Buying new Nikon D800, need to pick the right lenses.

480sparky · May 24, 2014

Buy every lens possible.

Try them all.

Choose the ones you like.

Send me the rest.

jaomul · May 24, 2014

You can look at DPreview homepage as it has this week put a link to DXO who recently published the best lenses for a D800. When I used a 5d my favourite lens for everyday use was a Canon 24-105mm f4 because it covered so much of what I needed and done most things well. Nikon have a similar 24-120mm f4 which on paper looks better but I believe (and am open to correction) that it is only ok when price is taken into consideration, however Sigma released a recent 24-105mm OS f4 lens which is getting good reviews. If you buy a good do it all lens, you will soon figure what other lenses you need from your experience with it (at least that was the way for me)

bigal1000 · May 25, 2014

Derrel said:
I like the 35mm f/2 AF-D on FF Nikon for environmental, full-body portraits, like say, at the beach.A 50mm lens is fine for half-body shots from 10,15 feet away, where you ALSO want to show the environment. The 50mm f/1.8 G focuses fast...most say faster than the f/1.4 version, so I went with a 50/1.8-G. I like small primes lenses, so the 24/2.8, 35/2, and 50.18 in the "old" AF OR AF-D style means I have three small primes, all with 52mm front lens caps/filter size. The 50/1.8 AF-S G is a 58mm filter/cap and is the odd man out, so I often leave it at home even though it is the better 50mm lens.

If you have a 24-70, then you don;t need to worry about 24,35,50mm primes so much. I'd second the 85/1.8 G as a portrait tele suggestion. It's sharp and LIGHT, and pretty compact. It is actually **remarkably** sharp and crisp--one of the finer lenses Nikon makes for the D800.

Every lens length has its uses...but not every photographer has a use for every lens length.

+1 on a 35mm f2.0 D

WayneF · May 25, 2014

The_Traveler said:
14-24 on a FF camera is very, very, wide wide.

When I was shooting Nikon I used 24-70 for 95%of my shots.
I looked at your shots and they would all have been shot with the 24-70 except maybe 'volcano.'
And most not in the lower end.

24-70 is a magnificent lens because it is immensely versatile and I was never sorry I had it.
14-24 is a great lens but it forces you to shoot in very specific ways and it is really more a specialty lens.

If I were ever to go back to FF, I would get the 24-70 and 70-200 and then maybe think of the 14-24.
I migrated to m4/3 and have the 24-70 and 70-200 equivalents there.

This is an excellent response, at a lofty level for a forum.

You have to get a 24-70 for the D800, period. You may want something else too, but the 24-70 is extremely versatile, and extremely good. The 14-24 is very good too, but not so versatile, a specialty lens as said. FX is already wide, and 24 mm FX is already the same view as 16mm DX.

The f/2.8 lenses are simply better... better shooting at f/4 than a f/4 lens for example. But they are heavy, esp all three of them, so for walking around all day with one lens, I also have the 24-120 f/4. It is no 24-70, but it's still mighty good.

sonicbuffalo · May 25, 2014

Derrel said:
I would rather have the 16-35mm f/4 VR Nikkor than the 14-24...just a BETTER RANGE of focal lengths for landscapes. Under 24mm gives soooo much of that far-away and booooooooring look. Thom Hogan mentioned the same thing last week in looking at what lenses he would KEEP and USE if he were to retire...he points out that he reaches for the 16-35 VR more often than the monster-sized, no-filter, 14-24 G. I'm NOT a fan of the wide, boring, teeeeny-tiny-unimportant-background "look" that focal lengths under 24mm yield on soooooo many landscapes....just so tedious looking at wide-angle, boring shots where there's NOTHING that can even be recognized beyond 10 feet from the lens. The 14-24 specializes in yielding those boring, too-wide shots.

85mm f/1.8 AF-S G is a MUST-have prime for the money and for the resolution/performance. 24-70mm....it's big, it's versatile. But it has no "top end", which is why for me, I am not interested. I would rather have (and do own) a 24-85mm zoom. If you've not used a 24mm on full-frame, you are in for a pleasant surprise; it might be the perfect wide-angle lens for the real world, for MANY situations. Not ultra-widem, but nevertheless, WIDE. ANd, easy to deploy and not make ultra-dull, boring images.

28mm is also very useful. Same with 35mm. There is a reason that Nikon used to make a pro-grade 17-35mm f/2.8, and a pro-grade 20mm-35mm f/2.8 before that, and now makes a 16-35mm f/4 AF-S VR lens of pro-grade quality. And why Canon has multiple lenses in the 16-35 and 17-40mm range; those are the MOST-useful,and most-desired lens lengths on wide-angle zoom lenses to be used on FF bodies.

This was taken with my boooooring 14-24 mm f/2.8. Great for car shows....great for interiors.....other things too...plus landscapes! Come on Derrel!

Halnex · May 25, 2014

Guys can anyone show me a comparison between the same setting taken with 50mm and 85mm.

I'm afraid if I got the 50mm f1.4, the result would be far from what I'm used to with my old Nikon D80 DX.
would I be able to replicate it on a fullframe body?
I imagine I would have to be extremely close to my subject or crop the photo manually.

480sparky · May 25, 2014

Rent both lenses for a weekend and try both of them out.

WayneF · May 25, 2014

Halnex said:
Guys can anyone show me a comparison between the same setting taken with 50mm and 85mm.

I'm afraid if I got the 50mm f1.4, the result would be far from what I'm used to with my old Nikon D80 DX.
would I be able to replicate it on a fullframe body?

Using any same lens, and standing in the same place, then the view in a FX body is 1.5x wider than on a DX body. FX is wide angle by default.
This is the meaning of the DX 1.5x equivalent focal length concept... DX view shows what a FX body would show if the FX body used a 1.5x longer focal length.

Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Lenses Simulator