D800 -> Lenses ?

[dekwart]

Hellow fellow nikon lovers.

I used to shoot with a D7000, but now i have switched to a full frame, the D800. Because this baby costs alot , i want to take time to buy good lenses. Best for what i want to do.
I think i need a good wide angle lens for my landscape -> AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED or Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G ED - I think the 14-24 would be best for me because when i use my wide angle, i dont zoom in alot, most of the times i want a wide angle But it seems you can not put filters on this lense, only very exp ones, so ill need a another one

Then i need a telelens, for portrait & reportage -> Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED or Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Nikon. The sigma has the same stats like the nikon, but costs half of it. Ive read that the nikon is indeed better, but is it really much better or just a tiny bit? I dont want a lens with alot of lensmistakes and color mistakes. But if id go for the sigma i have the f2.8 for the price of nikons f4... But i don't want to lose much quality or ruin my panorama's. (i need a good tele for pano's too ) So here id go for the Nikon f4, as i think i dont need the f2.8 alot. i never had a lens who can do it on the D7000 so i think i just don't need it...

So i can now make wide open images & go close to my subject with the wide angel and i can zoom in and out with the tele to make nice portraits and fast shots.

Last one is a macrolens, for the details and just the fun of macro'ing. Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8G ED IF VR Micro Id say

Id like a tele with some more zoom, to shoot wildlife and birds more easier, but those prices go quite high, but in the future i might buy me a super zoom too, like 400-500mm.
A last add, i also like to do nightphotography !

If anyone would like to help, thanks alot !


greets bart

 

[hamlet]

Concerning the 14-24mm and filters. I wouldn't put a cheap filter on this expensive glass, because it would defeat the purpose of having expensive glass. So no affordable filters.

The 70-200 sigma is perhaps an inferior lens according to all the reviews i've read. The tamron 70-200 vc or nikon 70-200 vri is a lens you should consider if the vrii is too expensive for you.

The macro lens i'm still looking into, but the 105mm from nikon is definitely a prize lens.

 

[bc_steve]

You'll want sharp lenses because with 36 MP and the full frame field of view you'll notice any shortcomings.

Haven't used those wide angle lenses. If I were you I would want to go for the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2. I have the older version and am so happy with it. Very sharp, but I hear on FX it is soft in the corners. This is fixed in the VR2 lens. I think it is probably worth going with the Nikon for this, but I have never tried the Sigma.

If you want to save some money on the macro, consider the Tokina 100mm. It's sharp.

 

[PaulWog]

Concerning the 14-24mm and filters. I wouldn't put a cheap filter on this expensive glass, because it would defeat the purpose of having expensive glass. So no affordable filters.

The 70-200 sigma is perhaps an inferior lens according to all the reviews i've read. The tamron 70-200 vc or nikon 70-200 vri is a lens you should consider if the vrii is too expensive for you.

The macro lens i'm still looking into, but the 105mm from nikon is definitely a prize lens.

I've paid $25 for a clear filter that provides the same side-by-side pictures as the $80 Hoya UV filter I have as well. Every comparison shot I try, same pixel-peeping color rendition & sharpness. Clear filters don't have to break the bank too much.

To the OP: You shouldn't use a 17-55mm on a full-frame camera. In fact, let me rephrase that: You can't use a 17-55mm on the D800 for wide shots in the way you're thinking. It's a DX lens. You'd have to do some workarounds in-camera, go into DX mode.

 

[hamlet]

Concerning the 14-24mm and filters. I wouldn't put a cheap filter on this expensive glass, because it would defeat the purpose of having expensive glass. So no affordable filters.

The 70-200 sigma is perhaps an inferior lens according to all the reviews i've read. The tamron 70-200 vc or nikon 70-200 vri is a lens you should consider if the vrii is too expensive for you.

The macro lens i'm still looking into, but the 105mm from nikon is definitely a prize lens.

I've paid $25 for a clear filter that provides the same side-by-side pictures as the $80 Hoya UV filter I have as well. Every comparison shot I try, same pixel-peeping color rendition & sharpness. Clear filters don't have to break the bank too much.

To the OP: You shouldn't use a 17-55mm on a full-frame camera. In fact, let me rephrase that: You can't use a 17-55mm on the D800 for wide shots in the way you're thinking. It's a DX lens. You'd have to do some workarounds in-camera, go into DX mode.

personally i wouldn't ever put a filter on my glass if i dont need it for my shot because each filter is another barrier between you and the light. But that $80 hoya filter is something i'd put on my kit lens. You need to look into Singh-Ray or b+w's top filters for a professional lens.

 

[480sparky]

.......Every comparison shot I try, same pixel-peeping color rendition & sharpness..........

Post some!

 

[PaulWog]

personally i wouldn't ever put a filter on my glass if i dont need it for my shot because each filter is another barrier between you and the light. But that $80 hoya filter is something i'd put on my kit lens. You need to look into Singh-Ray or b+w's top filters for a professional lens.

Before you make these recommendations, I suggest you actually see for yourself.

.......Every comparison shot I try, same pixel-peeping color rendition & sharpness..........

Post some!

I didn't keep them. In fact, my Hoya filter is garbage now (it's at the dump). It got a scratch (not from protecting the lens though, it just wasn't in my bag and got scratched). I do have the cheaper lens filter! I'll post some comparison pixel peeping shots of it versus no filter (I use it on my 85mm 1.8G right now, my 16-85mm is left bare and so is my 70-300 VR -- only reason I use the single filter is because it was a present, I don't want to buy another filter unless if I go somewhere sandy).

Interesting story: I tried smashing the Hoya 67mm filter with a hammer. It would not break... such a strong piece of glass. It came out of the metal mounting piece, but the actual circular piece of glass just would not break... well, it did... but it took * A LOT * of force. I was tired of looking at my scratched $80 lens filter, I wanted to break the memory of parting with the money.

 

[kundalini]

Welcome to TPF dekwart.

All three Nikkor lenses you mention are excellent candidates and this comes from personal experience. Although the 14-24mm does not allow for screw on filters, I have not been hampered by it. You just have to adjust settings, camera position or wait until the light is right. I get very little lens flare from it for my shooting. Although the Sigma may have the same specs, have you considered there may be a reason for it? The 105mm f/2.8 micro lens is a gold standard.

As a word of caution, you may wish to search the posting history of members that respond to your equipment questions and concerns. Field experience trumps theory every time.

 

[hamlet]

personally i wouldn't ever put a filter on my glass if i dont need it for my shot because each filter is another barrier between you and the light. But that $80 hoya filter is something i'd put on my kit lens. You need to look into Singh-Ray or b+w's top filters for a professional lens.

Before you make these recommendations, I suggest you actually see for yourself.

How presumptuous of you.

 

[DougGrigg]

Portrait and reportage, I use a 16 - 35mm f/4.0 VR lens. Its a brilliant lens (Great if you're used to shooting 35mm cameras like I am)

 

[Derrel]

Here is a post that has links to the best-tested lenses on the Nikon D800, as determined by DxO Mark and their laboratory and staff of technicians and scientists. DxOMark: best lenses for the Nikon D800 camera | Nikon Rumors

The world is filled with good lens choices these days.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Welcome and all that funky jazz.

As a word of caution, you may wish to search the posting history of members that respond to your equipment questions and concerns. Field experience trumps theory every time.

This.

And that Nikon 105mm 2.8 macro lens is nice. If you aren't specifically going for bugs it's fine because, IMO of shooting bugs for two+ years, the longer the focal length the better... But. I still love my Tamron 90mm 2.8 II because I love the bokeh on it more than other macro lenses I have tried... And the color rendition is fantastic.

 

[Hosanna]

excellent lens and will do very good macro.