Best prime lens to screw onto a D800e

ndwgolf

ndwgolf

Messages
4,770
Name
Neil Williams
Edit My Images
No
Guys,
I am going to pick up an D800e tomorrow and wondered what you guys would recommend for prime lenses?
I already have these zoom lenses but now want to go with fixed focal length;
14/24, 24/70 & 70/200mm all f2.8
I was thinking;
21, 35, 75 (I already have a 50mm f1.4)
I shoot street and landscape
Thanks in advance
 
Sounds like you have things well covered with the zooms. I think the 85G 1.4 would be a nice addition.
 
Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f4G ED VR Lens is on my list for Landscapes, when I go full frame that is. I hope all go's well today picking your shiny new camera, and please dont drop it :eek:
Regards
Kevin :)
 
I'd second the 85mm f1.4 for general shots. Although it obviously depends on your shooting style. For ultra wide your 14-24 is going to be hard to beat with a prime and overall they are some fantastic lenses you've already got. The 85 f1.4 will give you the opportunity for a different type of shot.
 
How about the 24, 45 and 85 PC-E lenses; outstanding sharpness and possibly some of the best Nikon make.
 
Went to pick up the D800e today but they won't have it now till Thursday :(:(
While in the store I looked at the 24mm f1.4 and also a 20mm f2.8 ...........I really fancy the 20mm but I just know that the 24 is a super sharp prime lens and probably the best choice but I really want something a wee bit wider so maybe get both of them
 
ndwgolf said:
What's PC-E lenses
Click to expand...

Sorry, these are Prespective Control lenses, great for landscape, architecture, and macro shoots; but super sharp and hence great for anything really. Just that they are manual focus prime lenses that are relatively expensive.


gramps said:
Bit Here, not sure that they would be my choice though.
Click to expand...

On 2nd thought, I would have to agree with you. Nikon do not recommend them on the D800 / D800(e), and you can't get full shift either.
 
kevin obrian said:
Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f4G ED VR Lens is on my list for Landscapes, when I go full frame that is. I hope all go's well today picking your shiny new camera, and please dont drop it :eek:
Regards
Kevin :)
Click to expand...
So much for me getting a prime...........I ended up getting the 17-35 f2.8 as it is a lot smaller than my 14/24 plus I can use my 77mm lee filters with this lens
 
kevin obrian said:
Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f4G ED VR Lens is on my list for Landscapes, when I go full frame that is. I hope all go's well today picking your shiny new camera, and please dont drop it :eek:
Regards
Kevin :)
Click to expand...

I found the 16-35 had alot of distortion compared to my 17-35 I had. Found it too much for anything involving people
 
Zeiss have just announced a few high-res primes specially for D800 and a-like. 21mm is probably unbeatable UWA already, then add nikon 85mm (either 1.4 or 1.8 - the 1.8 is probably sharper). What about Samyang? They make a great and very affordable 35mm f/1.4 and 24 tilt shift is due out shortly
 
I honestly do not see the point in primes when you have such solid 2.8 lenses. If it's merely for the times you want something lighter?, then a 50mm 1.8 - great for ... everything! Makes everything so much lighter and you still have that sharpness and it's wide enough on FX ... otherwise, I see no point. Most other primes are pricey, and no better than what you already have. If it's G.A.S, then get a grip! no, really, buy a grip, or some lights or reflectors or other accessories. You don't need primes.
 
Cagey75 said:
I honestly do not see the point in primes when you have such solid 2.8 lenses. If it's merely for the times you want something lighter?, then a 50mm 1.8 - great for ... everything! Makes everything so much lighter and you still have that sharpness and it's wide enough on FX ... otherwise, I see no point. Most other primes are pricey, and no better than what you already have. If it's G.A.S, then get a grip! no, really, buy a grip, or some lights or reflectors or other accessories. You don't need primes.
Click to expand...

This seems a pretty narrow view. I recently ditched my 2.8 zooms in favour of primes. It was mainly motivated by wanting to carry something less bulky. Lugging a 24-70 up a mountain and then only using the wide end can get tiresome. It also dictated that i needed a heavier tripod, so a double weight saving to be had. A nice side effect is that I've got money back in my pocket and now have faster lenses. IQ is generally at least comparable if not better. It's definitely not for everyone but I'm happy so far.
 
Last edited:
I would also suggest a nice moderate wide angle by Zeiss or Leica. Definitely something fast to shoot in the available light in street. Say a 35mm f1.4 or 28mm f2 if Zeiss or 35mm f2 if Leica R (their 35/1.4 is hard to find and expensive). Get a second hand one if you feel uncertain, they do not loose their value. It is interesting to try something new and you might like their drawing style!
 
Cagey75 said:
I honestly do not see the point in primes when you have such solid 2.8 lenses. If it's merely for the times you want something lighter?, then a 50mm 1.8 - great for ... everything! Makes everything so much lighter and you still have that sharpness and it's wide enough on FX ... otherwise, I see no point. Most other primes are pricey, and no better than what you already have. If it's G.A.S, then get a grip! no, really, buy a grip, or some lights or reflectors or other accessories. You don't need primes.
Click to expand...

Heh.

I shoot primes because I tend to want a certain perspective when I'm out - a zoom would be wasted bulk as I'd shoot at 1 or 2 FLs the entire time anyway.

Quality wise though, there's a decent difference between the 2.8 zooms and the better primes. Aside from the two stops of extra light, the primes will have less distortion, are significantly sharper (if that's your thing), and are lighter (provided you don't need the other FLs of the zoom).
 
If you want to go landscape then the zeiss 21mm has to be the way forward assuming you're ok with manual focus.

I'm seriously considering swapping my canon 85L for the zeiss 100mm and my 24L for the zeiss 21mm.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
This seems a pretty narrow view. I recently ditched my 2.8 zooms in favour of primes. It was mainly motivated by wanting to carry something less bulky. Lugging a 24-70 up a mountain and then only using the wide end can get tiresome. It also dictated that i needed a heavier tripod, so a double weight saving to be had. A nice side effect is that I've got money back in my pocket and now have faster lenses. IQ is generally at least comparable if not better. It's definitely not for everyone but I'm happy so far.
Click to expand...

Eh, it's my view, for the OP. And you haven't even read it right. I never said don't buy primes, I said he already has the range covered with the expensive 2.8 zooms. Throwing primes into the mix can just make things complicated. You'll feel you have to use them to justify having them, but your zooms were also expensive ... I don't see a need for both.

There's always one on here that has to stick an oar in like they're wounded by what someone says [to someone else!]. You do it your way, nobody is saying not to ... I don't see the point in the extra expense of primes, when you have all areas covered. Simple. You buy whatever you like. But don't call me narrow minded when you can't even read my post properly, and realise it's just a suggestion - Thank you.
 
ausemmao said:
Heh.

I shoot primes because I tend to want a certain perspective when I'm out - a zoom would be wasted bulk as I'd shoot at 1 or 2 FLs the entire time anyway.

Quality wise though, there's a decent difference between the 2.8 zooms and the better primes. Aside from the two stops of extra light, the primes will have less distortion, are significantly sharper (if that's your thing), and are lighter (provided you don't need the other FLs of the zoom).
Click to expand...


Prime doesn't mean significantly sharper. The top end zooms can be on a par. I have compared shots from my 50mm to 50mm range shots taken with the 24-70, honestly, I wonder why I even keep the 50mm. I've had most primes going - below the 200mm range, at some point or other. I have the 105mm atm, and it is about the sharpest lens you can stick on a D800 - and I'm betting that when my new 70-200 arrives, it'll rarely get used, apart from actual macro work. I like sharpness, but if it's only a small difference, which IMHO it is, between the top zooms and primes, then it doesn't bother me.
 
If you've the money, a 24, 35 and 85 along with your 50 will be a formidable arsenal.

I can get by in most situations with a 35 and 85.
 
Cagey75 said:
Prime doesn't mean significantly sharper. The top end zooms can be on a par. I have compared shots from my 50mm to 50mm range shots taken with the 24-70, honestly, I wonder why I even keep the 50mm. I've had most primes going - below the 200mm range, at some point or other. I have the 105mm atm, and it is about the sharpest lens you can stick on a D800 - and I'm betting that when my new 70-200 arrives, it'll rarely get used, apart from actual macro work. I like sharpness, but if it's only a small difference, which IMHO it is, between the top zooms and primes, then it doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

it depends how you shoot. My 1.4 primes at 2.8 are much sharper than my 24-70 at 2.8. At f4-8 there's less of a difference. The 70-200 VRII is the best zoom lens nikon makes imo. Amazingly versatile and high quality portrait lens.

In my experience the 50 1.4 is Nikon's weakest prime. I rarely use mine, prefering to flit between 35 and 85mm. Compare a 24 or 35 to your 24-70mm at f2.8 and you'll see a difference every time.
 
Cagey75 said:
Eh, it's my view, for the OP. And you haven't even read it right. I never said don't buy primes, I said he already has the range covered with the expensive 2.8 zooms. Throwing primes into the mix can just make things complicated. You'll feel you have to use them to justify having them, but your zooms were also expensive ... I don't see a need for both.

There's always one on here that has to stick an oar in like they're wounded by what someone says [to someone else!]. You do it your way, nobody is saying not to ... I don't see the point in the extra expense of primes, when you have all areas covered. Simple. You buy whatever you like. But don't call me narrow minded when you can't even read my post properly, and realise it's just a suggestion - Thank you.
Click to expand...

Relax. You gave the case for zooms, I just offered a counter argument in favour of primes.
 
ausemmao said:
a zoom would be wasted bulk as I'd shoot at 1 or 2 FLs the entire time anyway.
Click to expand...

Can you honestly say that 2 primes are less bulky than even an f/2.8 zoom which covers both FLs? :thinking:

Of course, I can appreciate the other benefits of primes over zooms but the bulk benefit is non-existent IMO! ;)
 
Nod said:
Can you honestly say that 2 primes are less bulky than even an f/2.8 zoom which covers both FLs? :thinking:

Of course, I can appreciate the other benefits of primes over zooms but the bulk benefit is non-existent IMO! ;)
Click to expand...

It really depends on the primes in question though. Some of the 1.4's and things like the 21mm zeiss are heavy lumps but there are plenty of other options that weigh very little. As an example I swapped my 24-70 for a 28mm 1.8. That in combo with my 50mm 1.4 weighs only just a bit more than half what the 24-70 weighs. I can also get away with using my lighter tripod which is perhaps an even bigger saving again.
 
Maybe think about the 85mm 1.8G, rather than the 1.4G, depending on your budget. Apparently it's a cracker for the price and will of course be lighter etc.
 
Cagey75 said:
Prime doesn't mean significantly sharper. The top end zooms can be on a par. I have compared shots from my 50mm to 50mm range shots taken with the 24-70, honestly, I wonder why I even keep the 50mm. I've had most primes going - below the 200mm range, at some point or other. I have the 105mm atm, and it is about the sharpest lens you can stick on a D800 - and I'm betting that when my new 70-200 arrives, it'll rarely get used, apart from actual macro work. I like sharpness, but if it's only a small difference, which IMHO it is, between the top zooms and primes, then it doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

The top f/1.4 G primes or the Zeiss primes will be achieving optimal quality a lot sooner than the f/2.8 zooms. The 50mm Nikon wouldn't fall in the top prime bracket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top