So.. Full frame then

[Weenis]

I'm on the cusp of bouncing over to full frame but I am at an em passe. What to get?

I'm a Nikon guy and I like what I see in the two cameras I'm looking at. I've used a 6D and while I liked it, I think I'd prefer the D800/D600 for my own usage. That said, I'm leaning strongly toward the D800 - The AF-On dedicated button is something I think I'd use a lot. When I take portraits I tend to do 2 shots at a time when I get composition to get slight variations in facial expressions / to catch the more natural smiles etc.. So I think that would be pretty useful. That and the switching between video and non seems better on the D800. The only thing I think I'd miss from the D600 is the dedicated time lapse mode, possibly some megapixels and dynamic range, camera weight.. Though I'd be $800 richer.

That said.. I've been talking with Northrop on here who has been great for advice since he has a D800 and was in a similar situation. I'm still kind of unsure what to do for lenses.

I enjoy traveling and one of my hobbies is taking landscapes while traveling. But I've also been getting into a lot more portraiture lately and it's something I'd like to do more and more I think. That said.. All my DX glass and one FX glass(ish?) probably won't work.. I'll either end up selling it all or keeping it as a backup.

Current gear: D90
50mm 1.8D
18-55mm 3.5-5.6 nonVR
55-200mm 3.5-5.6 nonVR
18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR I

Sold off the 18-105mm VR and picked up the 18-200 VRI last year. I like it a lot, but on DX..

What I'm debating is doing the following:

D800
16-35 f4
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 or 70-200 f4 VR3

That last one is a dilemma in and of itself.. the VR3 on the new 70-200 F4 is supposed to be really awesome.. I'm not sure how much 70-200 usage I'd be taking in low light.. though I don't want to screw myself over.. though there is a grand in price and a huge weight difference.

Some other things I was considering is some glass I considered awhile back which would be the Nikon 105mm f/2 DC for portraiture.. But I don't know anyone who has this glass.. Another option would be the 85mm 1.8G (from everything I've read other than some color saturation and a tiny bit of sharpness they're mostly equal.. sans weight and price.. one being 3x the price of the other)

What I'm trying to avoid is buying shit that isn't worth the money or that I'll end up not liking. I do really like the idea of shooting in lower light which is why I'm looking at the faster glass.. I have shot a few concerts (did fear factory last year) and it was fun.. but I spent a lot of time on my 50 1.8D because it was the only thing that seemed to work for me.

Any suggestions/recommendations would be awesome..

As for other current gear.. I have an assortment of SDHC cards.. primary ones are 2 32gb class 10 sandisk ultra 30mb/sec cards. and an OK sunpak carbon fiber 60" tripod. (this guy http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=740308&Q=&is=REG&A=details)

I've had the D90 for about 5 years now..I've got some great shots with it and I'm sure I could do better with some better glass on it, but I don't want to dump money into something that limits me.

As for right now budget.. I don't really want to go above 4-4.5K..ish Though depending on what you guys think I can get for some of my other glass I can add that into the funds.

 

[madFive]

Looks like a pretty good plan. I'm in about the same boat currently, really want to upgrade from my D90. I'm leaning heavily toward the D600, but am planning to rent both and try them out in the next few months to make sure it's going to work for me.

As far as the glass goes, I wouldn't bother with any of the F4 stuff. Save up and get the newest 2.8 ones. The first piece of new glass I'll be saving up for once I get an FX body will be the 14-24/2.8 - spectacular lens on an FX body. There's no way I'd go with anything else for the wide end.

For portraiture and low-light, the f/1.4 primes are the way to go. I'm looking forward to seeing what my 50/1.4 looks like at it's correct FX focal length.

 

[Weenis]

Looks like a pretty good plan. I'm in about the same boat currently, really want to upgrade from my D90. I'm leaning heavily toward the D600, but am planning to rent both and try them out in the next few months to make sure it's going to work for me.

As far as the glass goes, I wouldn't bother with any of the F4 stuff. Save up and get the newest 2.8 ones. The first piece of new glass I'll be saving up for once I get an FX body will be the 14-24/2.8 - spectacular lens on an FX body. There's no way I'd go with anything else for the wide end.

For portraiture and low-light, the f/1.4 primes are the way to go. I'm looking forward to seeing what my 50/1.4 looks like at it's correct FX focal length.

I think honestly I'd get a prime for the real low end due to cost (and the filter necessity on the 14-24 until I knew i was real serious about going ultra wide).. For me I'm thinking the 24-70 first because it's more flexible for a variety of situations..

You'd take the 85 1.4g over a 105mm f2 w/ Defocus control? To be honest it seems like th 105 would be amazing for portraits..given you have the room..

 

[Empty_Quarter]

Cant go wrong with the D800, I mean, you really only have to options unless you're willing to fork out for the D4 or D3s, the D600 or D800, and you seem to have decided on D800. Regardless, they are both fantastic cameras.

I wouldnt get the 24-70 if you're getting the 16-35, you're duplicating some range. Keep it simple. If you enjoy shooting landscapes, I can guarantee the 24-70 wont get much usage in comparison to the 16-35. The 16-35 is the holy gail of lenses (for me), and is a wicked sick lens. It is also large, heavy, and a little unpleasant to carry around (as with the 70-200) - not a big deal, but something to note while travelling.

The 85mm f/1.8G is a fantastic lens, I'd actually suggest that over the 70-200 believe it or not. Use the 85 for portraiture. Keep the 55-200 if you require the zoom for whatever reason. If you can fork it, hell, I'd recommend the 85 f/1.4G.

Having said that, I'm biased towards primes, for what it's worth. Their size and performance per dollar is just unbeatable.


If it were me: what I would do:
Sell D90 and everything. Keep 50mm because its FX & 55-200 for zoom.
Get 16-35, 85 f/1.8D (the D is better than the G, fyi) or f/1.4G, and D600 (but I understand you prefer the D800)

If you need the zoom, I'd sell the 55-200, and get the 70-300 instead. works better on FX.

 

[madFive]

You'd take the 85 1.4g over a 105mm f2 w/ Defocus control? To be honest it seems like th 105 would be amazing for portraits..given you have the room..

Eh, I haven't actually looked at the 105/2. I know the 105/2.8 Macro lens is great, but don't really know about the fast one. Portraits aren't a big focus of mine, but I generally use the 50/1.4 (which is a 75mm on DX, pretty good portrait length) when space is a concern, or my 70-300 which works great for portraits when I have lots of room to spread out, and occasionally my Tamron 90mm macro for the good looking people who look ok even in super-sharp detail.

But yeah, my next two lenses I'm planning on will be the 14-24 and the 200mm macro, in that order.

If portraiture is your main goal, I have heard lots of good things about the 85/1.4, but definitely try both it and the 105 out before you make a decision.

Edit - is this the 105/2 you were talking about? Looks like it only comes in the older D-type, which is supposedly less sharp on the new high-res FX bodies. Definitely try before you buy on that one.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

My big question would be what sort of photography you're trying to do, because I think the lens choices you buy should ultimately be based around that.

If you're going to spend a lot of time doing portraiture, I'd go with workhouse primes. Either the 85 or the 105. Having a 35mm and 50mm in the bag as well for versatility.
If landscape I'd prioritize the 14-24mm
Live events, weddings, concerts, whatever, I'd make sure to have a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR in the bag.

 

[Weenis]

Cant go wrong with the D800, I mean, you really only have to options unless you're willing to fork out for the D4 or D3s, the D600 or D800, and you seem to have decided on D800. Regardless, they are both fantastic cameras.

I wouldnt get the 24-70 if you're getting the 16-35, you're duplicating some range. Keep it simple. If you enjoy shooting landscapes, I can guarantee the 24-70 wont get much usage in comparison to the 16-35. The 16-35 is the holy gail of lenses (for me), and is a wicked sick lens. It is also large, heavy, and a little unpleasant to carry around (as with the 70-200) - not a big deal, but something to note while travelling.

The 85mm f/1.8G is a fantastic lens, I'd actually suggest that over the 70-200 believe it or not. Use the 85 for portraiture. Keep the 55-200 if you require the zoom for whatever reason. If you can fork it, hell, I'd recommend the 85 f/1.4G.

Having said that, I'm biased towards primes, for what it's worth. Their size and performance per dollar is just unbeatable.


If it were me: what I would do:
Sell D90 and everything. Keep 50mm because its FX & 55-200 for zoom.
Get 16-35, 85 f/1.8D (the D is better than the G, fyi) or f/1.4G, and D600 (but I understand you prefer the D800)

If you need the zoom, I'd sell the 55-200, and get the 70-300 instead. works better on FX.

I just haven't seen a lot of compelling reasons why the D600 is on par with the D800 or other full frame cameras.. it seems like the AF zones are a bit wonky and the price difference right now is about 800 + tax on that 800 rather than the typical 1000. Though it would be much easier on the wallet.. I just don't want any solid limitations.. I think that the AF-On button would be pretty awesome for me considering the way I shoot.

I've read that the 85 f1.8G is better than the D? In photo comparisons it looks to be a bit better on the contrast and sharpness. Obviously the 1.4G is better

I rented the 70-200 f2.8 VRI in hawaii and it wasn't terrible...but it wasn't fun to lug around either.. it was pretty unbalanced on the D90 since the D90 is relatively light.

The 16-35 is 670 ish grams and the 70-200 is 1440ish IIRC.. So there is a huge difference.

The reason I was wiffle waffling on the 16-35 is its F4... but it is VR... ugh.

madFive - yeah that is the lens I was referring to.. Supposedly it's one of the best lenses for portraiture out there due to defocus control.

 

[Weenis]

My big question would be what sort of photography you're trying to do, because I think the lens choices you buy should ultimately be based around that.

If you're going to spend a lot of time doing portraiture, I'd go with workhouse primes. Either the 85 or the 105. Having a 35mm and 50mm in the bag as well for versatility.
If landscape I'd prioritize the 14-24mm
Live events, weddings, concerts, whatever, I'd make sure to have a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR in the bag.

I don't know why I'm so hesitant on the 14-24mm... I think its the goofy outer lens sticking out that just worries me.. and I'm so used to a huge zoom range having 18-55 or 18-200 that such a thin zoom range seems.. like it should be cheaper Which is why I have considered the 16-35.

A 35 f1.8 w/ the 85 f1.8D/G in addition to the 16-35 f4 VR picking up the 70-200 f2.8 later seem logical at all?


I'm curious what my old glass is actually worth...since two of them come in kits I wouldnt think they're worth much.

 

[Empty_Quarter]

The reason I was wiffle waffling on the 16-35 is its F4... but it is VR... ugh.

The 16-35 is a landscape lens. It's not intended to be fast, rather sharp. Its not as fast as the 14-24, but its cheaper (1/2 the cost), just as sharp, and can accept filters (where as the 14-24 cant unless you're willing to use/do something funky). It's longer range also means its more versatile. You're right in that it's not fast, but its not intended to be.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I don't know why I'm so hesitant on the 14-24mm... I think its the goofy outer lens sticking out that just worries me.. and I'm so used to a huge zoom range having 18-55 or 18-200 that such a thin zoom range seems.. like it should be cheaper Which is why I have considered the 16-35.

Every millimeter on the wide end adds a significantly larger field of view. The more ultra wide you get, the more this is true.

The difference between 14mm and 16mm (even though you might not think it) is huge. The only only downside to the 14-24mm is that you can't use screw on filters. But in terms of optical quality and output it's difficult at best to match.

Because Canon has no counterpart, a lot of landscapers have switched to Nikon just for that lens. Additionally a lot of adapter companies (Nikon=>Canon) have made a boon just from that lens alone.

To see it in action, I would recommend Elia Locardi (as seen on 500px or Google+) or of course Trey Ratcliff for what that lens is all about. It's on the shortlist if you're a landscaper.

I should also note, you shouldn't really care about how much of a range the lens has. If you had the 24-70 and the 70-200 anyway you'd have from 12-200mm covered. There isn't a reason to overlap. Instead worry about using a lens for a specific application rather than worrying about the versatility of it. This is why in my first post I mentioned about what type of photography you're trying to get into. Application is everything. All of these lenses built by Nikon have their place. They exist for a specific reason and application. Sometimes it's just sheer cost, but most of the time it's for a specific photographic need.

 

[Weenis]

Every millimeter on the wide end adds a significantly larger field of view. The more ultra wide you get, the more this is true.

The difference between 14mm and 16mm (even though you might not think it) is huge. The only only downside to the 14-24mm is that you can't use screw on filters. But in terms of optical quality and output it's difficult at best to match.

Because Canon has no counterpart, a lot of landscapers have switched to Nikon just for that lens. Additionally a lot of adapter companies (Nikon=>Canon) have made a boon just from that lens alone.

To see it in action, I would recommend Elia Locardi (as seen on 500px or Google+) or of course Trey Ratcliff for what that lens is all about. It's on the shortlist if you're a landscaper.

I should also note, you shouldn't really care about how much of a range the lens has. If you had the 24-70 and the 70-200 anyway you'd have from 12-200mm covered. There isn't a reason to overlap. Instead worry about using a lens for a specific application rather than worrying about the versatility of it. This is why in my first post I mentioned about what type of photography you're trying to get into. Application is everything. All of these lenses built by Nikon have their place. They exist for a specific reason and application. Sometimes it's just sheer cost, but most of the time it's for a specific photographic need.

Locardi's photos are amazing.. though did you notice almost everything looks like it's a dang HDR? Is that just how he does post processing.. or is that his glass doing making the dynamic range look so wide?

I think if I'd get the 14-24 though I'd end up wanting that filter kit for it.. that just makes it increasingly more expensive. I guess price is really kind of a big deal on it. I'm plagued with the "do it all lens" sickness from having a dx with an 18-200.

I primarily do landscape when on vacation.. but I would like to do more of it as I will likely be traveling fairly often to europe... Specifically poland and that area for a job that interviewing has gone great for...and pays well.

I also want to do increasingly more portraiture..

I guess what I'm trying to figure out right now is... D800.. lens 1.. then lens 2.. I wouldn't mind grabbing a prime inbetween big lens purchase 1 and two to hold me over until the D90 and sells..and that would have use later.

It sounds weird but the reason I was considering the 24-70 first is.. it seems like a good walk around lens. A lot of the best photos I've taken I've been just strolling around.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Elia Locardi is primarily an HDR photographer, as is Trey Ratcliff.

If you're going to get into Landscape and Architecture, it's an extremely useful technique to have under your belt. Elia explains that all a bit on his website, as does Trey Ratcliff.

I don't see a problem with buying the 24-70 first if you're going to be in a photographic field that uses it heavily. Like I mentioned earlier, all these lenses have a purpose. The 24-70 is an excellent "walking around" lens. Heck, if you're just going to travel around Europe as you mention, you could consider just buying a 50mm or 35mm prime and shooting the whole thing with that. Henry Cartier-Bresson made his entire career with just a 50mm prime, and he was undoubtedly a master of street photography.

It's just that when you have a specific purpose and goal with what you're trying to do with your photography, it makes it easier to build what you have and what you need in your bag. If you shoot everything, you're going to need everything. Having a preference in what you want to do, what you'd like to shoot, helps to narrow things down. There are some lenses that are better suited to more than one type of photography. The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II is excellent not just at event work, but it works well for portraiture as well (some prefer to use that over the 85 and the 105, like Joe McNally or Doug Gordon as an example).

I should also mention there is nothing wrong with a super-zoom. I'm not a fan of Scott Kelby's photography per se, but his success in the field is undeniable. When he travels he pretty much packs his super zoom and that's it. He sacrifices specialization for versatility. I personally don't like that compromise (I'd rather have peak optical quality and deal with weight or simply carry one superior prime and lose every other focal length rather than use this method, but to each their own), but obviously others are more willing to make it.

So get what you need a build to where you're also trying to go. The 14-24 is definitely not a "walking around lens" but for landscapers who want to capture those kinds of shots, you can't do it any other way. Generally it's on a tripod at 5:30AM to catch a sunrise or later to catch a sunset. Get what you're going to use the most first and then build around that.

 

[Weenis]

Elia Locardi is primarily an HDR photographer, as is Trey Ratcliff.

If you're going to get into Landscape and Architecture, it's an extremely useful technique to have under your belt. Elia explains that all a bit on his website, as does Trey Ratcliff.

I don't see a problem with buying the 24-70 first if you're going to be in a photographic field that uses it heavily. Like I mentioned earlier, all these lenses have a purpose. The 24-70 is an excellent "walking around" lens. Heck, if you're just going to travel around Europe as you mention, you could consider just buying a 50mm or 35mm prime and shooting the whole thing with that. Henry Cartier-Bresson made his entire career with just a 50mm prime, and he was undoubtedly a master of street photography.

It's just that when you have a specific purpose and goal with what you're trying to do with your photography, it makes it easier to build what you have and what you need in your bag. If you shoot everything, you're going to need everything. Having a preference in what you want to do, what you'd like to shoot, helps to narrow things down. There are some lenses that are better suited to more than one type of photography. The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II is excellent not just at event work, but it works well for portraiture as well (some prefer to use that over the 85 and the 105, like Joe McNally or Doug Gordon as an example).

I should also mention there is nothing wrong with a super-zoom. I'm not a fan of Scott Kelby's photography per se, but his success in the field is undeniable. When he travels he pretty much packs his super zoom and that's it. He sacrifices specialization for versatility. I personally don't like that compromise (I'd rather have peak optical quality and deal with weight or simply carry one superior prime and lose every other focal length rather than use this method, but to each their own), but obviously others are more willing to make it.

So get what you need a build to where you're also trying to go. The 14-24 is definitely not a "walking around lens" but for landscapers who want to capture those kinds of shots, you can't do it any other way. Generally it's on a tripod at 5:30AM to catch a sunrise or later to catch a sunset. Get what you're going to use the most first and then build around that.

That's a really good point about the walking around. I definitely don't plan out my landscapes that thoroughly yet. Maybe in the short future I will.. So maybe I'll get the 16-35 and see how much I enjoy setting up those more specific shoots. Then toss in a 85 1.8G and then grab a 70-200mm 2.8 later on

What I'm struggling with on the primes is going down to 1.4 seems awesome.. but seems not worth the money in many ways due to the very good 1.8 lenses available?

 

[northrop]

FYI, D800 has a dedicated time lapse mode as well

The 16-35 is 670 ish grams and the 70-200 is 1440ish IIRC.. So there is a huge difference.

The reason I was wiffle waffling on the 16-35 is its F4... but it is VR... ugh.

And the 14-24 is 969 grams. (add another 150 grams if you ever gonna get the SW150 filter kit).

And don't look at the f4 or VR on a wide angle as features or anything. No matter what, you'll be stopping the lens down to f8 and smaller, and VR has very little to no use at those focal lengths, let alone for landscape work.

The difference between 14mm and 16mm (even though you might not think it) is huge. The only only downside to the 14-24mm is that you can't use screw on filters. But in terms of optical quality and output it's difficult at best to match.

LEE's SW-150 solves the problem for the most part. The only thing missing is the big stopper, but I guess I understand the limitation. This is probably the only advantage 16-35 has over the 14-24.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

LEE's SW-150 solves the problem for the most part. The only thing missing is the big stopper, but I guess I understand the limitation. This is probably the only advantage 16-35 has over the 14-24.

Pretty nifty, didn't know about that. Unfortunate that it's a non-standard filter size however (as you noted). Also unfortunate that the 14-24 doesn't allow rear gels as you could use a neutral density that way. Still, even with those limitations, that piece of glass is more than worth it.

 

[northrop]

It's a bit bulky, too.

And the filters, while amazing in optical quality, are not indestructible

 

[aarcam]

End of last year I transitioned from a D200 to the D600. Loving the D600, but missing some of the features that the D200 had and the D600 does not have. Not as many dedicated buttons (they are dual use and depend if there is an image on the screen or not) and not being able to set the large Dpad button to zoom and other little variations that make it clear that the D600 is differentiated from the D800. I knew these going into the deal, but was not sure how much they might bother me. I have gotten over it and am enjoying the heck out of it. Low light performance is stellar and the video ability is impressive. Smaller AF zone than the D800, but very close to the D200 I was coming from, so I dont feel like I am missing too much. I try not to think about it if I were to do it again though. I love my D600.
I love my D600
I love my D600....

For lenses I picked up the 24-70/2.8 as a bundled deal on BH that knocked a few hundred off the price of both. Great lens. Not near the range as I had with the 18-200 (DX) I was coming from on the D200, but for my current needs it is great. I do find myself wishing it went just a bit wider or a bit longer at times, but again, I am use to the 18-200. If anything I think I shoot better with the 24-70 because I have to move around much more. After getting the 18-200 I got lazy. I am using it for family shots, traveling and general mayhem. Next up is the 70-200 then the 12-24 or 85/1.4. I will probably rent the next lens I think I want to make sure I can get what I want out of it.

I have a 50mm 1.8 that I have when I want to minimize the load as the 24-70 is fairly bulky, but I have only used it once since getting the 24-70. Good luck and let us know what you decide.

 

[Weenis]

End of last year I transitioned from a D200 to the D600. Loving the D600, but missing some of the features that the D200 had and the D600 does not have. Not as many dedicated buttons (they are dual use and depend if there is an image on the screen or not) and not being able to set the large Dpad button to zoom and other little variations that make it clear that the D600 is differentiated from the D800. I knew these going into the deal, but was not sure how much they might bother me. I have gotten over it and am enjoying the heck out of it. Low light performance is stellar and the video ability is impressive. Smaller AF zone than the D800, but very close to the D200 I was coming from, so I dont feel like I am missing too much. I try not to think about it if I were to do it again though. I love my D600.
I love my D600
I love my D600....

For lenses I picked up the 24-70/2.8 as a bundled deal on BH that knocked a few hundred off the price of both. Great lens. Not near the range as I had with the 18-200 (DX) I was coming from on the D200, but for my current needs it is great. I do find myself wishing it went just a bit wider or a bit longer at times, but again, I am use to the 18-200. If anything I think I shoot better with the 24-70 because I have to move around much more. After getting the 18-200 I got lazy. I am using it for family shots, traveling and general mayhem. Next up is the 70-200 then the 12-24 or 85/1.4. I will probably rent the next lens I think I want to make sure I can get what I want out of it.

I have a 50mm 1.8 that I have when I want to minimize the load as the 24-70 is fairly bulky, but I have only used it once since getting the 24-70. Good luck and let us know what you decide.

Hate you right now . The only reason I'd consider the D600 is so I didn't feel guilty about spending so much on a body and I could get more glass now.

The only huge hesitation I have about the D600 is what you laid out.. plus I expect the D600 to devalue a lot faster than the D800. But maybe I'm wrong.

I'm planning Grand Teton + Yellowstone park sometime in August... so I want to be prepared

 

[aarcam]

Hate you right now . The only reason I'd consider the D600 is so I didn't feel guilty about spending so much on a body and I could get more glass now.

The only huge hesitation I have about the D600 is what you laid out.. plus I expect the D600 to devalue a lot faster than the D800. But maybe I'm wrong.

I'm planning Grand Teton + Yellowstone park sometime in August... so I want to be prepared

I think either will serve you well, especially coming from your previous rig. Moving to FX it really is about the glass.

I based part of my decision on the age of the tech. D600 is a bit newer. If I keep it for 3 years I have a 3 year old camera. As for value, I had my 200 for 6 years, not worth much at this point. If I kept an 800 or 600 for the same period of time I would Imagine they would not hold much of their original value either. Being FX helps, but being 6+ years old does not.

The screen on the 600 is amazing and the low light performance stellar. I really am very happy with my 600. Comparisons of performance put them pretty close and 24 mp are more than enough for me. I wish the button layout was better, but part of that is that I used my 200 for so long.

 

[Weenis]

I think either will serve you well, especially coming from your previous rig. Moving to FX it really is about the glass.

I based part of my decision on the age of the tech. D600 is a bit newer. If I keep it for 3 years I have a 3 year old camera. As for value, I had my 200 for 6 years, not worth much at this point. If I kept an 800 or 600 for the same period of time I would Imagine they would not hold much of their original value either. Being FX helps, but being 6+ years old does not.

The screen on the 600 is amazing and the low light performance stellar. I really am very happy with my 600. Comparisons of performance put them pretty close and 24 mp are more than enough for me. I wish the button layout was better, but part of that is that I used my 200 for so long.

My understanding was low light performance of the D800 was better?

But this comparison I think shows otherwise.. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D600/D600_vs_D800_noise_RAW.shtml

I think the D600 image looks cleaner (a bit darker but cleaner).

I'll be doing primarily landscape and portraiture (more of a focus on this likely) and I want to get into astrophotography..

I don't think I'd "miss" anything per se on the D800 because I'm coming from a D90.. BUT I do think there are things that I'd definitely like on the D800.

I really wish there were some comparisons on how bodies devalue though. From what I've seen it seems like the D700 has held its value pretty well.


EDIT: What's bugging me is those look like shit at higher ISO...from other photos I've seen that look like the higher ISO is much better on the D600/D800...

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Canon shooter here-

the 5D III, Canon's highest resolution camera, is at 22MP on 'FX'. Their pro camera, the 1D X, is only at 18MP.

Megapixels aren't everything. In reality, the D800 will likely out-resolve most of the glass you put on it, and it will expose every single little flaw. But that's not a bad thing, really.

Go check out DxOMark's 'Optical Metric Scores' for Nikon FX on the D800- I've been doing the same thing for the 5D III (which my 6D is closest to, minus a few unneeded megapixels). One thing you'll notice very quickly is that unlike Canon with Canon lenses, your sharpest lenses are usually not made by Nikon . While Nikon's 14-24 and high-resolution bodies might sway landscapers, Canon's glass across the rest of the range has people going the other way; or so I hear.

A couple of examples, purely to spur your research:

-Tamron's fast standard and telephoto zooms are rated sharper than Nikon's (or Sigma's); while they're not as good as the new Canon models, they come highly recommended due to lower cost, and particularly Tamron's standard zoom for it's price/performance while providing VR (VC in Tamron speak, IS in Canon, OS in Sigma, what have you). Neither Canon nor Nikon have that, and it does reportedly work very well.

-Nikon's 14-24 is a very nice lens, but somehow Samyang's (nee Bower and Rokinon) 14/2.8 out-resolves it, and on Nikon, you can get it with a focus confirmation chip. It has more distortion and more chromatic aberration, yes, but it's also $350-450 depending on where you get it and whether you get focus confirm. For reference, I love mine on my 6D; it ain't perfect, but you don't want to know what Canon charges for their 14/2.8. And mine is fully manual; I can't wait for Magic Lantern to get a stable build out with focus peaking enabled, as I've been focusing with magnified Live View.

-Sigma's 35/1.4 Art is the top rated lens (for sharpness) at DxOMark for the D800, and Canon shooters seem to love it, at least when they can get it to auto-focus properly. I'm not sure how Nikon users are faring there, but the option is available, and the lens doesn't disappoint optically.

I could find others, but you get the point- there's a lot of options out there for the Nikon and Canon crowd that aren't from Nikon or Canon. Heck, I could push you toward the 6D, but that might be a jarring experience. I can say that I picked up a D7100 at a Best Buy recently and was able to setup shots in manual mode with confidence pretty quickly, but that may not necessarily work in reverse .

 

[Weenis]

Canon shooter here-

the 5D III, Canon's highest resolution camera, is at 22MP on 'FX'. Their pro camera, the 1D X, is only at 18MP.

Megapixels aren't everything. In reality, the D800 will likely out-resolve most of the glass you put on it, and it will expose every single little flaw. But that's not a bad thing, really.

Go check out DxOMark's 'Optical Metric Scores' for Nikon FX on the D800- I've been doing the same thing for the 5D III (which my 6D is closest to, minus a few unneeded megapixels). One thing you'll notice very quickly is that unlike Canon with Canon lenses, your sharpest lenses are usually not made by Nikon . While Nikon's 14-24 and high-resolution bodies might sway landscapers, Canon's glass across the rest of the range has people going the other way; or so I hear.

A couple of examples, purely to spur your research:

-Tamron's fast standard and telephoto zooms are rated sharper than Nikon's (or Sigma's); while they're not as good as the new Canon models, they come highly recommended due to lower cost, and particularly Tamron's standard zoom for it's price/performance while providing VR (VC in Tamron speak, IS in Canon, OS in Sigma, what have you). Neither Canon nor Nikon have that, and it does reportedly work very well.

-Nikon's 14-24 is a very nice lens, but somehow Samyang's (nee Bower and Rokinon) 14/2.8 out-resolves it, and on Nikon, you can get it with a focus confirmation chip. It has more distortion and more chromatic aberration, yes, but it's also $350-450 depending on where you get it and whether you get focus confirm. For reference, I love mine on my 6D; it ain't perfect, but you don't want to know what Canon charges for their 14/2.8. And mine is fully manual; I can't wait for Magic Lantern to get a stable build out with focus peaking enabled, as I've been focusing with magnified Live View.

-Sigma's 35/1.4 Art is the top rated lens (for sharpness) at DxOMark for the D800, and Canon shooters seem to love it, at least when they can get it to auto-focus properly. I'm not sure how Nikon users are faring there, but the option is available, and the lens doesn't disappoint optically.

I could find others, but you get the point- there's a lot of options out there for the Nikon and Canon crowd that aren't from Nikon or Canon. Heck, I could push you toward the 6D, but that might be a jarring experience. I can say that I picked up a D7100 at a Best Buy recently and was able to setup shots in manual mode with confidence pretty quickly, but that may not necessarily work in reverse .

I'm not entirely opposed to switching to Canon and obviously now would be the time. That sick deal on the 6D for 2k with a 700 lens and a printer on slickdeals was tempting. I've been shooting Nikon regularly on digital for about 5 years, before that 35mm film non SLR on Nikon.. why? The first ones I had were because my parents got me it.. I had a D50 and a D40 before the D90 was my choosing because I preferred the handling of the camera and the lens system compared to Canon at the time. Also the shutter release felt funny on the Canon I looked at when going in a store.

I've read good things about the samyang 14 f/2.8, but only really seen it for astro.. There has to be a reason why people aren't using it for landscape more prominently. I haven't done a lot of research about the lens yet to be honest.

In all honesty I typically avoid buying non body brand glass, purely because if it's not branded glass or Leica/Zeiss it doesn't seem like they hold their value.

My gf's dad actually has a 6D, while I've shot some photos here and there for it I haven't put a lot of time on it. I liked what I saw in terms of low light performance though. Some things are a bit weird. Giving up the flash for a wireless sync to your phone via bluetooth... meh.. I don't want to upload shit to facebook before doing post..

FPS means nothing to me -I don 't shoot sports nor do I plan on doing so anytime soon. If I did 4.5-5fps would be sufficient.. Not a fan of motor driving at all.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

The flash thing is annoying- I lost that moving to the 6D from the 60D (and T1i before that). Canon was a dice-roll for me, really- I bought the T1i kit from someone here, due to price, and I think I had some affinity for Canon before that. But I could just as easily have gone with Nikon, and after using the 60D, I wish I did. Canon's crop sensor just plain sucks .

But on full-frame? Different story. It really depends on your target and what's available on your system of choice. For landscapes, well, a D800 or D800E (if not shooting stuff with patterns) and a 14-24 sounds like the kit to get, Canon simply doesn't have a competing lens, and the resolution isn't there, though it's really not of much real use if you take DxOMark's maximum 'perceptual megapixel' score of 23 to heart. That's 23MP out of 36MP actually 'perceived', for the very sharpest lens, which is a Sigma of all things.

For Canon, on the 6D (since speed and more AF points likely don't matter), you do get lower light focusing and the highest dynamic range available. And the GPS and WiFi functions aren't write-offs, either. Consider the price, bulk, and inconvenience of adding GPS to a Nikon or Canon, versus having it 'for free' in the body. Likewise, the WiFi function allows both for review of shots while the camera is still in the card- a novelty, but a cool one- as well as remote through-the-lens shooting. Compare the cost of using your phone versus getting one of those fancy remote controls, and that can actually be useful for landscapes, both for long exposures and for difficult angles.

Granted, any camera can take pictures, and I'm not really trying to persuade you off Nikon. Just trying to open your mind a little so that the decision you wind up with is a sure one .

 

[DyNamiC.]

The D600 has 2.1 stops more dynamic range than the 6D. The D800 has 2.3 stops more range.

The 6D only pulls truly ahead in dynamic range at high ISO. Still, the low light results from the D600 are nothing to laugh at even at 6400.

 

[Weenis]

The flash thing is annoying- I lost that moving to the 6D from the 60D (and T1i before that). Canon was a dice-roll for me, really- I bought the T1i kit from someone here, due to price, and I think I had some affinity for Canon before that. But I could just as easily have gone with Nikon, and after using the 60D, I wish I did. Canon's crop sensor just plain sucks .

But on full-frame? Different story. It really depends on your target and what's available on your system of choice. For landscapes, well, a D800 or D800E (if not shooting stuff with patterns) and a 14-24 sounds like the kit to get, Canon simply doesn't have a competing lens, and the resolution isn't there, though it's really not of much real use if you take DxOMark's maximum 'perceptual megapixel' score of 23 to heart. That's 23MP out of 36MP actually 'perceived', for the very sharpest lens, which is a Sigma of all things.

For Canon, on the 6D (since speed and more AF points likely don't matter), you do get lower light focusing and the highest dynamic range available. And the GPS and WiFi functions aren't write-offs, either. Consider the price, bulk, and inconvenience of adding GPS to a Nikon or Canon, versus having it 'for free' in the body. Likewise, the WiFi function allows both for review of shots while the camera is still in the card- a novelty, but a cool one- as well as remote through-the-lens shooting. Compare the cost of using your phone versus getting one of those fancy remote controls, and that can actually be useful for landscapes, both for long exposures and for difficult angles.

Granted, any camera can take pictures, and I'm not really trying to persuade you off Nikon. Just trying to open your mind a little so that the decision you wind up with is a sure one .

What you said has me looking at sigmas 35/85 1.4 lenses.. apparently they are amazing... and quite nicely priced.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

What you said has me looking at sigmas 35/85 1.4 lenses.. apparently they are amazing... and quite nicely priced.

They are, though they don't get a good rap on Canon mount. Focus consistency is the key here; and Canon lenses excel, even if they're not the sharpest.

At 85mm, Canon has their el-cheapo 85/1.8 (which I have), which is just a hairs-breadth away from Sigma's 85/1.4 in sharpness, but sells for less than half the price and has very fast, very consistent autofocus. I used it on my crop (136mm equiv.) as a short sports lens to great effect.

At 35mm, Canon's L glass is getting old- it's not nearly as sharp as the Sigma 35/1.4 Art, and it's still more expensive, but it does autofocus a little faster; the real issue is that there is a constant stream of reports complaining about focus consistency with the Sigma. Some say it's spot on every time, others find it off for up to half of their shots, though they do all laud the quality. However, Canon just released a raft of stabilized wide primes, including a 35mm F/2, which is just as sharp as the Sigma according to DxOMark, and it's cheaper (and lighter and, well, stabilized).

Point is, there are plenty of options out there- don't skip the Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or even the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon options when looking for a lens for a particular job .

 

[Weenis]

They are, though they don't get a good rap on Canon mount. Focus consistency is the key here; and Canon lenses excel, even if they're not the sharpest.

At 85mm, Canon has their el-cheapo 85/1.8 (which I have), which is just a hairs-breadth away from Sigma's 85/1.4 in sharpness, but sells for less than half the price and has very fast, very consistent autofocus. I used it on my crop (136mm equiv.) as a short sports lens to great effect.

At 35mm, Canon's L glass is getting old- it's not nearly as sharp as the Sigma 35/1.4 Art, and it's still more expensive, but it does autofocus a little faster; the real issue is that there is a constant stream of reports complaining about focus consistency with the Sigma. Some say it's spot on every time, others find it off for up to half of their shots, though they do all laud the quality. However, Canon just released a raft of stabilized wide primes, including a 35mm F/2, which is just as sharp as the Sigma according to DxOMark, and it's cheaper (and lighter and, well, stabilized).

Point is, there are plenty of options out there- don't skip the Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or even the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon options when looking for a lens for a particular job .

Reading more and more I may just get an 85mm 1.8g Nikon for 499 since it's super sharp as well and pretty damn fast. Then get the 70-200mm f2.8 later.. I want to get the 70-200 now but it's just so damn expensive at 2500$.

That and I did a little experiment today.. I went through lightroom to quickly see a lot of what focal length I shoot at..... Boom around 18-28 for anything wide.. and 75+ (up to about 180-190 when I had rented the 70-200) for any portraits when not using my 50mm. I noticed there are some that drop in at 30-50 but not very many except the "i cant move closer so I need zoom" situations.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

I can do everything with my primes- except tele, of course. I have the 24-105L because it was +$500 with the kit, and goes for $700 mint otherwise; and because the cheapest zoom I'd consider is around $1500, for a Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC or Canon's slower 24-70/4 IS.

But really, even those zooms don't compare to a good 24, 35, 50, and 85 (since they don't do 85...). And you want 85. That's your 'shoulder portrait' FOV on FX.

 

[Weenis]

The more I read the more I'm lost as to what to chose.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

The more I read the more I'm lost as to what to chose.

It's alright, we're lost too. Instead of trying to cover ranges or speeds or whatever, cover purposes. You can use almost any lens for almost any picture, with the biggest exception being to not use wide-angle lenses on close shots of people, as that stretches people in ways that they don't appreciate .

If you ever need any lens ever, it's a good 50mm. At least Nikon has those; none of the Canon ones are actually 'great' (including the over-priced Sigma).

You usually want a standard zoom and a telephoto zoom, but they don't have to match up, necessarily. You could get a wide-zoom like a 16-35, a telezoom like a 70-200/4, and the 50, and be set up. A teleconverter and a set of macro tubes and you can take any picture in the world, assuming you can get yourself there .

 

[Weenis]

It's alright, we're lost too. Instead of trying to cover ranges or speeds or whatever, cover purposes. You can use almost any lens for almost any picture, with the biggest exception being to not use wide-angle lenses on close shots of people, as that stretches people in ways that they don't appreciate .

If you ever need any lens ever, it's a good 50mm. At least Nikon has those; none of the Canon ones are actually 'great' (including the over-priced Sigma).

You usually want a standard zoom and a telephoto zoom, but they don't have to match up, necessarily. You could get a wide-zoom like a 16-35, a telezoom like a 70-200/4, and the 50, and be set up. A teleconverter and a set of macro tubes and you can take any picture in the world, assuming you can get yourself there .

I thought about this way.. I am looking at it for purposes. Right now I want to get into more portraiture full body to face. Swimsuit/boudoir and then standard portraiture for familial events obviously. But I also really really enjoy landscape.

So I could get a 16-35.. but then I think I'd want the 24-70 f2.8 because it would be great for full body then getting towards normal portraiture.. then obviously they would overlap by 11mm.. so that kinda sucks. I could do the holy trinity, but I don't know that I want to spend 2 grand on a lens solely for landscape.. though the shots I've seen it make are amazing... The 16-35 + a prime 501.8 (I have the 1.8D already.. though I heard its shitty on the D800) and then the 70-200 2.8 is another option that doesn't seem too bad.. but I'd be using the 16-35 for full body or going to the boonies to use the 50mm.

Alternatively I could do the 14-24 for landscape grab a 35 1.8 (or 1.4 maybe) and then the 70-200 2.8?

What I'm wondering is how 85mm 1.8g would work for full body.. I don't know how close I could get

 

[IdiotInCharge]

85mm works great just a few steps back. I used it as an action lens on my crop body, with an FOV like 136mm on full-frame. On my FF 6D, no problem. It's sharper, faster, and more accurate than my 50mm with less CA, too, but that may not be how it works with Nikon.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Another way to look at it- if you really want a 70-200/2.8, then you have your portrait lens. Bulky, yeah, and if you must have wider you have your 50mm. Any 50mm is fine for people, as you don't actually want people shots to be too sharp (you'll have to adjust that on the 70-200/2.8). If you want to do landscapes, anything starting in the 14-17mm range is good, the wider the better of course, but worry about sharpness at narrow apertures like 5.6-11 more than anything.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

The more I read the more I'm lost as to what to chose.

This isn't a one size fits all situation. If you're worried about entry cost into any of this, you could try renting first. Sure, renting isn't cheap, but it's much less money than buying something expensive that you dislike. (Although generally it's easy to return new stuff and sell off/flip used gear).

If you ever need any lens ever, it's a good 50mm. At least Nikon has those; none of the Canon ones are actually 'great' (including the over-priced Sigma).

Not sure how you measure what is "great". DxO marks the 50mm f/1.4 as a better 50mm in terms of resolution than any 50mm offered on Nikon mount. Most of the Nikons have an equal "overall score." See my extended note below the links...

Canon's 50mm compared
Nikon's 50mm compared

I should also note however that all of the scores are within points of one another. So close I'd say that they're imperceptible in actual use (between Nikon/Canon or even between various lenses on the system). Tons of pros use 50mm's on both systems and no one stares at any of them and says "hey this stuff sucks." DXOmark concludes the exact same thing. The Canon 50mm f/1.2L for example is JoeyL's goto lens for all his portrait work. I wouldn't call any of his work short of stunning. For more great portrait shots on 50/85 on Canon, I'd suggest looking at Jeremy Cowart's work.

I thought about this way.. I am looking at it for purposes. Right now I want to get into more portraiture full body to face. Swimsuit/boudoir and then standard portraiture for familial events obviously. But I also really really enjoy landscape.

Eventually if you're an avid photographer you're going to want to have it all. It's called 'GAS'. If you're going to do portraiture primarily, going 35/50/85 will cover a majority of your usage cases. If you're doing landscape that's different. If you're doing sports that's different. If you're doing birding that's different. If you're doing macro it's different. It's all specialization. However that's not to say that any lens that has a 'specialization' can't be used for something else.

So I could get a 16-35.. but then I think I'd want the 24-70 f2.8 because it would be great for full body then getting towards normal portraiture.. then obviously they would overlap by 11mm.. so that kinda sucks. I could do the holy trinity, but I don't know that I want to spend 2 grand on a lens solely for landscape.. though the shots I've seen it make are amazing... The 16-35 + a prime 501.8 (I have the 1.8D already.. though I heard its shitty on the D800) and then the 70-200 2.8 is another option that doesn't seem too bad.. but I'd be using the 16-35 for full body or going to the boonies to use the 50mm.

They're all great lenses. Just depends on your priority for now. It's not like you can't use primes for landscapes or zooms for portraits. There are a lot of general use cases for many things, but I've used 70-200mm's (@ 200mm) for landscapes, and I used a 12-24 (@ 12mm) on a portrait. These are tools and so often it's all about what effect your trying to do. Vincent Laforet said this about lens selection (paraphrasing): when choosing a lens you think about using a wide angle when you want to emphasize the foreground and deemphasize the background. Use a telephoto when you want to compress the foreground and background together. These are tools used for specific effect. What effect do you want to have when you shoot?

All of these lenses are nice to have in your bag. But assuming you don't have infinite money, you simply have to prioritize what you want/need most in your bag. This is why I recommended renting above. Even the wealthiest pro's that have everything have their preferences in what they use over and over again and gravitate towards. In other words they have a list of what they consider to be the essentials in their bag and for their work. Everyone's is different. You don't know what this for you yet.

Alternatively I could do the 14-24 for landscape grab a 35 1.8 (or 1.4 maybe) and then the 70-200 2.8?

That would work fine, depending on how often you'd want to use the 35mm and 70-200mm for general shooting. The 70-200mm of course is fine for portraits. It's preferred by some, like Doug Gordon.

What I'm wondering is how 85mm 1.8g would work for full body.. I don't know how close I could get

85mm/100mm can do full body, but you'd have to be some distance depending on the height of the person in order to use it. Unless of course they are balled up or bending over or some-how otherwise not utilizing their full height. When people say they use it for portraits they are generally talking about eyes only, eyes/nose only, face only, heads, or shoulder's and heads. Not to say it doesn't get used for full body portraits. It does, just not nearly as often as other, wider lenses.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Very good points US, thanks for the writeup.

After shooting for a few years, I've come to the conclusion that the 70-200 is the only nice lens I actually need to acquire. Nothing else compares for sharpness in that range for Canon- the new 70-200/2.8 IS II is it. I'll sell my 100L IS Macro and 70-300 IS USM beater tele-zoom for it in a heartbeat; and even the 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 if needed.

For me, there's really just no reason to have any other lens in the kit. The 24-105/4L is a value since it's $500 in a kit (Canon thinks it's worth $1200 retail- so funny), but it's not a necessity; and if I had to rely on a lens in that range, it wouldn't be that beater; but those lenses are even more dear to Canon and Tamron. I'd get by with just a 24/35/40/50, and I have a 24, 40, and 50 already- and that 40 is damn sharp. For serious wide-angle I have Samyang's (Bower-branded) 14/2.8 manual lens; distortion and CA from hell, but far cheaper than anything else, and actually fairly sharp. So I could really sell the 24, 50, 85, 100, and 70-300, and grab a 70-200 and a 1.4x TC and call it 'good'. And I just might.

___________
Those roundups actually reinforce my opinion- the Canon 50/1.8 is the sharpest on crop, the 50/1.4 is sharpest on FF, the 50/1.2 is... well 1.2, and the Sigma 50/1.4 has CA from hell.

And the problem I have with the 1.8 isn't the optics- it's the inconsistent focus (like the Sigma), the 5-bladed aperture (ugly backgrounds and pentagonal highlights galore), and really, really crappy build quality and handling.

So basically, Canon users are screwed at 50mm. The best is the 50/1.4, which is still not very consistent, still has too much longitudinal chromatic aberration, and still isn't the sharpest. For a good point of comparison, look at Canon's 85/1.8- same price as the 50/1.4, a part of a stop slower, but an amazing lens all around.

And Nikon does look much better- at least, if their 50/1.8D has accurate focus in lower light when you fricking need it. It does have better build quality than Canon's 50/1.8 and is at least as sharp as Canon's 50/1.4 on FX; and it has a 7-bladed aperture. Can't beat that, I'd love to have that lens on my 6D.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Those roundups actually reinforce my opinion- the Canon 50/1.8 is the sharpest on crop, the 50/1.4 is sharpest on FF, the 50/1.2 is... well 1.2, and the Sigma 50/1.4 has CA from hell.

And the problem I have with the 1.8 isn't the optics- it's the inconsistent focus (like the Sigma), the 5-bladed aperture (ugly backgrounds and pentagonal highlights galore), and really, really crappy build quality and handling.

So basically, Canon users are screwed at 50mm. The best is the 50/1.4, which is still not very consistent, still has too much longitudinal chromatic aberration, and still isn't the sharpest. For a good point of comparison, look at Canon's 85/1.8- same price as the 50/1.4, a part of a stop slower, but an amazing lens all around.

And Nikon does look much better- at least, if their 50/1.8D has accurate focus in lower light when you fricking need it. It does have better build quality than Canon's 50/1.8 and is at least as sharp as Canon's 50/1.4 on FX; and it has a 7-bladed aperture. Can't beat that, I'd love to have that lens on my 6D.

I don't think you really understood what I was trying to say in my previous post. Shooting test charts to a large degree is overrated. But you say that the "1.4 still isn't the sharpest" despite DxO Mark's test showing that it is indeed the sharpest lens on either Nikon or Canon! I even directly mentioned that in my last post.

I linked JoeyL and Jeremy Cowart for a reason. Pick a shot (especially from JoeyL, he literally only uses two lenses on Canon, the 24-70mm 2.8L MK.I and the 50mm f/1.2L, of which is prefers to use the prime 50mm by large margin. He also uses Medium Format for which he has only two lenses as well.) pick it apart and tell me where sharpness, chromatic aberration, contrast, detail, or any other factor was an issue that prevented any of those shots from going from good to great.

DxO is great for showing a more-or-less level playing field. But real use is where things get proven. Knowing your gear is a big part of the equation. I've use the 50mm f/1.4 first hand in terrible light situations on a 5D2 (which is probably the worst focusing platform ever in low light) and still gotten good results out of it. The f/1.2L is slow to focus yes but for the application of doing portraits it doesn't matter. Every Pro Canon shooter has probably shot a 5D2 and 50mm f1.2L at some point and gotten great things out of it despite the 'disadvantage' (I've already named two, I could just as easily add Scott Robert Lim, Vincent Laforet, Zack Arias as a few more). I don't think Canon users are 'screwed' at all. Would it be nice to have faster? Absolutely. But we can always complain about the tools rather than make them work for our purposes. Every one of those 50mm lenses (Canon or Nikon) is more than adequate to get excellent images out of.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Had a full response typed up, and then I nuked it, sad face.

Basically, there's no 50mm for Canon that can do what the 85/1.8 or 100/2, or even the ancient 35/2 does, and there's a number of reasons that Nikon's 50/1.8D would be better than Canon's 50/1.8, such as better build quality and a 7-bladed aperture. It's just as sharp, so that's a plus, and if it can focus better in lower light, it'd be perfect.

The 50/1.2 has it's place, of course- focus isolation, great colors and beautiful bokeh- but otherwise is outperformed by the 50/1.4.

And I've used the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 to great affect, and keep the 50/1.4 in my kit as in my signature. Most (or all) of these were done on my 6D with the 50/1.4. Some of the older shots I have were done with the 50/1.8 on a 60D. But that is seriously one frustrating lens.

 

[northrop]

Alternatively I could do the 14-24 for landscape grab a 35 1.8 (or 1.4 maybe) and then the 70-200 2.8?

That's $5k in lenses only. It's a great lens choice, but you probably want to narrow down your selection a little bit more for now. Following your OP, you only have 4-4.5k to play with, and that's including the camera body I assume? If you go with D800, that leaves you with 1500 to burn on a glass. Personally, If I could only grab only one lens to go with that camera it would either be the 35mm or the 85mm prime. Which one? that's a really tough question to answer, and it's something you have to think about long and hard.

What I'm wondering is how 85mm 1.8g would work for full body.. I don't know how close I could get

Like IdiotInCharge said, the 85mm is great for this type of work, but you will need to take a few steps back... about 20 feet to get that full body of an average person standing up.

Not sure how you measure what is "great". DxO marks the 50mm f/1.4 as a better 50mm in terms of resolution than any 50mm offered on Nikon mount. Most of the Nikons have an equal "overall score." See my extended note below the links...

Yeah, the 50's from Nikon aren't all that great on a D800 (dunno about D600). Never mind that they are actually significantly slower than other primes, the sharpness just isn't there either. And when stepped down, the 24-70 beats them in every aspect, which renders the primes somewhat pointless (unless you factor in the cost and size/weight. But optically, it's nothing to be desired).

Eventually if you're an avid photographer you're going to want to have it all. It's called 'GAS'.

This is so true, it's not even funny

After shooting for a few years, I've come to the conclusion that the 70-200 is the only nice lens I actually need to acquire. Nothing else compares for sharpness in that range for Canon- the new 70-200/2.8 IS II is it. I'll sell my 100L IS Macro and 70-300 IS USM beater tele-zoom for it in a heartbeat; and even the 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 if needed.

14-24 is my workhorse and I don't think I could ever part ways with that lens. Take everything else, but the 14-24 is getting soldered to my camera. Next up would probably be the 85 1.4g. I picked it up on a whim, because I was in need of a short fast tele (even though I already owned the 70-200), and I was taken aback by this lens. It's absolutely stunning. The way it renders everything is just amazing. I love using it wide open, even when the situation doesn't call for it. I then go home, kick myself for not stepping down to at least /2 to get more subject in focus, but I'm so amazed at how everything else looks in the image that I'm not even mad as much

And Nikon does look much better- at least, if their 50/1.8D has accurate focus in lower light when you fricking need it. It does have better build quality than Canon's 50/1.8 and is at least as sharp as Canon's 50/1.4 on FX; and it has a 7-bladed aperture. Can't beat that, I'd love to have that lens on my 6D.

On a crop... sure. On a full frame.. not so much

 

[IdiotInCharge]

For US, 60D w/50/1.8 II:

 

[Weenis]

I may just rent the 14 24 2.8 for my trip to Yellowstone but if it's going to be like 200+ that seems crazy

selling my d90 two lenses and two batteries and grip to my folks for 600. Then ill try to get about 350 or so for the 18 200.

That's part of the reason I'm looking at the d800 instead of the 600. Big other reasons for new ids bold quality, sealing, AF-on, and I think it will be the camera I want to keep as a backup or have the gf use when I upgrade in 4 or so years.

I've noticed that's about how long I keep bodies. Current is about4.5 I think.

to sell off stuff to help fund glass

I wish there was a 35mm 1.8g though. Id snap that up in a heart beat. Unless anyone knows of an alternative

I had considered the 24-70 2.8 because I like 35 and 70mm ranges. Apparently it's optics aren't amazing though


But I could get the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for distance portraiture/walk around and travel thats not landscape.. then get an 85 1.8G for portraiture.

I'm just confusing myself with too many options now.


I could rent the 16-35 ($115 for 10 days) or the 14-24 ($213 for 10 days) both with shipping and damage waivers from lensrentals.com for my trip in august.. that way I'm not buying a wide angle I'm not sure about..

It seems like the 16-35 is great betwen 18-24mm apparently there is bad distortion at 16mm and 30-35 isn't ideal on the lens.. makes one question the lens overall..but everything is so subjective.

Looks like I'll probably be getting $450 for my 18-200 though