Comments on: D800 Lens Selection

By: Roger Cicala

Roger Cicala — Tue, 21 May 2013 12:27:08 +0000

Hans,

Our tests show it very close to the Nikon 24-70 and certainly a much better value. We didn’t have it done at the time this list was made, but personally I wouldn’t hesitate to use it on a D800.

Roger

By: Hans

Hans — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:44:00 +0000

Hi Roger,

apologies if this has been covered already, but what about the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC? DPreview seemed to like it a lot (although they tested it only on Canons FX and DX), and DXO ranked slightly above Nikons 24-70 equivalent. Have you had a chance to test it on the D800/D800E?

By: Roger Cicala

Roger Cicala — Mon, 06 May 2013 12:52:23 +0000

Rich, the f/4 version

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 06 May 2013 11:15:33 +0000

Many thanks for the useful information.
One question: is the ‘Nikon 24-120 VR’ listed above under ‘Nikon Zooms’ the f/4 version or the f/3.5-5.6 version?

By: salim

salim — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:17:27 +0000

Roger,
This has become my goto place about lens decision and what I recommend to friends. Can you please add the numbers for the zeiss 135/2 apo please.

By: Konstantin

Konstantin — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:06:43 +0000

Roger, thank you for such big work you made of! It`s very useful! Can you make the same measurements for Zeiss Distagon ZF.2 15/2.8? It`s very interesting to look how his work at Nikon 800(e) and compare with Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss 21 2.8…
Thank you for your work one more time!
And PLEASE make testing Zeiss Distagon ZF.2 15/2.8!

By: Pov

Pov — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 22:08:21 +0000

Have you had the chance to test the new Sigma “art line” 35mm 1.4g? Some reputable reports say that this lens is considerably better than the Nikkor version. Many thanks!

By: Roger Cicala

Roger Cicala — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:01:37 +0000

Unfortunatley I don’t have any 180 f2/2.8 to test – we don’t carry it.
Roger

By: nandadevieast

nandadevieast — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:28:46 +0000

Hi Roger,
Can we get the numbers for Nikon 180 2.8 AF-D…?

By: Roger Cicala

Roger Cicala — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:47:10 +0000

Hi Greg,

I wish I had a correct answer for you. DxO is very proprietary about their measurements so I can’t comment on what, exactly, it means when they say that. In some ways, the DxOAnalysis system may be better: it measures small circles rather than larger diagonal trapezoids so they get more places on the lens and further into the corners. In some ways it’s less good – they have fewer sizes of targets and they tend to work at shorter distances.

The bottom line, though, is I suspect a couple of things account for their differences more than the above:
1) They do test only one sample, or at least they did the last time I spoke with them. There are a couple of other weird results in lenses on their pages.
2) I’m not certain how their testing works: if the apply distortion correction, for example, that could change resolution hugely. They’re more camera and sensor oriented and less into glass for glass sake – they’re more interested in distortion correction for their software, as they should be. It’s some great software.
3) I’m pretty comfortable saying anyone who rates the Zeiss 21mm as lower resolution either has flawed testing, a bad sample, or is trying to correct its moustache distortion before analysing it’s resolution. Honestly, there are only a few lenses I would say that about so flatly, but the Zeiss 21mm is one. It’s not perfect, the moustache distortion makes it a poor choice for some architectural shots and it’s a complex lens that can get decentered, but a good copy resolves as well as, if not better than, any other wide-angle lens made.

Roger