Lens advise for Nikon D800

of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 24 matches.
celaler
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:42AM

I am Nikon user and I have lots of equipment so I have to go with Nikon D800 for my next camera. 


I have Nikon 50mm f1.4 + Nikon 80-200 f2.8


What is you lens suggestions for stock photography? I was using Sigma 24-70f2.8 and Sigma 10-20 f4.5-5.6 but I sold it due to lack of sharpness.


I am generally do interior and landscape and also studio photography.


Thanks for your advice.
esp_imaging
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:43AM
Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 would be the obvious choice for you.
ClarkandCompany
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:16AM
^ It's a great lens I have it on my D800 most of the time, it is incredibly sharp at all apertures a tad heavy and no VR are the onlyslight drawbacks. For interiors i have the 16-35 F4 with VR again very very good.
celaler
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:08AM

I was thinking about to buy 14mm f2.8 but sharpness is too short. Then I changed with 14-24 f2.8. Should I buy between 24mm to 50mm? 


Also what do you think about macro lense? I was using Sigma 100mm f2.8 but I sold it. 
ClarkandCompany
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:59AM

I have the 105 micro nikkor with VR again top quality.


Not sure I follow your question anymore. So you have the 14-24 a 50 and the 80-200? The logical thing to do would be to buy a 35mm prime Nikkor or Zeiss? Photographers are rarely logical though eh?
celaler
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:27PM

No I havent yet 14-24mm, just I am thinking.


Shouldnt buy?
esp_imaging
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:38PM
Posted By celaler:

Should I buy between 24mm to 50mm? 

Well, that's a very useful range of focal lengths, so I'd seriously consider it. 24-70mm is a great lens.
Royer
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:46PM
Posted By celaler:

I was thinking about to buy 14mm f2.8 but sharpness is too short. Then I changed with 14-24 f2.8. Should I buy between 24mm to 50mm? 


Also what do you think about macro lense? I was using Sigma 100mm f2.8 but I sold it. 

For macro, I'd give serious consideration to the Zeiss 100mm Makro.  Yes, it's manual focus no VR, and not full macro 1:1. But, it has wonderful rendering. Plus, I like it much better as a medium telephoto than I do the Nikon 105 macro.(own both).
ClarkandCompany
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:02AM
I looked at the 14-24, it's a great lens as well but he drawback for me was the filters for it are very expensive. The 16-35 is obviously not as wide but I can use my existing screw in filters with it no problem, it's also a lot cheaper...
esp_imaging
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:46AM
Posted By ClarkandCompany:
I looked at the 14-24, it's a great lens as well but he drawback for me was the filters for it are very expensive. The 16-35 is obviously not as wide but I can use my existing screw in filters with it no problem, it's also a lot cheaper...



This captures my thought process for getting the 16-35 too.

The Nikon 105 macro is a great lens.
The zeiss 100 macro is very expensive, and only gives 1:2 magnification- you would need to be very sure you needed the extra stop of aperture to justify buying a M/F lens. 

(Edited on 2012-10-23 02:49:46 by esp_imaging)

(Edited on 2012-10-23 02:52:14 by esp_imaging)
celaler
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:42AM

Thank you for you really valuable advices, I bought 16-35mm 2.8.


Now I think it is done for a while :)


May be macro lens, what do you think for macro lenses?


Should I buy 60mm Micro Nikon? Or 50mm is ok for me?


 
Royer
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:06AM
Depends on subject matter for macro shots. A 100 or 105mm macro will, of course, give the flexibility to have more distance from subject.which Can sometimes be important for some critters. 
ClarkandCompany
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:29PM

Not just a safe distance from the critters but get too close with a shorter focal length macro lens and you will block out light on your subject and or get a shadow of your camera on the subject. A longer focal length is more useful in a studio too the longer the length the less distortion on your subject you will get but i guess your 80-200 covers most of those situations.


I bought my 105 nikkor second hand no problems at all with it, personally I think the 50/60 macro is just too short on a full frame camera like the D800. I have a Sigma 50mm macro again an Ebay buy that was fantastic on a my old crop sensor body but not quite upto scratch on my D800.


HTH
esp_imaging
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:35PM
I think the 50/60 macro is just too short on a full frame camera like the D800. 

 I agree. The perspective is better with a longer lens. 
celaler
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:49PM

Ok I will keep in my mind.


Good ideas and sharing of your experience.


Cheers
mlwinphotoCLOSED
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:54PM

I have the Nikkor 60, 105, and 200 macro lenses (I do primarily macro work).  Depending on what type of subject matter you intend to shoot any or all of these may work for you.  However, if I were to choose only one it would be the 105 as it gives you adequate working distance and can be used with alot of different sized subject matter.  A close second choice would be the 200.  I rarely use the 60 although it is tack sharp but I have to get so close to my subject to fill the frame that I end up blocking the light.


As a side note you may find the 80-200 to be less than adequate on the D800.  Those 36 megapixels really show any shortcomings in a lens.  I got rid of mine and am using primes to cover that range although the new 70-200/4 sounds tempting.


BTW, the D800 is an amazing camera!
lagereek
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloads
Posted Sun Nov 4, 2012 1:25AM

With such a high-res sensor, as far as zooms I would only trust the 14-24, the 24-70 and 70-200 II. Or else I would go for primes only.


All the issues of mediocre or second quality glass would stand out a mile.
flynntastic
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Nov 8, 2012 11:32AM
I would stick with Nikkor glass. It might cost a bit, but everytime I look at the differences between my Tamron lens (which has excellent) ratings, and then an image shot through some quality N, the difference is obvious. If you spent $3k on the body you might as well invest heavy in the glass that's going to outlast it. 
flynntastic
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Thu Nov 8, 2012 11:35AM
Also have you rented any of the lenses yet? I love to rent to figure out what my preference is going to be. I rented both 70-200 VR I & II to see if I really felt the need to spend extra $$ on the II. The $150 or so in rental fees is going to save me around $800. 
lostinbids
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto VideographerThis member chickened out of their last cage challenge. What, are you scared of a little photoshop challenge?
Posted Thu Nov 8, 2012 11:48AM
I am in the UK and I got a 70-200 vrII from a Nikon Dealer. It cost around £1600 around 2 years ago.  On eBay I could get about £1200-1300 for it now.  Good lenses don't loose much money.  I'll still be using this lens in 2 or 3 years.  It is the same story with my Nikon 28-70 2.8, new £950 in 2007 now £600-750 on eBay.
This thread has been locked.
of 2Next page
Displaying 1 to 20 of 24 matches.
Not a member?Join