Best Lens for Nikon d810?

[sooner]

I'll be receiving a new-to-me Nikon d810 in the mail tomorrow, and I'd really like one travel lens to go with it. I've got the Nikon 24-85 3.5 zoom that is okay, not great, on my film cameras but would really love a lens that is "razor sharp" as some folks say. Have looked at the Milvus 35mm f2, Sigma Art 35mm 1.4, and Tamron 35mm 1.8 VC. After reading a ton of reviews, it seems like a choice between the latter two, with the edge in sharpness maybe going to the Sigma. But I also really value lens size and want something as small as possible, don't feel I need 1.4, and the VC is nice. Mostly, I value sharpness over everything else--at this price range, obviously. Am I missing a choice? Can you fine folks help me decide?

 

[chuckroast]

I'll be receiving a new-to-me Nikon d810 in the mail tomorrow, and I'd really like one travel lens to go with it. I've got the Nikon 24-85 3.5 zoom that is okay, not great, on my film cameras but would really love a lens that is "razor sharp" as some folks say. Have looked at the Milvus 35mm f2, Sigma Art 35mm 1.4, and Tamron 35mm 1.8 VC. After reading a ton of reviews, it seems like a choice between the latter two, with the edge in sharpness maybe going to the Sigma. But I also really value lens size and want something as small as possible, don't feel I need 1.4, and the VC is nice. Mostly, I value sharpness over everything else--at this price range, obviously. Am I missing a choice? Can you fine folks help me decide?

I use a 28-300mm Nikkor on my D750 and have been very happy with it. It is MUCH sharper than the 24-85mm f/3.5 which I also own (the older, original AF version). However, that lens is nice for people pictures where you don't want every pore in perfectly sharp relief.

Also, don't be scared to use the older manual Ai and Ai-S primes. I have a bunch of those that I share with Nikon film bodies and they remain stellar performers that can be had a less than nosebleed prices. Of particular note are the 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 105mm f/2.5, and 180mm f/2.8.

 

[Austintatious]

But I also really value lens size and want something as small as possible, don't feel I need 1.4, and the VC is nice.

How about an oldie but a goodie ?

Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D Review

 

[Glenn2]

I’ve got an 800E and a few lenses from wide to long. Presently 14-24 Nikon, Sigma 35 Art, 60 AFD Micro, 85 f/1.8, 70-300 both Nikon and Tamron, 150-600 Sigma sport. Whew what a load. I only use these for specific needs, not as a walk around camera. For that it’s a Nikon D3200 small sensor and 16-85 Nikon zoom or just an X100 if going light. Poor Leicas need some exercise, soon when the weather is better.

I also had the 20mm and 50mm both AFD which I gave to a budding photographer as I wasn’t using them much. Both were light weight, well built and relatively inexpensive. Had a 28-105 zoom that was OK optically for resolution, vignetted more than I wanted.
The 35 Sigma art is sharp, but heavy. On the longer side the smaller 85 f/1.8 is a gem, light weight and sharp. Unfortunately the Nikon 70-300 took a tumble and VR stopped working, repair would probably have cost as much as a new lens so replaced with Tamron. I’d seen test results that placed its resolution above the Nikon. Not something I could notice, but was also less expensive. Once took a shot with the Nikon of some distant billowing clouds with sun beams breaking through zoomed out to 300mm, handheld! When I got the image open in Lightroom there were some spots on one of the clouds. My first thought was that this was caused by sensor dust and the camera was going to need a cleaning. After going to 100% screen magnification I realized it wasn’t dust but a distant flock of Canada geese.

Glenn

 

[wlewisiii]

I have the D810 and my Nikon 28-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 D pretty much _lives_ on that camera. I have a bunch of great primes, both AF & MF but for that particular DSLR, that zoom is the schizzle.

The primes still get used a lot, especially on my F4 but also on the D810, but more often than any other lens, when the 810 goes out the door, that zoom is on it. It's just a great great lens. Considering I had to be dragged kicking and screaming (almost not a metaphor) into buying any zoom, that's saying a lot.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I am more of a prime guy than a zoom guy. Also, used rather than new. I'd go for a 50/1.4 Nikkor AF-D. Used, it won't break the bank. plenty sharp, and it will give you speed that your zoom doesn't have. If portraits are your thing, the 85/1.8 is a wonder and also not super expensive used. If the 50 isn't wide enough, then I'd echo the recommendation of a 35/2 AF-D. Stopped down a couple of stops from wide open, you'll have plenty of sharpness. And the extra speed is there if you need it.

 

[sooner]

Thanks for the ideas. I should have said I'm thinking along the wider range so nothing like 85mm. Definitely going to look at the Nikon 35mm f/2 AFD. Does anyone own the manual focus Voigtlander lenses for Nikon?

 

[Dan]

I owned the Nikon 35mm f/2 Af-D and it was a really nice lens: small, sharp stopped down a couple of stops. BUT: mine developed the sticky // oily aperture problem (well documented) and was repaired once by Nikon. After the same issue reappeared later on, I sold it.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I'd suggest looking at a Nikkor 24mm 2.8.
An example of a quick shot I took with mine on a Sony A7ii.

Wide open hand held SOOC.

 

[sooner]

After much research, it seems the best option would be either the Sigma Art 35mm f1.4 or the Tamron Di VC 35mm 1.8. The Sigma gets all the superlatives online, but does anyone on this forum own and use the Tamron? That VC could come in handy using a d810, and it seems the sharpness is really close, judging by the DxO scores.

 

[Dogman]

I owned the Tamron for a time and, yes, it was sharp. But it was kinda large and heavy so I sold it and stuck with the Nikkor 35/1.8 lens. But the best 35mm focal length I own is the Carl Zeiss Distagon ZF.2 35/2 lens. It's sharp, yes. But it also has an absolutely beautiful way of rendering scenes. The Milvus is a more modern version (I think). But that group of Zeiss lenses were just plain goofy looking to me. The older ZF lenses looked like quality lenses should look and they were built heavy duty. Yes, I know I said I gave up the Tamron because it was heavy and large...but the Tamron didn't have the beautiful rendering ability of the Zeiss.

 

[DownUnder]

I travel mostly with one of two kits - a Nikon D800 with two lenses, the 28/2.8 and the 85/1.8, or a Fuji XE2 with the 14/2.8, 18-55 and 35/2.0. Either kit does 99.whatever% of everything I want to do, but I'm a retired architect who thinks mostly in grids and favors buildings over people. So I'm rather a conservative shooter, and I tend to preplan many of my images, at times to the point of overthinking (and then inevitably overshooting) before I take them. That's just me.

I could easily eliminate one of the trio with the Fuji, and depending on where I go and what I'm shooting I could replace the Nikon 85 with the 180/2.8. I recently bought a Nikon 300/4 which I've yet to use, and I'm often tempted to pack it in my travel kit, but so far I've resisted, as it seems much too heavy for the sort of casual walking I enjoy doing.

The 18-55 would probably suit me best, but I tend more to primes than zooms. Just now I'm in Indonesia with the Fuji kit, and I find I use the 18/2.0 more than my other lenses - I have five with me, well after all they are so small and light and I can easily stash them all in a small cosmetics bag which then goes into my backpack.

I could, and maybe even would happily go forth with one camera and one lens if I really apply myself to it. The trouble here is, I'm not sure which lens I would take. Likely a 28 (Nikon) or 18 (Fuji), but for me jury is still out on this.

 

[Freakscene]

I owned the Tamron for a time and, yes, it was sharp. But it was kinda large and heavy so I sold it and stuck with the Nikkor 35/1.8 lens. But the best 35mm focal length I own is the Carl Zeiss Distagon ZF.2 35/2 lens. It's sharp, yes. But it also has an absolutely beautiful way of rendering scenes. The Milvus is a more modern version (I think). But that group of Zeiss lenses were just plain goofy looking to me. The older ZF lenses looked like quality lenses should look and they were built heavy duty. Yes, I know I said I gave up the Tamron because it was heavy and large...but the Tamron didn't have the beautiful rendering ability of the Zeiss.

The Milvus 35/2 is optically identical to the ZF.

ZEISS Milvus 2/35 | Manual focus lens for Canon & Nikon SLR cameras

This moderate wide-angle lens that is ideal for capturing all scenes in their full natural brilliance – nothing will escape its attention, even in poor light.

www.zeiss.com

Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 35 mm f/2 ZF/ZK/ZS/ZE review - Build quality - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

It’s a modern 9 elements in 7 groups design.

Marty