Got me a D800

[daletron]

Gday

im a proud new owner of the Nikon D800, i purchased it a few days ago now. Just been spending some time getting used to it, its a bit of a step up from my old D80!
The only lens i have at the moment that works in FX mode is the 50mm 1.8, it seems to produce some nice quality pics.
Anyone one on here using a 20mm prime? im looking at making it my next purchase so i can go out and do some landscape shots, i would love one of those expensive zooms but they are now out of my price range ha. Also i like using primes as they seem to make you work more for that shot you like.
Wouldn't mind some feedback on how people like the 20mm.

cheers
dale

[arthurking83]

Are you referring to the 20mm f/2.8 AF-D lens?
If so, I think you could do better than that for the price.

It's not a bad lens, I just think that for that sort of money, better lenses can be had.

The new 18-35/3.5-4.5 AF-S apparently has good reports about it. It's only something like $100 more ... but of course imminently more flexible with its zoom range.

I'm still in two minds about whether to get the 16-35/4 VR or the 18-35AF-S as my other UWA lens.
I also want either a Sigma 12-24, or less likely the Nikon 14-24 too.

Congrats on the D800 ... have fun with it.

[D800]

Have a look at the 18-35mm as arthurking suggested and also look into the Nikon 24-85 VR, it may not be as wide but is a very versatile zoom lens

[arthurking83]

Yeah, 18-35 is about as good as I expected it to be. Some reports are favourable of it. Had a play with one at the recent Digital show at the MEC on the weekend, and if it had VR, I'd have one right now.

It's overall sharpness is slightly better than the 16-35VR at the 18mm mark(vs the 16mm setting for the 16-35VR) but the 16-35 makes for a much wider view, so the actual frame edge sharpness wasn't a fair comparison.

my preference is for the 16-35VR only because the VR can come in handy on the off occasion .. and only because I can afford it ATM. The wider FOV is less important in many respects as I also want a 12-24mm for my really wide FOV lens anyhow. But for more general purpose wide angle stuff, I'll be relying more on the secondary wide lens(either the 16-35, or the 18-35).
I just have to choose which lens I want now.

A few years ago I used to have the AF-D version of the 18-35mm lens(which is now AF-S .. and much much better! :th3:).
I never really liked the older 18-35 on my digital cameras so was glad to see the back of it ... as well as the insides of it.

But the new AF-S version of the 18-35 felt nice to use. A bit plasticky, that's for sure .. but still quite OK. Lightweight if that's an issue, but IQ was very good(on the very few shots I shot).

If you like, I could post an extremely boring snap I took with this lens(at the show).
The image is of very dubious intrinsic quality, and was simply for my peace of mind that this lens can produce good to excellent images(where I'm sure the older version would not)
But I can assure you if I post a 100% crop of the image, you'd be pleased with the overall sharpness of the lens for landscapes on a D800.

[Lance B]

Congratulations on purchasing the D800, it's a gem of a camera.

As Arthur has suggested and I also agree, I would get the 18-35/3.5-4.5 AF-S rather than the 20mm f2.8 AF-D Nikon prime, or, if you can afford it, the 16-45 f4 VR AF-S. The 20mm f2.8 prime is not really as good as the modern zooms and you also have the ability to zoom.

I own the 16-35 and it's an excellent lens and from 20mm - 30mm is just about as good as any prime in that region. Even at 16mm - 20mm it is very good and is really only let down by distortion - which can be fixed in post process - and a little soft at the edges under f8, however, stopping down to f8+ fixes the soft edges, the lens is a cracker pretty much right across the range.

[Pixley]

Congratulations on your purchase. I agree with Lance - an absolute cracker of a camera. I dont shoot a lot of landscapes so my arsenal doesnt involve anything terribly wide - when I do shoot venture outside I shoot with my 24-120 f4. My street portrait lens is my Sigma 35mm 1.4. Probably both a little too wide for your needs. I also like shooting primes too - you have to work that bit harder but the results are worth it. Happy shooting!

[Sar NOP]

Congrats for the purchase of your D800 : it's a wise choice ! :)
If you don't need AF, the MF 20mm f/3.5 could be an interesting alternative for landscape...

[daletron]

Hello

cheers for all the comments, you have convinced me to get the 18-35mm!

- - - Updated - - -

arthurking83, if you dont mind posting that picture i'd like to take a look.

Does anyone know of any beaches around sydney that you can access without scaling down the face of a cliff? i love my seascapes and am looking for an area with big dramatic waves crashing on rocks. Im pretty new to sydney and dont really know which areas suit. I was going to go down to Maroubra one early morning to take a look.

[arthurking83]

......

arthurking83, if you dont mind posting that picture i'd like to take a look.

.......

Sure:

16-35VR full image:
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/dbtgallery.php?do=gallery_image&id=3585&gal=gallery&type=full

18-35 full image:
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/dbtgallery.php?do=gallery_image&id=3582&gal=gallery&type=full

16-35(left) vs 18-35(right) centre crops:
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/dbtgallery.php?do=gallery_image&id=3580&gal=gallery&type=full http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/dbtgallery.php?do=gallery_image&id=3583&gal=gallery&type=full

16-35(left) vs 18-35(right) edge crops:
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/dbtgallery.php?do=gallery_image&id=3581&gal=gallery&type=full http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/dbtgallery.php?do=gallery_image&id=3584&gal=gallery&type=full

they're not the greatest images, and there will be flaws in the way they were shot.
I stupidly set the 18-35 to f/4.5 instead of f/4 as I was chatting to the Nikon rep at the counter.
So while not entirely on a level playing field, they at least give you some idea of what to expect in terms of IQ.

It may not be entirely obvious, but on my PC the 100% views of the 18-35 lens are slightly sharper than the 16-35 across the frame. If it doesn't look obvious in the images, it may have something to do with uploading the images to the gallery.
Images have had exactly the same processing applied to them ... Picture Control setting to 'Portrait' as per the ViewNX2 settings.

It has to be said too tho, while the edges of the 16-35 at f/4 aren't entirely inspiring, I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the lower IQ of those images at those aperture either.
In all other aspects the lens is excellent, and my understanding of it is that stopped down to landscape settings, you may see better IQ.
but it serves to illustrate how good the little 18-35 AF-S can be.

The obstruction on the far right of the 18-35 frame is obviously the Nikon rep at the counter. He stepped back into the frame just as I took the exposure .. and I couldn't be bothered to taking any more shots.