D800 lenses

I am looking into the D800, thinking I may want to go FX, would a Sigma 70-200 2.8, Nikkor 40mm macro, 35mm 1.8, be decent lenses? Or would I need to get all new glass? Any help in appreciated, thanks.....

Your 35 and possibly 40 are dx lenses.

Consider the Nikon 105mm 2.8 macro. It's full-framed. Your D800 will love it.

To compliment your 70-200, I would suggest a 16-35 f4 VR and/or a 24-70 f2.8. I have these lenses & they are amazing, although not cheap.

It depends on your expectation. There's a lot of talk about D800 shows up the weaknesses of a lens. I believe the Sigma 70-200 2.8 will be a good lens (I do not own one but I have seen what it can do on a FX body). As for Nikkor 40mm - is designed for DX body and if you really need a full frame macro - you may need to try the 60mm or 105mm to get the full edge to edge sharpness. 35mm 1.8 is again a DX lens, so you may have to get yourself another 35mm FX lens to get the full benefit of D800 sensor. Whatever, the D800 is really a great camera and you will not disappoint.

In the range you mention, I would look at the Sigma AF 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM (breathtaking image quality according to the reviews), Nikon's own 50mm f1.8 D (cheap, small, excellent image quality), and maybe at the Tamron 24-70 mm, there's a thread in this forum in the lens section. For tele I cannot comment, I don't use tele lenses.

I currently use the Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4 D, which produces IMHO excellent results with the D800, too. You can see example images at the link in my sig.

An awful lot depends on what you plan on shooting most of the time. Your Sigma will work with it, but the others, as was said, are DX and you want something full frame. As price goes, the 24-85mm Nikon is hard to beat. I have it and a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 that works very well with it (they both scored the same in DxOMark's D800 lens survey). The 16-35mm f4 in combination with those two zooms should have you fully covered.

papa2jaja said:

In the range you mention, I would look at the Sigma AF 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM (breathtaking image quality according to the reviews), Nikon's own 50mm f1.8 D (cheap, small, excellent image quality), and maybe at the Tamron 24-70 mm, there's a thread in this forum in the lens section. For tele I cannot comment, I don't use tele lenses.

I currently use the Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4 D, which produces IMHO excellent results with the D800, too. You can see example images at the link in my sig.

Click to expand...

I want a Sigma 35/1.4. It's on my NAS list, even though its not a Nikon I really couldn't afford it at the time I really wanted a fast 35mm. So I bought the Nikon 35/2D. It's a great lens for under $300. It goes everywhere my D700 goes.

Oh and I second Hippy''s 24-85 VR recommendation. This "kit" lens produces excellent images.

Making the choice to go with a D800 should take into account the level of performance and resolution this camera has. There would be no point getting one if you are going to put lenses on it that do not make the most of that capability (maybe the 105 macro can). It would be like buying a Lamborghini and putting Cooper tires on it for $50 a pop. You'll never be able to go above 100 mph. Maybe you would be better off then with a D600. But even then, if someone is looking to invest in a 36.3 MP full frame DSLR but doesn't know the differences between DX and FX lenses is probably going to get in over their heads. May I ask what camera you are using presently? And I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but I've seen many pro photographers using the D800 for a few months then selling it because it is much more than even they need.

That being said, the best lenses would be 70-200 VR II, 50 1.8 or 1.4, 35 1.4, 85 1.8 or 1.4, 105 macro, 24 1.4, 200 f2, 300 f2.8 etc.. and those are all FX lenses. You could use a DX lens on the D800 but then it would shoot in DX mode and then there's no point having the D800 as an FX camera. Again, unless you are interested in maximum resolution, investing in that camera without getting pro-level lenses is not taking full advantage of the capability and so perhaps a D600 or even D7100 would be a better choice (with the D7100 you get high resolution without having to sell your DX lenses).

God, I hate the performance car/cheap tire analogy every time someone talks about buying a D800. It's absolutely nonsensical. The camera does not require the most expensive lenses possible before you can take a decent picture. There's a right and wrong tool for the job, and "right" doesn't always mean "most expensive". I have a D800. I have none of the "holy trinity" lenses. I have never, never once looked at a photo taken with it and said, "Damn, I need better lenses!!" (you can see the list of what I have below).

Take a look at the DxOMark ratings - there are many lenses that work amazingly well with the D800, across all price ranges.

Will a 36MP sensor show a lens' weaknesses? Sure. Will most people be able to spot them before they're printed poster size? I'm guessing probably not, particularly with most F-series Nikon lenses. Unless you're looking to pick a fight over that little bit of CA in the corner or the wee bit of lost sharpness, which you'll likely only spot full resolution, none of it's going to be noticeable on your uploaded photo. I can almost guarantee that I could take a photo with the 24-85mm and a 24-70mm at f8 and 9 out of 10 of you would have absolutely no idea which was taken with which, particularly after post-processing, which we all do to some extent regardless of the camera/lens combination.

So please, no more automatic Lamborghini and Ferrari references. If the guy wants to drive top speed on mountain roads, them maybe. But for the old man looking for an ego extension on his five mile drive to work where he never gets above 40mph, I don't care what tires you put on that thing because you'll never know the difference.

On the other hand don't worry too much about not having the best possible lenses at the start. Let's pretend you own a pinto and you have an opportunity to get a Porsche... But can't afford good tires at first. Your entire driving experience is going to change, and you'll be able to shut everyone else down... Unless you come on to another Porsche with fancy tires. The D800 is an astounding camera in all respects, I think, if you put cheap kit lenses on it, it will still do incredible photos. Don't pay attention to this "it'll" push your glass... It is wrong from a practical point. If you take a photo with a D700 with cheap glass and then one with a D800 with the same cheap glass and examine at 100% (1pixel in photo = 1 pixel on monitor) the photo with the D800 is going to be jaw droppingly more detailed than the one from the D700. Faces in the distance on street photos for instance, clear as a bell with D800. Stop go no further... That answers the question. But everyone must keep going and start comparing a D800 with a cheap, really good and the best lens made, and which one has the best definition of someone's nose hair at one hundred yards... This is where all the BS comes from. The BIG difference is coming from the jump to the D800, from there you just get smaller improvements.

I would just start with your zoom and get the new camera. Dump the two DX lenses and get a 35mm f2... And just shoot that for a year. The 35m is a perfect general purpose lens and learning to use a prime lens well will be both satisfying and rewarding. JD

On a budget, not sure where your interests may end up? The Nikon 24-85VR is a good place to start. Right now, the VR is relatively inexpensive and it works. The "kit lens" label tends to steer people away. In actuality, the label is elitist. Down the road, you can sell the 24-85 with little or no loss. Then you can buy specialty lenses as required for your type of photography. Good luck.

nikon 24-85 vr | eBay

Plenty of great recommendations already. However, you did not mention your budget which is probably one of the most important factor when asking for suggestions.

My budget is around 3500, I have been into landscape and nature photography. I am getting into concert shots as well. I have a 3 yr old grand daughter who is in dance and who knows what else she will be into softball etc. So I am thinking of the D800 for the low light capabilities and the crop factor, I currently do not have access to pit passes...So I am thinking the D800 is a good 8 year or so camera for me

The D800 has great low light capabilities, but I find the D600 to be even better. Either one is a solid choice. The D600 will give you more budget to put towards lenses, but if you're looking for a solid, pro-style body then the D800 is the way to go. Unless I find myself in the business I can't see replacing either of these in the next 5-6 years.

The difference in low light ability is supposed to b 0.1f stops, something I absolutely could not tell however the pixel count difference is nearly 30 % hence on paper the D800 wins hands down. I only have the D 800. Backdoor, sounds like you shoot both, you can tell? Easily? JD

The D800 should be a great camera for 8 or 10 years. What may happen is the next release in three years or so my make you want to buy it. I suspect there will be one more significant advance before the rate of change starts to slow down. Although you could argue this was it. JD

JDFlood said:

The difference in low light ability is supposed to b 0.1f stops, something I absolutely could not tell however the pixel count difference is nearly 30 % hence on paper the D800 wins hands down. I only have the D 800. Backdoor, sounds like you shoot both, you can tell? Easily? JD

Click to expand...

What I'm talking about is high ISO noise levels. With the lower pixel each pixel on the D600 can allow more light information in, so at extreme ISO's there is less noise to be dealt with. Can I measure how much less? Probably not. I've yet to do a series of set shots with both at various ISOs and compared, only shot with each in similar situations and while I liked what I saw with the D800, I was blown away by the D600. For me the MP count only comes into play when I'm shooting something that I know will need to be cropped - like birds and wildlife at a distance. There I much prefer the D800 as it gives me more "pixels per critter".

Interesting BD, if you ever are inclined to do a comparison I would be interested. I do like the D800's resolution and would not want less... Unless I could get significant better low light performance... I would definitely consider getting a D600 for night photography. I frequently max out the shadow slider... If I could get more I would use it. JD

BackdoorHippie said:

What I'm talking about is high ISO noise levels. With the lower pixel each pixel on the D600 can allow more light information in, so at extreme ISO's there is less noise to be dealt with. Can I measure how much less? Probably not. I've yet to do a series of set shots with both at various ISOs and compared, only shot with each in similar situations and while I liked what I saw with the D800, I was blown away by the D600. For me the MP count only comes into play when I'm shooting something that I know will need to be cropped - like birds and wildlife at a distance. There I much prefer the D800 as it gives me more "pixels per critter".

Click to expand...

Unless I've misunderstood it's actually only giving the same pixels as a D7000 unless you fill the full FX frame. I find smaller stuff is effectively cropped back to DX dimensions as I don't have a 600 mm lens. Admittedly it's better than the D600 DX crop size or my D300s for that matter.