03-29-2012, 11:41 AM
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1332934571' post='17123']
In general, I believe that the system resolution would definitely benefit from a high quality glass... But I also believe that the thoughts around "you have to buy a top notch high priced lens for a 36mp sensor" are a bit exaggerated. I think -if we put the diffraction limits aside- a 36mp FX sensor is still the limiting factor for the system resolution (not the lens). Surely, one has to be careful when it comes to UWAs.
I have the Nikon 20mm F/2.8 AF. It's a fine compact lens but I can't say that I'm happy with the corners. Actually mostly I use the MF 28mm AiS (but I have to say that for a long time I did not have the chance to photograph landscapes, 28mm is not enough wide for landscapes for my taste). I wouldn't say no to a 17-35mm or Zeiss 21mm.
I have the 24-85mm F/2.8-4 too, and I'm willing to use it on the D800(E). Because it gives me what the popular new 24-70mm VRs do not give: the 85mm FL and 1:2 magnification between 35-85mm. It is soft at the long end, but who needs high contrast for portraits <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />...
I will use the new 50mm F/1.8G also, because it shines on the D700 (and also on the D3x I assume). Most probably will buy the new 85mm F/1.8G, because the samples look great on D3x (and I don't believe that this would change with the D800).
I did not use the 80-200mm but reviews report that it has less focus breathing than the new 70-200mm. But if the AF speed is important for you, the choice should be obvious.
Coming back to UWAs... I think it is the hardest part, but not just because the D800 is 36mp, because of the FF sensor itself. Bigger sensor and more importantly the edges are prone to IQ decrease because of the oblique light. I remember I've read somewhere (most probably Thom Hogan), that the Nikon 17-35mm is the first WA lens in the Nikon line up which fits the FF sensor requirements (in terms of the rear element design). So it can be an alternative... The VL 20mm BC mentioned could be another choice if AF is not a must for you. Or better the Zeiss 21mm or Nikon 14-24mm of course. So when it comes to UWAs, if you are a meticulous user, I think you have to pay more. But that does not mean that the AF 20mm F/2.8 cannot be used on the D800. It depends on the performance you look for...
Serkan
[/quote]
What body do you use, D3X or D700?
Based on the test of the 20mm f/2.8 here, it seems to perform well, even on the D3X once you stop it down to F/4 (or better yet f/5.6). Perhaps it's a case of sample variation?
I totally agree with you regarding the 24-85 f/2.8-4, it seems like a very versatile lens while being compact and light. I found a used one for 170 euros that I'm gonna buy. I wish Nikon would release a good (optically) 24-105 f/2.8-4.
On my Pentax K5, I have an excellent copy of the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. I find very versatile and the ability to focus super close is extremely convenient. The combination of range and speed is perfect for a walkaround lens I think.
In terms of wide angle, I ideally would like a 16-35 range. I don't care much about a UWA f/2.8 lens. I would much rather have a f/4 lens that's more compact. When I look at the Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/4 lenses, I just wonder how can the f/4 lens be so big in comparison? Plus, the 17-35 performs better. To me, except for the price, it seems the 17-35 is the much better lens. The 16-35 has weaker resolution, more barrel distortion, is 1 stop slower and is larger! Sure, it's got VR, but is this the only explanation?
I wonder how the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 would fare. I like its specs on paper as well as its size.
In general, I believe that the system resolution would definitely benefit from a high quality glass... But I also believe that the thoughts around "you have to buy a top notch high priced lens for a 36mp sensor" are a bit exaggerated. I think -if we put the diffraction limits aside- a 36mp FX sensor is still the limiting factor for the system resolution (not the lens). Surely, one has to be careful when it comes to UWAs.
I have the Nikon 20mm F/2.8 AF. It's a fine compact lens but I can't say that I'm happy with the corners. Actually mostly I use the MF 28mm AiS (but I have to say that for a long time I did not have the chance to photograph landscapes, 28mm is not enough wide for landscapes for my taste). I wouldn't say no to a 17-35mm or Zeiss 21mm.
I have the 24-85mm F/2.8-4 too, and I'm willing to use it on the D800(E). Because it gives me what the popular new 24-70mm VRs do not give: the 85mm FL and 1:2 magnification between 35-85mm. It is soft at the long end, but who needs high contrast for portraits <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />...I will use the new 50mm F/1.8G also, because it shines on the D700 (and also on the D3x I assume). Most probably will buy the new 85mm F/1.8G, because the samples look great on D3x (and I don't believe that this would change with the D800).
I did not use the 80-200mm but reviews report that it has less focus breathing than the new 70-200mm. But if the AF speed is important for you, the choice should be obvious.
Coming back to UWAs... I think it is the hardest part, but not just because the D800 is 36mp, because of the FF sensor itself. Bigger sensor and more importantly the edges are prone to IQ decrease because of the oblique light. I remember I've read somewhere (most probably Thom Hogan), that the Nikon 17-35mm is the first WA lens in the Nikon line up which fits the FF sensor requirements (in terms of the rear element design). So it can be an alternative... The VL 20mm BC mentioned could be another choice if AF is not a must for you. Or better the Zeiss 21mm or Nikon 14-24mm of course. So when it comes to UWAs, if you are a meticulous user, I think you have to pay more. But that does not mean that the AF 20mm F/2.8 cannot be used on the D800. It depends on the performance you look for...
Serkan
[/quote]
What body do you use, D3X or D700?
Based on the test of the 20mm f/2.8 here, it seems to perform well, even on the D3X once you stop it down to F/4 (or better yet f/5.6). Perhaps it's a case of sample variation?
I totally agree with you regarding the 24-85 f/2.8-4, it seems like a very versatile lens while being compact and light. I found a used one for 170 euros that I'm gonna buy. I wish Nikon would release a good (optically) 24-105 f/2.8-4.
On my Pentax K5, I have an excellent copy of the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. I find very versatile and the ability to focus super close is extremely convenient. The combination of range and speed is perfect for a walkaround lens I think.
In terms of wide angle, I ideally would like a 16-35 range. I don't care much about a UWA f/2.8 lens. I would much rather have a f/4 lens that's more compact. When I look at the Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/4 lenses, I just wonder how can the f/4 lens be so big in comparison? Plus, the 17-35 performs better. To me, except for the price, it seems the 17-35 is the much better lens. The 16-35 has weaker resolution, more barrel distortion, is 1 stop slower and is larger! Sure, it's got VR, but is this the only explanation?
I wonder how the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 would fare. I like its specs on paper as well as its size.