Yet another lens recommendation request.. Sorry!

[marstar]

Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (FX)

Its important to read the full review but I'll pick out the conclusion as a sample of why this is not the lens for a D800 and frankly not the lens for anyone who is serious about shooting.....in other words anyone who has invested the extra cash on a FX body over a DX one.




See the thing is I am the first person to step in on posts where the quality of an image is being discussed and the talk gets round to resolution/edge performance/primes/zooms/etc as I honestly don't think it matters. As Allen says above once printed out you will be hard pushed to tell the difference between any decent bit of glass if the file has been handled well. The quality of a picture is not about the technical aspects more the aesthetics and whether the person viewing it is drawn into it in some way.

But.

I want to get across to Mars the importance of pro glass over amateur glass specifically because of his choice of camera body. If you had bought a D700 for instance I wouldn't have put my first post up because at 12mp something like a Sigma or a Tamron probably is good enough. I wouldn't be arguing as strongly in defence of the f1.4 glass over the f1.8 options. They are still better and a pro body deserves pro Nikon glass (the argument of the price is irrelevant really as they are a tool for professionals and if the tool is needed the cost doesn't matter) but I still stand by my statement that all of this is cancelled out because of the D800 itself.
Why by the highest resolution DSLR currently available (ignoring larger format systems) if you are not going to put the very best possible glass on the front. 36 Million pixels is a huge number. You get a 70+meg NEF file and somewhere in the region of a 200meg final image. Those sorts of numbers put a massive demand on the glass and an even greater demand on the photographer. Any compromise, no matter how insignificant, will be detrimental to the absolute sharpness of the resulting image and in the case of the D800 that is all that matters.

Thank you BP for your helpful insight.
I do fully understand the difference between "the best" and "the rest", and what I took from your comments was that while using the 1.8 (the rest), I wouldnt be taking full advantage of what the camera has to offer vs. the 1.4 (the best).

But I also feel I have to disagree while agreeing...
As I stated before, Im a hobbiest, an enthusiast, that one day hopes to be a "jack of all trades", but where I stand now in my photographic journey, I assumed I could save the extra cost from the 1.4s and save up more for another lens and still get amazing quality. Are you trying to imply that using 1.8s will not give me great shots (with great technique of course) or just the overall difference in the two? While the 1.8 will never be a 1.4, and it will be "detrimental to the absolute sharpness of the resulting image", I believe the image itself will not be bad (assuming technique is solid). Side by side on a monitor at 100%, Im sure there will be differences if we looked hard (also assuming techinque is solid), but printed out in my albums would it really show?

I feel like its a comparison similar to say, a pitcher that throws a 100mph vs another that throws 90mph. They are both hard throwers, but unless they hit their target, their speed is moot. Im sure I could find a way to blur a 1.4 with perfect light anyway ...

With that said, I did learn a lot from your helpful post and it definitely has helped me towards deciding my next purchase. Thank you.

[marstar]

sorry im no completely following you on your request
are you asking about the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 in performance? or your comfortability with a certain focal length?

Sorry about that, It was late and my brain was half asleep...
I was trying to ask if you looked at the two side by side at a printed size of say A4, would the difference between the two at the same focal length be noticeable?
or
Would two shots taken of the same person/item/whatever at two different focal lengths (1.4 and 1.8) show a difference worthy of the price difference?

[marstar]

...why not older primes?

Im definitely not biased on brand, Im willing to look into all options!

[inkista]

Ok, I'm too chicken to be a street shooter, but I love looking at street photography. And here's my wildly opinionated idea on what to get: a different camera.

Small and inconspicuous are good when street shooting. A D800 with an 85/1.4 on the front of it is not either of those things. What I notice among those who primarily street shoot is that mirrorless compacts have taken over their brains in a big way. Leica M9, Fuji X100, Fuji X-Pro1, Canon G1X, NEX and µ4/3 cameras... those are the tools these guys tend to choose. Big sensor, small camera, and anything that lets you use said camera away from your face (e.g., flip-out touchscreen focusing).

The best day of street shooting I ever had was with a palmed Canon S90, not my 5D2. And I know how to zone focus and shoot from the hip with a manual focus lens, as I've got an adapted Zeis 28/2.8 and Leica 35/2 to play with (they both have massive throws and usable distance and DoF scales). I still prefer my S90 and my Panasonic G3 with 20/1.7 for street shooting. Nobody rears back or ducks when you point a tiny camera at them. If I have my 24-105 on the 5D2, folks notice me just a wee bit more. Especially security guards.

But, as I said. I'm not a street shooter, and this is just my opinion.

[Noice]

Im definitely not biased on brand, Im willing to look into all options!

ill post pics of a comparison from my walk around Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS HSM vs my Pentax SMC Takumar (from the 70s) 50 f/1.4 both @ 50mm f/4

only thing is youll be adjusting aperture manually through the lens and obviously no AF and no shutter priority setting.
check your local online 2nd hand website. got mine for 150 with the adapter mount.


edited: just to add, i side with inksta on this one. these little enthusiast cameras are better tools for street. i too have a canon s95 and palming a little black thing looks like a cellphone. its also got manual focus so i can just set it to f8 and shoot away without looking at the screen. they also have fast aperture lenses that are very ideal.

[inkista]

ill post pics of a comparison from my walk around Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS HSM vs my Pentax SMC Takumar (from the 70s) 50 f/1.4 both @ 50mm f/4

only thing is youll be adjusting aperture manually through the lens and obviously no AF and no shutter priority setting.
check your local online 2nd hand website. got mine for 150 with the adapter mount.

Ummm... I should probably point out that one cannot adapt Pentax-K or M42 mount to Nikon-F the way you can to Canon EOS.

Nikon's registration distance is larger than all the other SLR mounts except for Leica-R. Registration distance is the distance from the mount to the sensor. This is the distance the lens has to be held to achieve focus to infinity. You increase this distance, and it's like adding an extension tube, and you can't focus over the entire range. And decreasing would mean jamming the lens further back into the camera, which is very difficult. You can get an adapter with a glass element in it to act like a short teleconverter, but the cheaper the glass, the lower the image quality.

Adapting to Canon EOS is super-easy because it has one of the shallower registration distances. Adding to that distance with a simple adapter ring to make up the difference with other mounts is easy. But Nikon's got one of the deepest. If you want to adapt a manual focus lens from another mount to Nikon F, you're going to have to shave off distance from the lens mount. And the only easy solution for this are the Leitax kits, which are offered only for Contax/Yashica (Zeiss!), Leica-R, and Olympus OM mounts at this time, and they will not cover all lenses in the given mount, due to differences in how far the back element sticks back into the camera body.

Also, on the Canon side of the fence, the clearance between the back element and the mirror is smaller on the 5Ds than on the crop-body (and 1 series) cameras. It might be similar on the Nikon side of the fence (it might not). I weep that the C/Y Distagon 28/2.8 I loved so much on my XT and 50D whacks into my 5Dii's mirror if I focus it to infinity; my C/Y Tessar 45/2.8 is a complete no-go on the 5Dii, and I had to grind down the shark fin and aperture lever on my C/Y Planar 100/2 to get it to mount at all on the 5Dii. OTOH, my Olympus OMs and Leica Rs have given me no trouble at all.

If manual focus holds no fears for you, Mars, some lenses you might want to consider are the Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, and 14mm f/2.8. They've got some insanely good reputations for the super-low pricetags they sport. And, of course, there are like a gazillion fantastic old Nikon F manual focus lenses you can use without mucking about with adapters. Just avoid pre-AI lenses, or learn how to grind down the appropriate flange to avoid damaging your camera. Myself, I'd highly recommend playing about with a 50mm f/1.2.

[Noice]

Sorry about that, It was late and my brain was half asleep...
I was trying to ask if you looked at the two side by side at a printed size of say A4, would the difference between the two at the same focal length be noticeable?
or
Would two shots taken of the same person/item/whatever at two different focal lengths (1.4 and 1.8) show a difference worthy of the price difference?

like a few of the members have mentioned, youre mainly paying for the aperture. ofcourse the image quality will have to be stepped up along with the build quality but essentially, its the aperture speed.
hell, the f0.95 by canon isnt that that sharp at 0.95 but its still really expensive cause of its speed

mmm id gladly take this if anyone wants to donate it
on a sony NEX micro 4/3
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minweiphoto/6263063657/

[Noice]

Ummm... I should probably point out that one cannot adapt Pentax-K mount to Nikon-F the way you can to Canon EOS.

Nikon's registration distance is larger than all the other SLR mounts except for Leica-R. Registration distance is the distance from the mount to the sensor. This is the distance the lens has to be held to achieve focus to infinity. You increase this distance, and it's like adding an extension tube, and you can't focus over the entire range. And decreasing would mean jamming the lens further back into the camera, which is very difficult. You can get an adapter with a glass element in it to act like a short teleconverter, but the cheaper the glass, the lower the image quality.

Adapting to Canon EOS is super-easy because it has one of the shallower registration distances. Adding to that distance with a simple adapter ring to make up the difference with other mounts is easy. But Nikon's got one of the deepest. If you want to adapt a manual focus lens from another mount to Nikon F, you're going to have to shave off distance from the lens mount. And the only easy solution for this are the Leitax kits, which are offered only for Contax/Yashica (Zeiss!), Leica-R, and Olympus OM mounts at this time, and they will not cover all lenses in the given mount, due to differences in how far the back element sticks back into the camera body.

Also, on the Canon side of the fence, the clearance between the back element and the mirror is smaller on the 5Ds than on the crop-body (and 1 series) cameras. It might be similar on the Nikon side of the fence (it might not). I weep that the C/Y Distagon 28/2.8 I loved so much on my XT and 50D whacks into my 5Dii's mirror if I focus it to infinity; my C/Y Tessar 45/2.8 is a complete no-go on the 5Dii, and I had to grind down the shark fin and aperture lever on my C/Y Planar 100/2 to get it to mount at all on the 5Dii. OTOH, my Olympus OMs and Leica Rs have given me no trouble at all.

If manual focus holds no fears for you, Mars, some lenses you might want to consider are the Samyang/Rokinon 84mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, and 14mm f/2.8. They've got some insanely good reputations for the super-low pricetags they sport. And, of course, there are like a gazillion fantastic old Nikon F manual focus lenses you can use without mucking about with adapters. Just avoid pre-AI lenses, or learn how to grind down the appropriate flange to avoid damaging your camera. Myself, I'd highly recommend playing about with a 50mm f/1.2.

yeah sorry, adapting older lenses and from other manufacturers need a bit of research. even the mount adapters themselves need to eb the right one or else youre losing infinity focus.
btw, its an m42 screw mount, not k mount.

[Black Pearl]

But I also feel I have to disagree while agreeing...
As I stated before, Im a hobbiest, an enthusiast, that one day hopes to be a "jack of all trades", but where I stand now in my photographic journey, I assumed I could save the extra cost from the 1.4s and save up more for another lens and still get amazing quality. Are you trying to imply that using 1.8s will not give me great shots (with great technique of course) or just the overall difference in the two? While the 1.8 will never be a 1.4, and it will be "detrimental to the absolute sharpness of the resulting image", I believe the image itself will not be bad (assuming technique is solid). Side by side on a monitor at 100%, Im sure there will be differences if we looked hard (also assuming techinque is solid), but printed out in my albums would it really show?

The images from the Nikon f1.8 primes will be fantastic and I'm not saying you have bought the wrong lenses. What I'm trying to get across is that while you may be a hobbiest/enthusiast you haven't bought a hobbits/enthusiasts camera, you have a very serious, very expensive, very high resolution, very difficult to use correctly and very much professional camera and it would be a crying shame to compromise it any way. By all means put whatever lens you fancy on the front and go shoot, shooting lots of images is the only way to learn a new camera, but I still stand by my argument that with this camera - unlike most other bodies - you will only get what it is capable of with the utmost care, perfect technique and absolutely perfect glass.

As to putting old lenses, third party lenses, adapted lenses etc on a D800 then what is the point.

Would you put 205:55 16 tyres on a BMW M3 to save a few quid?
Would you print your best photographs on 80g/m copy paper?
Would you enter a tennis tournament with a bat you bought in a junk shop?

In a word - Hell no.....well thats two words but you get my drift.

[inkista]

....As to putting old lenses, third party lenses, adapted lenses etc on a D800 then what is the point. ..

To put good quality Leica and Zeiss glass onto a camera that performs better than native mount lenses for less money than a native mount lens. To get a classic look. To expand your knowledge past single-mount tunnel vision. To have fun. To have the right tools for manual focus for both still and video shooting.

Check out the Fred Miranda alt. Gear board if you want to see why someone might want to adapt vintage manual focus lenses.

I love my Leica R Summicron 90 on my 5Dii when it comes to shooting flowers. It even makes dead flowers look good.


Canon 5Dii. adapted Summicron 90mm f/2.

And, of course, it's a super-cheap way to get f/1.2. My Olympus OM 50mm f/1.2 cost me a whopping $290. It's also the same size as my 50mm f/1.8 II.


5Dii, adapted Olympus OM-mount Zuiko 50mm f/1.2. Handheld at night, available light.

And then, there's my lovely lovely Zeiss Planar 100/2. The ZE Makro-Planar version of which costs about three times what I paid for my old C/Y AE version. Mine is razor sharp, even at 100% crop.


5Dii, adapted C/Y Zeiss Planar 100/2.

Just because you don't find any appeal in using vintage lenses, doesn't mean others might not find them useful. And far from compromising on image quality, quite a few of them are actually as high or higher quality than the best of the pro lenses Canon and Nikon offer. And given that they were designed for 135 format, they can be a better choice on a full-frame body.

The newer lenses are, obviously, more usable. Autofocus is a handy feature. But if you're a hobbyist and you're not shooting fast action, going Zeiss for cheap can be pretty darn attractive.

[Noice]

so jealous of your prime collection, inkista
all i gotta say

[inkista]

so jealous of your prime collection, inkista
all i gotta say

I was lucky. I hit the manual focus lens scene before dSLRs were HD-video capable. Film students everywhere have driven up prices on all the manual lenses in their quest for follow focus. My little Oly 50/1.2 was only $290 when I grabbed it, and today it's $500 if you can find it. My Distagon 28/2.8 was $230, today it's more in the $400 range. (sigh). The really good bargains are mostly gone. And the Zeiss 35/1.4 has never been cheap no matter whether it was Contax/Yashica or Rollei QB mount. It's close enough in price on the used market, that going for the current ZE/ZF.2 version instead actually makes sense.

[Noice]

I was lucky. I hit the manual focus lens scene before dSLRs were HD-video capable. Film students everywhere have driven up prices on all the manual lenses in their quest for follow focus. My little Oly 50/1.2 was only $290 when I grabbed it, and today it's $500 if you can find it. My Distagon 28/2.8 was $230, today it's more in the $400 range. (sigh). The really good bargains are mostly gone. And the Zeiss 35/1.4 has never been cheap no matter whether it was Contax/Yashica or Rollei QB mount. It's close enough in price on the used market, that going for the current ZE/ZF.2 version instead actually makes sense.

yup, even hunting for rangefinders are difficult now. id be on the constant hunt on two online websites and you gotta be real fast or they be gone the next couple days of posting it.
question: are FD lenses even worth the hassle of finding an FD to EF adapter? i see FD a lot on the listings and i always thought its a shame i can never grab em

[Noice]

oh, wow. speaking of...

17mm f0.95
http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-s...AdIdZ369221413
im crying right now :/

12.5mm f1.4 for 30$?!
http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-s...AdIdZ369220206

8.5mm f1.5
http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-s...AdIdZ369220801

all c mount though... where the hell do find that?!

[inkista]

yup, even hunting for rangefinders are difficult now.

Tell me about it. I have a µ4/3 camera I'd love to adapt to.

question: are FD lenses even worth the hassle of finding an FD to EF adapter? i see FD a lot on the listings and i always thought its a shame i can never grab em

For Canon EOS, probably not because of the registration distance issue and having to use a tc-like adapter. If image quality isn't that big a deal, though, and you just want to go bargain hunting, it might be ok. But most of the folks snapping up the FD/FL and the Minolta MD/MC glass are mirrorless compact users (NEX, µ4/3).

oh, wow. speaking of... all c mount though... where the hell do find that?!

I wouldn't get too excited. Those suckers tend to vignette even on µ4/3 sensors, let alone APS-C. They're designed for 16mm cine or 1" video. Might be ok to cover the entire sensor with Nikon 1, though. C-mount adapters for µ4/3 abound. The holy grail there is the Angenieux 25mm f/0.95, and four-figure prices are not uncommon. You can find the Senko 25mm f/0.95 for around $350-$400, but the bokeh is ... umm... eccentric.

[Manfred M]

Alan – I agree with you 100%; it’s not about the equipment, but rather about the image. I do think people do read too much into the camera and lens reviews. Unfortunately, most of the measurements and results that they post are done so because they are relatively easy to do, rather than that they have any meaningful impact on the resulting image. Those are ultimately the work of the photographer and are the result of a combination of compositional (artistic) and technical competence. People really should take the reviews from the camera sites with a very large grain of salt. These sites never actually say anything negative about the product that they are reviewing (cherry-picked products provided by the manufacturer) and the things that they do cover in reviews are pretty well all meaningless to photographers. They review things that are easy to review, but don’t often touch things that are important to the photographer.

Robin – let’s agree to disagree on this one. The only people that have, with a relatively straight face, told me that a new lens is better than an older one have been reps from the camera manufacturers or the camera shop clerk. These are hardly uninterested parties, their aim in life is to sell me more gear, not to tell me the equipment I have is more than adequate. I’m not saying that the new lenses are not better, as they may or may not be. What I am saying is that you will continue get great images out of your existing lenses and trying to tell someone they should upgrade just because they have the newest and greatest sensor is simply repeating Nikon’s marketing line. Stick with your existing lenses; whey will work fine!

Secondly, I love the quote about how bad the distortion from the 28 – 300mm lens is. My only reply is “who cares?”. I’ve never used the lens, but my wife shoots with it’s baby brother, the 18-200mm lens. Unless I am looking at a line of telephone poles or some buildings with long horizontal or vertical elements, I don’t notice the distortion. If I look closely at similar scenes that I shot with my pro /f2.8 24-70mm or 70-200mm lens, I can pick up some distortion too, albeit less than on the less expensive lens. If it bothers me, a quick pass through DxO or Photoshop, and the “problem” can be “eliminated”. The upside of these ultra-zooms is that my wife is busily getting the shot, while I am changing lenses. The only advantage I have over her is that I have far shallower depth of field and I can get existing light shots that she can’t.

I also get a great laugh out of the pixel counters. If you take an image with the D800 and print it at 200 dpi, your resultant product will be roughly 2 ft x 3 ft (60 cm x 90 cm). To view it you really have to be standing at least 3 – 6 ft (1-2m) away from it. I can’t imagine anyone being about to resolve motion blur at that distance; you would pretty well have to have your nose touching it to see issues at that level…

Just a bit of background on me; I’m a design engineer with over 30 years of experience in the field. I understand the math, physics, material science and manufacturing technology that goes into cameras and their components. Many of the “new and improved” features like specialty glasses and aspherical lens elements have been around for many years, the only thing that has changed recently is that new manufacturing technology allows for their use in commodity products like the consumer and pro lenses Nikon and Canon put out.

I also recognize the “marketing speak”, as I’ve worked with marketing and sales people for a long time too. Much of my work with them has been to reduce product costs and improve profit margins (and I’m certainly not saying there is anything wrong with that). I’ve gotten to help them develop their “messaging”, i.e. spinning the things that the end user will see as a benefit, while downplaying things that could be viewed as a negative. Replacing a metal part with plastic, the message would be about how much lighter and more resistant to bumps the product would be. They would downplay things like wear and longevity issues. Much of the language in what you are writing smacks of marketing speak. It is the voice of the seller, not of the buyer….

[Manfred M]

oh, wow. speaking of...

17mm f0.95
http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-s...AdIdZ369221413
im crying right now :/

12.5mm f1.4 for 30$?!
http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-s...AdIdZ369220206

8.5mm f1.5
http://toronto.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-s...AdIdZ369220801

all c mount though... where the hell do find that?!

C-mounts are for video or film movie camera (traditionally 16mm). C stands for cinema. You have to ensure that a lens will cover the image circle for your sensor. If they are true C-mount lenses, they won't work on your still APS-C or full-frame sensor. The 8.5mm one says it is for 2/3" format... They are fixed focal length, totally manual and have an infinitely variable aperture.

[marstar]

Thank you all for your posts.
It's very helpful to hear different points of views, I learned a lot.
Hopefully one day I'll build up the courage to post a few pics for some input.
But first.... Practice practice practice!

[Black Pearl]

Hopefully this post is in the right place. I'm new here and have been reading through older posts and found a lot of excellent advice regarding equipment, but I was hoping you all would lend me your thoughts about gear tailored to my specific use or even unecessary gear that would be a waste.

Its a long story.... But I bought myself a D800 albeit being an enthusiast-amateur at best.
There are tons of things I still must learn to better myself in photography and I have been trying my best to put in my time and dues to do so..

Here we go.

I currently own the afs 50mm 1.8g, afs 85mm 1.8g and an older 28mm 2.8 manual focus nikkor (forgive me, I'm not at home at the moment and it was literally given to me by a friend yesterday, so I can't remember the exact model, could be a 24mm...)

With the recent addition of my first child, needless to say my catalogs are filled with shots of her.
But apart from that, I find myself very interested in street/people photography, roaming around looking for things others miss. But naturally, I would love to gain skills in all types of photography whether it be sports, landscapes, macro, etc, but for the time being (and for the sake of the length of this post) I'd like your recommendations to be for street/people/walk around lenses especially for the "aspiring".

A huge factor for me of course is price. I've saved up about $1000 worth of coins for a lens (so the Mrs. doesnt murder me with future lens) so I would like to keep it in that range if possible, but am willing to save up a bit more if it's recommended to do so, but I do have a trip coming up next month... Soooooo.....hmmm....

Should I stick with primes and add a zoom? Another prime? Wide? Tele?
Ditch the primes and get a "great" zoom?
I understand the convenience of zooms and not missing that moment, but I also love the low light abilities of a 1.8.
In particular I'm thinking about the 16-35 4, or just selling the 50 and saving for the 24-70, although I do like the lightness of the newer primes.

As you can see, my mind is all over the place.

Help me please!
-Mars

This is the original post by Mars.

In it he is asking for advice on what lens he should purchase next. I have reread both pages and there have been various replies to that question. Scott suggested a AF-S 14-24mm f2.8, I suggested a AF-S 24-70mm f2.8, Allan went with the AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR while Manfred explained why he has spent his hard earned cash on top flight f2.8 zooms. All excellent advice, all perfect choices for a D800 and all answer the question. Talk then swung round to using older lenses with adapters - now I may have been a little flippant in my replies and generalised too much but I had a point. To suggest that Mars should spend his money on older lenses at this point in time I feel is wrong. Yes there are some amazing Leica and Zeiss lenses out there but when Mars already has three decent prime lenses his money would be far better spent with the choices given above. This isn't a "I have a cupboard full of lenses so I can choose to use a specific one for a specific type of shot" post it is a "I have a limited number of lenses so which lens should I buy next to get the most use out of it for my money?" and the distinction is significant.

I originally stepped in with my words of caution when Mars suggested a Tamron, I did so because with his specific choice of camera body I felt (and I still do) that anything other than the very best of todays lenses would be a waste of the sensor and a waste of his limited budget. I tried to balanced my argument with the fact that once printed it doesn't really matter, but it would still be a shame to compromise the quality achievable with a D800. Read my other contributions to CiC and you will see I am the first to say that in the real world absolute optical quality, noise levels, chromatic aberrations etc don't matter. I use an iPhone on a daily basis and some of my best pictures have been taken on it. They are a million miles away from what I can achieve with my Nikon kit but the point is I have a large range of camera bodies, lenses, flashguns, tripods etc and I can choose to use a specific bit of kit for a particular style of image.

Mars has three lenses and wants to know what he should spend his $1000 on next.

Sensible answers on a postcard please........

[Noice]

This is the original post by Mars.

In it he is asking for advice on what lens he should purchase next. I have reread both pages and there have been various replies to that question. Scott suggested a AF-S 14-24mm f2.8, I suggested a AF-S 24-70mm f2.8, Allan went with the AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR while Manfred explained why he has spent his hard earned cash on top flight f2.8 zooms. All excellent advice, all perfect choices for a D800 and all answer the question. Talk then swung round to using older lenses with adapters - now I may have been a little flippant in my replies and generalised too much but I had a point. To suggest that Mars should spend his money on older lenses at this point in time I feel is wrong. Yes there are some amazing Leica and Zeiss lenses out there but when Mars already has three decent prime lenses his money would be far better spent with the choices given above. This isn't a "I have a cupboard full of lenses so I can choose to use a specific one for a specific type of shot" post it is a "I have a limited number of lenses so which lens should I buy next to get the most use out of it for my money?" and the distinction is significant.

I originally stepped in with my words of caution when Mars suggested a Tamron, I did so because with his specific choice of camera body I felt (and I still do) that anything other than the very best of todays lenses would be a waste of the sensor and a waste of his limited budget. I tried to balanced my argument with the fact that once printed it doesn't really matter, but it would still be a shame to compromise the quality achievable with a D800. Read my other contributions to CiC and you will see I am the first to say that in the real world absolute optical quality, noise levels, chromatic aberrations etc don't matter. I use an iPhone on a daily basis and some of my best pictures have been taken on it. They are a million miles away from what I can achieve with my Nikon kit but the point is I have a large range of camera bodies, lenses, flashguns, tripods etc and I can choose to use a specific bit of kit for a particular style of image.

Mars has three lenses and wants to know what he should spend his $1000 on next.

Sensible answers on a postcard please........

i am not sure how to conclude your argument because on one end, you dismiss using third party brands like tamron because you feel they dont do the higher quality camera body justice. on the other hand, you say that in the real world, absolute optical quality, chromatic aberrations and noise levels doesnt really matter.

personally, i have only fulfilled the criteria that he seemingly felt more interest towards street photography and faster lenses. primes fill that void...and although he already has a set of 3 primes, he seemed to want faster lenses. if having a cupboard full of lenses is the problem, he could always upgrade on the primes and sell one or a couple of the older ones. this means he might still be able to get a prime( old/cheap/good) and a fast zoom for the other genres of interest