D800 lenses

[crycocyon]

In a way you do have a trinity of the 28/50/85, all of which are very good prime lenses. You don't just have Tokina or Sigma lenses for it (or DX lenses).So are you saying that you can take a photo with your 50 or 85 1.8G and put it next to a photo of of the same subject taken with the 24-85 mm and say it looks the same? Or how about the Sigma at 16mm vs the Nikon at 16mm. Or (although just change distance for this comparison) the Sigma 150-500 at 150 vs the nikon 85 1.8G? Yes there are many lenses that work well with the D800, but that isn't the point. Look at the rankings and where they sit on the overall rating graph. There are still significant differences even if a given lens is a reasonably good performer. If you don't care that much about resolution then why not just stick with a D600, or D700? Or then why even go with an FX camera? And it isn't just about point to point resolution (ie: contrast, color rendition, flare, distortion, etc.).

Also, I didn't say for him to get the most expensive. If you read my list carefully, I included examples like the 50 1.8 and 1.4, the 85 1.8 and 1.4. The less expensive lenses work as well if not sometimes better than the more expensive ones but if he needs the speed he has that option. But if you are shooting with a zoom, you might as well have two D600s instead of a D800 and D600. But each to his own. If someone is happy putting a $200 Tokina lens on a $3000 36 MP DSLR then that is their decision but they are missing the point of owning a camera like that in the first place. It would be like buying a Leica S2 and putting a Nikon lens on it just because a Nikon lens would be "good enough" and "when the image is reduced in size you won't notice a difference anyway".

 

[BackdoorArts]

I've got 3 old Canon point and shoots in my drawer too, so that's another trinity I suppose.

Every lens has characteristics that will differentiate from another to an experienced eye. The bokeh of the prime lenses tends to be more pleasing to most than that of the 24-85mm, so if I shoot at low aperture and include out of focus objects in the foreground/background then the nature of the bokeh could point towards/away from a prime. But I could easily compose photos with each where it would extremely difficult or impossible to tell the difference. There are horses for courses, and knowing your lenses is as critical, if not more critical, than knowing your camera because chances are they will be with you longer.

So, my point is that when someone gives the Ferrari analogy the first time someone says they are looking for lenses for their D800, particularly when that person never said what they were looking to shoot, how much they wanted to spend and how many lenses they're willing to carry, it makes me nuts. Now if they are looking to get a D800 and do portraits and some landscapes as a side business and someone suggests that even the 24-85mm is all they need, then perhaps the analogy fits, because there are better lenses to build a reputation on. But if they're going to be backpacking around Europe and want to do street portraits and scenic stuff as they hike then I'd be fine with that single solution. The D800 works great with all of them and the glass is more than up to the job. So while I have this "trinity", I generally don't walk around with 3 lenses and swap as I need them, worrying that my bokeh might not be as awe inspiring otherwise. I know my 24-85mm and what it will do well, and I shoot accordingly, which means I'm not looking for that monster depth of field shot - but if I find it, I'm still going to take it, and likely be pleased with it.

There are many more reasons other than a 36MP sensor for owning a body like the D800, and I believe anyone who doesn't see that is missing the point. Wanting to shoot full frame with a camera that will survive being tossed around in a backpack might be one of them. Or maybe, just maybe, there's some quirky bokeh and CA that someone sees in their $200 Tokina that has become an integral part of the way they shoot and they expect to see it in all its megapixel glory now that they're selling prints of their art?

For me the car analogy has always been backwards. The body is the tires, because it's where the rubber meets the road and the last link to performance, so you buy the body that matches your performance needs. The lens is that timeless piece of performance beauty, or that utilitarian half truck- half family sedan that can do whatever you need, or that cheap little compact that just gets the job done.

 

[JDFlood]

Don't forget to read between the lines. Embedded in every query is a lot of information about the person, their skill level, and a lot more or less. If a person states the question without many qualifications you can infer, like in the case of the D800... They don't have one, are not experienced with one. Their collection of lenses suggests more. BD, I think your comments are very useful, in that it shows the point of view of a very experienced photographer. When you have owned top notch equipment for decades, then your point of view on the lens makes sense. But as someone who has not yet experienced the high end, they may not yet know where they are going and presented with an options to upgrade, they are probably looking for options for greatest incremental improvement.

Personally, I think the auto analogy works great... But sorry BD, your strange ( no insult intended, I fully admit to being strange myself, although not on the automotive analogy front). The car body has the engine, the transmission, the weight distribution, navigation, comfort... The camera has the capture resolution, metering system, grip, ergonomics, processing power, and these things determine the overall performance... Then the tires / lenses determine the finer points of cornering, fine image details. You may love your tires, but probably didn't learn about the nuances of different tires on your VW bug.

Also, if you are moving up from a DX to FX, any camera is likely to be a big improvement, in many way, like BD points out. As a newcomer, they are unlikely to appreciate them until they discover them. This is part of the fun of reaching up, and making a big jump in performance.

JD