printed it on, even though you shot it with a $200 point-n-shoot. The sharp flower against the blurred background grass APPEARS to be super sharp because of the relative difference. So, take advantage of all the things you DO have at your disposal…your knowledge of human perception being probably the most important.

  • lorenzo

    1. if you buy a camera when just comes out you get all possible bugs
    2. if you buy it after most bugs are fixed you regret it few months later when the newer model replaces your camera 🙁

    Will the D800S or D810 be any sharper than the D800E?

    • Jeff Hunter

      Yep. That’s the horns of that dilemma.

  • Anyone have any ideas on why the Otus stands out on the D800 and not the e? It seems like an anomaly.

  • Steve Griffin

    I find all this “can your lens use the extra resolution the D800E offers” quite boring and confusing. It really does seem like a marketing exercise to sell more lenses. Do Dx0 have an affiliation with B&H by chance?

    I own two D800E’s a K-5 and a K-01. All those cameras have almost identical pixel pitch and thus should have the same absolute resolution on a per mm basis. That being considered, then surely a D7100 or some other 24MP APS-C would show the limitations of a lens more so than a D800E?

    I’ll say this about Dx0 though: They show really lousy results for Pentax lenses but the ones I use are definitely sharper at 100% than any of my Nikon glass apart from my 35/1.4G when it’s stopped down. I can’t say that I truly trust Dx0 to be frank.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      Doesn’t DXO tend to test their stuff at max aperture?
      Also, the D7100 isn’t going to show much weakness on a full frame prime because you can’t get anywhere near the sides or corners with that little bitty sensor. However, I suppose you could always see which lens has the best center resolution….

      • Steve Griffin

        Yeah, that was my meaning. The center of an 24MP APS-C sensor would “find out” the resolution limits of a few more lenses. A FF sensor with the pixel pitch of a 24MP APS-C sensor would be 54MP. Obviously the edges aren’t getting teh same kind of workout though.

        A 1:1 table comparison of P-MPix of the same lenses on a D7100 would be very interesting.

  • AnotherView

    Well, if you always shoot at f5.6 or smaller like I do, there’s no difference between the D800 and D800E. So there.

    • Reilly Diefenbach

      Well, yeah, there is, right through f11, but if it makes you feel better…

  • Jon McGuffin

    Is it safe and fair to say that irregardless of the true or perceived 30% increase in sharpness, sometimes, for what might amount to a less than 10% premium in price it just pays to simply buy the best of whatever you possibly can?

  • 60% of DX0’s numbers are fabricated, and 97% are meaningless in the real world.

    • 90% of statistics are fabricated on the spot.

      • Dpablo unfiltered

        I just fabricated that spot.

      • I’m glad somebody gets it!

  • Mittens

    Yay! Now my cat pictures will be 30% sharper!

  • Photoroto

    When I take pictures I hope will not meet anybody I know, so they will not discover what pathetic lenses I use.

  • Ernesto Quintero

    Is the D800 instant rebate going bye bye at the end of the month ? Ready to hit the add to cart button on a D800. I just can’t justify the $500 difference to the D800e, never mind the D800s/x expected higher price when it comes out later this year.

  • jk

    I have the zeiss 135mm APO and Otus and I also found the APO a better lens despite of many cheesy internet camera testers claim other wise. the 135mm APO is already a legend, sharpest lens ever produced any one for 35mm format camera.

    • Dpablo unfiltered

      Do tell me who makes a quality wide lens.

  • Joseph

    I don’t own a single modern AF-S/VR lens. I have a bunch of older legendary glass – 50/1.2, 85/1.4D, 55/2.8 Micro, 135/2DC, 200/4 Micro, etc.

    They are all crazy sharp. I imagine some of the newer lenses may be slighter sharper in the corners. Who cares?

  • Reininho

    BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    24 1.4 and 84 1.4 Art is coming……LOVE IT!

    Sigma do it!…..

    I bet and tell you something there will be probably a 5th Art prime lens in order to compelte the excellent line up a 135 1.8 or 2.0…..but i think it will be a 1.8 to compete with sonys exceptional lens on the market the 135 1.8 zeiss and due to the fact that sigma is so innovative/wants to get more attention recognized than ever before….

    Love it!!! SIgma is on the reight track…..nice news!

    I will buy all 5……;) can’t wait till next summer when all 5 will be on the market….

    “Innovations distinguishes between leaders and followers….” Steve Jobs

  • Viero

    Puuh….Nikon’s management (leaders) should make sure to remember (this) Job’s statement …..they could learn a lot…..;)

  • bertbopper

    DXO please test the 85mm PCE. It is my sharpest and best constructed lens: best bokeh, least aberation, sharp full open corner to corner. Really wonder how it compares to the ones listed here.

    • neversink

      Then why do you needed it tested. i don’t care what lenses DxO tests and touts. Just test all lenses immediately once purchased so you can send it back if you don’t like. And that is looking at downloaded RAW files on a decent monitor. Who cares what Dx) tests and says. i find their reviews interesting but very subjective.

  • neversink

    If you love Sigma’s ugly and harsh and angular bokeh, poor QC, and potential inability to work on future firm ware upgrades and newer cameras, then go buy Sigma. Don’t be fooled by names like “Art” and “Sport.” It is all hype.

    • nwcs

      Spoken like someone who hasn’t used the Sigma Art lenses.

      • neversink

        I’ve tested them and the bokeh is ugly!!!!!!!!!

        • nwcs

          Which is totally your opinion. Not a reason for people to avoid the lenses.

          • neversink

            Not just my opinion, but the opinion of many other professionals out there. But in the end my opinion is the one that counts for me. I also think the color contrast is better in the Nikkor corresponding lenses. But enjoy your five Sigmas. I hope they do the job for you.

        • bokehguardian

          neversink: “the bokeh is ugly”

          True for many, but not all. I dare you to say the bokeh is ugly on these lenses (and please do provide a fair comparison proof):

          120-300 S
          105/150/180 APO Macro
          50 A
          (there may be a few more)

  • Royl

    I have never used a D800. I know my E model can produce some great sharpness. Strangely, sharpness doesn’t play much of a roll in the photos I like best, but maybe that’s just me. I think I could have been happy with a D800. Truth is, I like the Df better than the D800E, and nobody is talking about sharpness with a Df.

    • neversink

      I love both the D4 and the 800. I would have purchased the D800E, but all I could get when the D800 series came out was the D800. Early E’s were harder to get and I had an assignment. It was my D700 replacement (something some people haven’t yet figured out.)

  • Dpablo unfiltered

    You must have been following the news very closely…

  • neversink

    I find it hard to believe that the 500mm F/4, 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6 aren’t anywhere on these lists. That Tamron and Sigmas Zoom lenses beat out these lenses is altogether absurd. In fact, it is impossible!!!

  • Neopulse


    And the 85mm was expected to be updated to the new ART standard several months ago although that date is an idea although it could take longer. Price wise by then it might cost as much as a Nikkor f/1.4G or more. It’ll be interesting to see if it’ll be as durable as the competition. And I love the 85 f/1.4D and G lenses, lets see how Sigma does it.

  • Eric Frame

    People looking at your pictures don’t care what camera it was taken with, if it has CA, is super duper sharp, or anything else.. they want to look at a good picture. If you can’t get that right, they won’t care how sharp it is. And if you can get it right, they still won’t care how much sharp it is, as long as its in focus.

  • 24×36

    Here’s a different way of looking at things…”Best camera for any nikon mount lens – D800E.”

  • Back to top