Just curious, is the question a result of you wanting to know about how good the D800 is, or how good a platform the D800 is for evaluating lenses? Serious question - no sarcasm intended. I got sucked into reading some stuff on the bythom.com site this morning and came across this in his comments on the D600...
Update: It seems a few have objected to that last paragraph. I stand by it. The critical words are "especially" and "better matches." With a D800 and these two lenses, optimal optical results are achieved at a point where you're into the diffraction zone on a D800. When I measured the gain in resolution at 85mm f/11 between the D800 (36mp) and D3x (24mp), I got low single digit resolution gains. Is it worth paying US$900 more for a camera to get that gain if these are your choice of lenses? I say no. The D600 matches up better against these lenses: you can still stop down to f/8 and get good performance gains and about everything those lenses can deliver. Can you get a bit more with a D800? Sure, but it's the old many-dollars-for-little-gain problem.
I understand that people often buy more than they need. If that's what you want to do, fine. But my comments here were in the context of the value proposition of the FX bodies and lenses. The D600 matches up nicely against the 24-85mm and 28-300mm. The D800 matches up better against the 24-120mm and 24-70mm. I'm pretty sure that's what Nikon actually intended.
From that it would seem that the D800 could be "too much" for lesser lenses.
I have noticed some people trashing various equipment that I doubt they have actually ever used. My emphasis is on the quality of photos that can be taken with the 35-80, as it is just above FREE on the price ladder. The D800 just happens to be the camera. It could be a D600, D7000, or any other motor equipped camera.
I've noticed that if a lens isn't at the top of the Nikon food chain, and costing no less than 4-figures, it often gets negative posts.... even though the poster has never actually used the lens. Not everyone can afford the most expensive (best?) equipment, but that doesn't mean there isn't a good alternative available. Maybe it's an equipment-snob thing. I don't know the rationale.
Personally, I believe people put too much stock in the bythom.coms of the world, and far too many people tend to quote these "experts" without any real-world experience of their own.
The 35-80 can be purchased easily for $40-$50. So, my point: Is that a measure of the resulting quality of photos?
the 35-80 D is not that bad of a lens, I have one,, use it on my D7000, and tried it on my D800, for 45 dollars a steal.
no,, it is not a 2.8,, but,, in daylight, fine, and with the Higher ISO ability of modern lens, can work in many situations.
I really like the size, tiny. I use a 35-70 2.8 in these situations, so,, would not have a reason to shoot with this lens since the 35-70 is not that much larger (but heavier).
So,, buy it,, until you can save and save and save,, and buy eventually a 24-70 2.8 Gem...
oops.. rambling.... so buy the 35-85 yet?
and based on your examples,, did just fine.. Looks like you live in Florida.
So,, buy it,, until you can save and save and save,, and buy eventually a 24-70 2.8 Gem...
Me,, for the D800 I am still using the 20-35 2.8, and 35-70 2.8 combo,,
laughs,, my holy trinity is:
Nikkor 20-35 2.8 (good ones for 500)
Nikkor 35-70 2.8 (good ones for 300)
Nikkor 80-200 2.8 (brand new for 1100).
Less than the price of the current holy trinity
Nikkor 14-24 - 2000
Nikkor 24-70 - 1900
Nikko 70-210 - 2400
so,, one needs around 6300 dollars to get the current holy trinity.
so,, depends on wealth and or photography income.
oops.. rambling.... so buy the 35-85 yet?
You know, most of the issues with cheaper lenses - CA, vignetting, pin-cushioning and barreling, can all be addressed with PP. So I would say using any lens can produce images on par with the more expensive lenses provided you're willing to put the time in to resolve them.