D800 with a Forty-Dollar 35-80mm Nikon Lens..... Anyone have experience?

TedG954

Senior Member
Any of you with a D800, have you ever used a cheapo 35-80mm Nikon? I would think that with 36MP, any and all of the lens' flaws would be very apparent. If you have actually used this combination, what's your opinion?
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
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.
 

stmv

Senior Member
I like to look at what type of shot I want, and match the lens to the event. Sometimes the lens is not absoulte optiminum for the camera, but right for the photography at the moment.

Can you get a decent shot with the 35-80, are you getting the full 36 Meg value, maybe not, but can still get a decent shot (and downsize for quality, etc),
 

TedG954

Senior Member
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?
 
Last edited:

Dave_W

The Dude
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.
 

TedG954

Senior Member
These are photos without any processing for CA, vignetting, pin-cushioning or barreling. Nor have they been cropped at all.

Hopefully, folks can realize that they need to research actual photos taken with a lens before they judge it good or bad. Expert opinions are not the final answer. You are.

Will I use the 35-80 as my primary lens? No. I've spent far too much cash on other lenses and I plan to get my money's worth out of them. But, if I was in the market, with a budget, I certainly wouldn't snub this lens because it's "cheap".

View attachment 25320

View attachment 25321

View attachment 25322

View attachment 25323


 

stmv

Senior Member
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...


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.


The beauty of the D7000/D600/D800 etc is that one can keep using the old glass/classics
while saving up for the Holy three.


by the way,, I'll still keep my older set even as I phase in the newer set,, just because
I like size of the older lens, with the exception of perhaps the 70-200 would 100% replace
the 80-200 (but,, actually, I am totally happy with the 80-200, so not that motivated to buy
the 70-200)


of the current holy trinity ...


I think I lust most for the 14-24,,,, just because it is so unique, and expands my wide angle with a zoom (my current ultra wides are primes).


then eventually get the beautiful 24-70,,,,


oops.. rambling.... so buy the 35-85 yet?
 
Last edited:

AC016

Senior Member
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?

NO. The 18-55mm - what people call the "kit" lens - as you know, is a wonderful lens and out shines many other lenses that are more expensive. Actually, many of the "plastic" lenses are wonderful performers. You may not like him, but KR - in my opinion - has some of the best reviews on lenses out there. He always gives kudos to the lower end or "plastic" lenses. But yes, you are right, many people out there will just consider something that is entry level as crap, which is far from being true.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I guess it all boils down to personal preference and what the individual photographer is trying to achieve with their art. Cheap lenses are cheap because they're easy to make and have wide tolerances between lenses of the same model but that does not exclude it from producing good images. Heck, I've seen some awesome images coming from a pin-hole "lens" on a dSLR and it doesn't get any lower tech than that. One of these days I'm going to order a set of pin-hole covers and give it a try.
 

TedG954

Senior Member
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?


Actually, I've owned the lens for quite some time. I was bored today and decided to try it out on the 800.

This is just an academic exercise.
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
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?

I had both Nikon 20-35mm f2.8D and Nikon 16-35mm f4 VRII at one point but after a while the newer lens just performs much better and sharper wide open. Is it worth paying for the extra premium? I would say so depending on what you already mentioned.

To answer Ted's inquiry, if you stop down to f8 and in daylight, I think they will be similar in optical performance but they don't render similar bokeh as the f2.8. For web posting they are ok but once you start pixel peeping, the detail and sharpness is just not there wide open. I've owned and sold a lot of lenses before because I use to follow most of the advices of one particular website talking about cheap but sharp lenses. Same person who suggest on just shooting jpg with super saturated colors. Of course, I don't do that anymore and got rid of all my D lenses. One must try out the other more expensive offerings in order to appreciate what they can offer.
 
Last edited:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
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.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, provided I add the caveat that the user work within the known limitations of the given lens.

By this I mean that cheaper lenses have a smaller "sweet spot" - that area of use where it excels, and outside of which shows obvious, if extremely subtle, flaws. Soft focus can't be corrected, and while there are shooting situations where that can be masked somewhat by the photo content, those are the times when the shooter needs to ask the bang for buck question "is it good enough for my purposes?".

The more you shoot, and the more you see what some lenses are capable of, the more you realize the limitations of others. I got my D7000 (my first DSLR) because we had a week planned in Yosemite 6 months down the line. I didn't want to carry a lot since we'd be hiking so I picked up a 28-300mm, which met my needs at my price point. Worked just fine for me. But now that I've shot with other lenses, I see where I pressed it to and beyond its limits, and wish I'd had a little more experience and a couple other lenses with me. That doesn't make it a "bad" lens, and I still shoot with it on occasion - but I know the range of focal length and aperture where it excels.

Like anything, if you know your equipment, you know how to make the most out of it. I've heard guitar players make incredible music with what many consider pawn shop junk. If you're relying on the equipment to make you a better photographer then you're going to want the best possible equipment because you're going to get "lucky" with a little higher frequency. But if you know what you're doing, you can quickly assess just about anything someone puts in your hands and use it to its maximum capabilities.
 
Top