Nikon Lens advice

[Paul Mayall]

I am looking at purchasing a Nikon D810 for landscape photography, can any current users of this camera recommend a suitable lens to go with the D810,  keeping in mind that it is mainly for landscape photography, i have heard that the 14 to 24 is a great lens is it? or is there a better lens?

 

Thank's to all.

 

Paul.

[Gary Clarke]

Hi Paul,

 

I have the D800 not the D810 and use it for landscape photography with the Nikon 16-35mm lens which makes for a great combination. I haven't used the 14-24mm but most people speak very highly of it but you might want to look into the use if filters with it as I understand that the shape of the lens restricts your filter options. So if you're a big filter user check that first.

 

Gary

[Gervais Montacute]

I have a Nikon D800, not an 810.

I have the so called 'black trinity' of which the 14 - 24 2.8G is the first of them. This is a great and sharp lens and ideal for high MP cameras because it can resolve that kind of visual iformation required by high MP cameras. It's a bit of a specialist lens and probably the one I use the least of the three.

The best all round one of the three is definitely the workhorse 24 - 70 2.8 G and is a classic. But a 14 -24 is so sharp, especially when used with mirror lockup on a tripod.

[Ed Rooney]

I just sold my Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. It was very sharp, very well-made, but far too heavy and awkward for me. I was once a PJ and still have an emotional connection to moving quick, down and dirty. (It's all in my mind now.  )

 

I still have a roomful of Nikon optics, but I would not want to suggest anything for the D810 body.

[MDM]

If you are doing rural landscape photography (that is an if?), do you really need something as wide as a 14mm. I can see the value of a quality 14mm for urban work but, for the price of the 14-24, you could get some seriously good Nikkor prime lenses. If it is primarily for landscape use, then presumably you are also thinking tripod so you don't need to pay the huge premium for an extra stop. The slower Nikkors are generally as good as the fast ones optically. In fact the 50mm 1.8 is one of the sharpest lenses Nikon have ever made and it is really cheap.

 

My lens of choice on my D800E is the 50mm 1.4D which I use for most of my landscape work, particularly in mountains  (that is a style thing, I think that wideangle lenses often make mountains look too small unless I am in close). The quality in terms of corner to corner sharpness and detail is truly unbelievable. The other lens I use is a Nikkor 24 2.8. This is not as sharp at the edges but it is still very good. A major advantage of these lenses is lightness - they both take 52mm filters. And even off the tripod and used at higher ISO, they produce remarkable results.

 

You could buy the new 20mm Nikkor, a 24 and a 50 for the price of the 14-24. Just food for thought - you may want the convenience of a zoom.

[Ed Rooney]

MDM +1

 

I have a Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF that is great and very easy to work with. I also have a rare, tiny Nikon 20mm f/4 ai and a Nikon 24mm f/2 ai. All my Nikon lenses are great but the D700 is most demanding body I own. 

[Chuck Nacke]

Well this goes along with what I just went through....

 

I am mostly using a D800's , I have a 20 AFD f2.8 and I've also used

my old 12-24 f4 AFD on a 800 (gives me 15+MP's in DX format).  I was

looking at the 14-24 f2.8, 16-35 f4 and the 17-35 f2.8 Nikkors all costing well

over $1,000.00 and then I read about the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 and according to

most serious reviewers it equaled the 14-24 Nikkor, so I just bought one on

Amazon for less than $600 USD. It has not arrived yet,  I would be happy to

let you all know how it stacks up when I've received and tested it on the D800.

 

BTW, I love the D800's, Best thing that Nikon has done since the F

 

Chuck Nacke

[Orange Elephant]

I have a D810 & am in the same place as you - considering which lens for landscape.

 

The 14-24mm is an excellent lens, but cannot take regular filters & at 1kg is heavy. The 16-35mm takes a 77mm filter, weighs 680kg & has VR.

 

The DxO ratings for the 14-24mm are 30 overall & 23 sharpness. For the 16-35mm it's 25 overall & 19 sharpness,

 

It's a difficult decision as there is nothing better than the 14-24mm as long as you can live with the impracticality.

 

Here's a useful review about landscape lenses in general: https://photographylife.com/best-nikon-lenses-for-landscape-photography

[MDM]

I have a D810 & am in the same place as you - considering which lens for landscape.

 

The 14-24mm is an excellent lens, but cannot take regular filters & at 1kg is heavy. The 16-35mm takes a 77mm filter, weighs 680kg & has VR.

 

The DxO ratings for the 14-24mm are 30 overall & 23 sharpness. For the 16-35mm it's 25 overall & 19 sharpness,

 

It's a difficult decision as there is nothing better than the 14-24mm as long as you can live with the impracticality.

 

Here's a useful review about landscape lenses in general: https://photographylife.com/best-nikon-lenses-for-landscape-photography

 

That review is from 2011, pre-D800, so should be treated with caution. Different rules apply to the D800 family. 

 

As for lens reviews, one shouldn't judge what is suitable for landscape (or any other) use by overall sharpness score. I think what is most important for a landscape lens is performance at apertures around f8-11 (not smaller because of diffraction effects on the D800s). Good edge-edge sharpness is most important I think. The overall sharpness score will take account of performance at wide apertures which you may never use for landscape work. 

[wiskerke]

You could also consider the Sony A7R: same sensor; smaller;  less weight. And far greater adaptability: not a whole lot of non-brand lenses fit the Nikon. Every lens fits the Sony with the help of some adapter.
 
Compared to the Sony the Nikon feels:

 ;-)
 

Canon vs Sony ;-)
 
There are some solutions to put filters on a 14-24mm.
I have a Canon 17mm tilt/shift and a Sigma 12-24mm with the same problem. For the 17mm TS I have diy-ed my own.
The 17mm TSE and 24mm TSE II (not the # I) would be my other choices beside the Nikon 14-24.
There are some really nice Zeiss lenses for the A7R as well: even the cheaper Sonnar 55mm is stellar. Still horribly expensive though at $998.
 
You probably have looked at these 2 DXO1 DXO2 lists (there's no real difference between the 800E and the 810).
 
wim

[DHill]

Paul: I agree with others here that the 14-24 f2.8 is an excellent lens. I use it with the D800, not D810. 

 

The newer Nikon 20 and 28 f1.8Gs get excellent reviews also, and I expect to buy the 20 at some point. 

 

I considered the 16-35 f4 at one point as the focal length range suits what I do better than the 14-24. Here's a discussion about it: 

http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/2031-anyone-using-the-nikon-16-35mm-f4-with-d800/?hl=16-35mm#entry33011

In short, unlike the 14-24, care needs to be taken with the pretty bad smearing in the corners. 

 

Chuck: I'd love to hear how your experiences with the Tamron go! 

[Ed Rooney]

However, if you enjoy the game of bowling, the 14-24 might be a good choice. 

 

 

Taken with 14-24 on a D700

[Paul Mayall]

Thanks everybody, some interesting comments, i have spent the best part of the afternoon looking at You Tube videos on lenses for the D810,  it seems like the 14-24 is the better one, however there are a few trade off's as mentioned by many here,  Wim suggested the Sony 7R, it seems pretty good value.

 

I will wait and see what Chuck says about the 16-28 Tokina.

 

Thanks to all whome responded.

 

Paul.

[Bill Brooks]

If you are going to shoot landscapes on a tripod I would recommend prime lenses in order to get every last benefit of the 36 megapixels. If you do not, then the 36 megapixels becomes empty magnification. You might as well reduce 36 megapixel files to 24 megapixels when submitting.

 

I would suggest primes from Zeiss, as the best possible solution.

 

When you are doing walk around handheld, then use Nikon zooms and shoot in camera at a lower pixel count.

 

I have absolutely nothing against Nikon lenses. They are better than Canon on the normal to wide angle side. However when you go to 36 megapixels you are making big demands on your lens.

[Chuck Nacke]

Got the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 and after a bit of testing.

it is optically really good.  At 50 ISO on a D800 at f5.6

at 16mm it is great all across the frame ( viewing at 200%) at

19mm it is exceptional.  At 2.8 it is not so good, but

with the new Nikon CMOS sensors (high ISO) it is not

a big deal.

 

I will not use the lens at 2.8 or 4 but at 5.6 it is exceptional.

color is really good. 

 

I do need to test more, but the weather in Boston just stinks

(f4 @ 60th at 400 ISO all day)  At less then $600 it is a good

workable lens.  It is also big and heavier than I would like.

 

Chuck

[Paul Mayall]

 

Got the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 and after a bit of testing.

it is optically really good.  At 50 ISO on a D800 at f5.6

Thanks for the update Chuck, happy to know that your Tokina is not a lemon,  i am still deciding,  have been looking at the Sony A7R, good for various lenses,  from what i have read it would seem that Zeiss is the best lens for the Sony.

 

What worries me about the A7R so many used ones on Ebay, makes me think that it may not be so great.

 

I will take another look at the D810 and Tokina 16-28.

 

Thanks again for your update.

 

Paul.

[Robert Brook]

,,

[MDM]

I agree with most 

 

I use a D800.  For landscape work you certainly need a good wide, but I find 14mm silly – at full-frame just a gimmick really for lazy shooters – well I’m lazy, but I don’t need that.  Good in a crowd or a tight space.  Like all Nikon zooms the 14-28 is essentially a press lens, although very easy to damage with its bulbous front element which you can’t protect with a filter.

 

Don’t landscape photographers mainly use primes? Some regard the Zeiss 21mm/ 2.8 as the king.  I thought I might have to go down that road (for night landscape work), since the old 20mm AFD isn’t up to the task (tried one and sold it).  However the new 20mm 1.8 gets glowing reviews and looks very good for the price (currently around £670), and am about to try one out.  Some older lenses are highly regarded such as the 28mm 2.8 AIS (not the AFD) and I get on fine with both the 35mm and 50mm AFD (again, stopped down), but find the 24mm quirky.  Looking at the Zeiss 25/2, while waiting for Nikon to bring out a 24mm 1.8.  The current 1.4 won’t give you much advantage where many landscape photographers want it between 5.6 and 8, and is consequently overpriced. 

 

If I need a standard zoom I use an old but extremely good Tokina 28-70.  They brought out several versions of this lens, but the one I have is based on an old Angineaux design.  It has legendary status, but very hard to find.  Often sellers don’t know what they are selling and you can get one in peak condition for £200.  Chuck is very probaly right about the Tokina 16-28, providing you get a good copy.  Probably one of the reasons that firm can sell at half the price of Nikon is by being a bit slack on QC

 

I agree entirely with almost all of this (the bits I have personal experience of). In fact this thread, especially Bill's comments above Zeiss versus Nikkor got me thinking. I've used the Nikkor AIS 24 2.8 and the AFD 24 2.8 on the D800 and, while I get very good results, there is a definite softening towards the edges when viewed at 100% on screen. This is not apparent at smaller viewing sizes or on the D700 but I would find myself downsizing some images for that reason. This seems a bit silly given what the D800 and relatives are capable of producing (the humble Nikkor 50 1.4 AFD produces astounding results across the frame stopped down to f11)

 

Well I did some serious reading of lens reviews over the last few days, came to the conclusion that it had to be the Zeiss 25 F2. I am not one to hang about when I decide I want something - impulsive by nature I guess. So a quick trip to WEX and I'm just testing it now. All I can say is WOW! What a lens. Sharp as whatever analogy you like (when properly focused) and beautiful colour (maybe that is just the lovely light today). I've only done limited testing but it's an exciting prospect having such a lovely piece of kit to work with. Don't wait Robert - there is only one left in England.

[Bill Brooks]

A Zeiss lens will also hold its value at trade in time.

 

I have not switched from Canon to Sony because the Sony A7R does not have a electronic first curtain shutter. When the Sony first curtain comes to a stop, it creates vibration that defeates the purpose of having 36 megapixels.

 

http://www.robertotoole.com/2014/01/28/electronic-first-shutter-curtain/

 

http://beforethecoffee.com/sony-a7r-vibration-comparison-with-nikon-d3-and-sony-nex-7/

 

http://thecameraforum.com/a7r-shutter-vibration-problem-explained/

 

If the next version of the Sony A7R has an electronic first curtain shutter I will switch to Sony. I have been told that my Zeiss 18, 28, 50 lenses for Canon will retain much of their value when I trade them in for the Sony Zeiss equivalent.

[MDM]

 

A Zeiss lens will also hold its value at trade in time.

 

I have not switched from Canon to Sony because the Sony A7R does not have a electronic first curtain shutter. When the Sony first curtain comes to a stop, it creates vibration that defeates the purpose of having 36 megapixels.

 

 

If the next version of the Sony A7R has an electronic first curtain shutter I will switch to Sony. I have been told that my Zeiss 18, 28, 50 lenses for Canon will retain much of their value when I trade them in for the Sony Zeiss equivalent.

 

 What about the mighty D810? I don't know about Canada but there are is a very tempting trade-in offer on the D810 here in the UK right now. 

 

As for Nikkor lenses, Nikon have made some superb ones over the years. I still have my 55mm AIS micro-Nikkor which I am hoping to bring back into action for flower close-upsin the springtime. I also have the 28mm 2.8 AIS mentioned above by Robert although it got damaged some time ago and I was told it was not repairable.  

[Bill Brooks]

I shot film with a Nikon, and I agree Nikon makes great lenses. 

 

As to the Nikon D810 my very basic Canon kit weighs about 20 pounds including a carbon fibre tripod. I hike a lot, so the lighter Sony appeals to me over the Nikon.

 

The thing I like about my Zeiss lenses is not only the sharpness but also freedom from flare that helps the microcontrast. I find I am shooting more into the light with them, because they can handle the flare.

 

[Paul Mayall]

 

 

I have not switched from Canon to Sony because the Sony A7R does not have a electronic first curtain shutter. When the Sony first curtain comes to a stop

Bill, would one really see the difference at normal shutter speeds, with electronic 1st shutter or is it only when working with slow speed macro.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul.

[MDM]

I'm very weight-conscious myself as most of my photography involves some walking. However, the D810 body is only 980g which is not too bad. The new Zeiss lens has added around 400g to my pack but hopefully my well-worn right shoulder won't notice it. In fact I would rather have a solid body like this than something too light as it is more likely to survive falls or knocks. The image quality, moreover without the anti-aliasing filter, is nothing short of astounding. 

 

I am looking forward to using the Zeiss lens. I did read that the 25mm F2 handles flare very very well which was another key factor in my decision to splash out on it. I also like the manual focusing with plenty of barrel movement and markings for hyperfocal focusing although the D800 family has rewritten the rules for depth of field.

[Paul Mayall]

Have just finished a quick test with the Canon 7D live mode 1 - 2 then the conventional mirror lock up method, 100 macro lens f/8 iso speed  100 at 30sec.

 

Could not see any real differences in sharpness, however with mirror lock up the image had slightly more contrast, therefore i cannot see the electronic 1st shutter improving the image with sharpness.

 

Paul.

[wiskerke]

Have just finished a quick test with the Canon 7D live mode 1 - 2 then the conventional mirror lock up method, 100 macro lens f/8 iso speed  100 at 30sec.

 

Could not see any real differences in sharpness, however with mirror lock up the image had slightly more contrast, therefore i cannot see the electronic 1st shutter improving the image with sharpness.

 

Paul.

 

There's been a huge debate about shutter induced blur of the A7R. Basically it's visible in two situations: handheld and with a heavy lens or adapter where the tripod is not fixed to the body, but to the adapter or lens. People have remedied that by fixing a weight or the battery pack to the body. With the body fixed to a tripod there was no blur. Blur was only present between 1/30 and 1/125 as far as I know, and only with a lens longer than 100mm.

My 1DS mk2 and mk3 also have significant shutter and mirror induced blur. So having no mirror didn't help the Sony, or not enough. It's a pretty basic Seiko shutter that is also pretty loud.

 

wim