My D800 Review

[sarangiman]

I was seeing that in the sample images, even with the well regarded 14-24 and it was my biggest concern with a 36+ MP camera. It was why I am happy that Canon kept the 5D MkIII to 22 MP. I'm sure that recent and future lenses will cope fine, but I don't want to think about how my 24-105 and 17-40 would cope with a high resolution sensor, especially in the corners.

My Nikon 14-24 is sharp edge to edge by f/5.6 on a D800... but, yes, before I got rid of my Canon 16-35 & 17-40, I would be very worried about how they would hold up to a 30+ MP sensor. In fact, I was worried about how they didn't hold up to a 22MP sensor, even at f/11, which is why I got rid of them.

[helpful]

I just might get a 14-24mm lens for the D800 if it works out, and it is off to a good start. 
 

Do it. The Nikon 14-24mm lens will blow your socks off unless you have experienced something similar before. I went ahead and purchased it for my Nikons back before the tsunami (thankfully!), and it's a rock star. I would own it even if I didn't need the extreme wide angle capability. The only bad thing is that I am used to lenses that go to f/1.4. People brag about lenses like the 16-35mm II or the 10-22mm, and they don't even live in the same world as the Nikon 14-24mm.

[ChrisAnderson]

I just might get a 14-24mm lens for the D800 if it works out, and it is off to a good start. 
 

Do it. The Nikon 14-24mm lens will blow your socks off unless you have experienced something similar before. I went ahead and purchased it for my Nikons back before the tsunami (thankfully!), and it's a rock star. I would own it even if I didn't need the extreme wide angle capability. The only bad thing is that I am used to lenses that go to f/1.4. People brag about lenses like the 16-35mm II or the 10-22mm, and they don't even live in the same world as the Nikon 14-24mm.

I'd be interested in seeing how the famed Zeiss Distagon 21mm stands up to the 14-24 

[Kernuak]

I was seeing that in the sample images, even with the well regarded 14-24 and it was my biggest concern with a 36+ MP camera. It was why I am happy that Canon kept the 5D MkIII to 22 MP. I'm sure that recent and future lenses will cope fine, but I don't want to think about how my 24-105 and 17-40 would cope with a high resolution sensor, especially in the corners.

My Nikon 14-24 is sharp edge to edge by f/5.6 on a D800... but, yes, before I got rid of my Canon 16-35 & 17-40, I would be very worried about how they would hold up to a 30+ MP sensor. In fact, I was worried about how they didn't hold up to a 22MP sensor, even at f/11, which is why I got rid of them.

On the sample images (granted Canon's samples weren't a good representation, so it may not be the best comparison), I was noticing softness in the corners of the landscapes, all of which were taken using the 14-24 at f/8. There was insufficient depth of field, which likely exacerbated the corner softness, but it was certainly there.
I rarely use my 17-40 now, except for some extreme looks from the distortion, due to the corner softness at 21 MP. That said, it is probably sharper than the 24-105 between around 24-30mm.

[Kernuak]

I just might get a 14-24mm lens for the D800 if it works out, and it is off to a good start. 
 

Do it. The Nikon 14-24mm lens will blow your socks off unless you have experienced something similar before. I went ahead and purchased it for my Nikons back before the tsunami (thankfully!), and it's a rock star. I would own it even if I didn't need the extreme wide angle capability. The only bad thing is that I am used to lenses that go to f/1.4. People brag about lenses like the 16-35mm II or the 10-22mm, and they don't even live in the same world as the Nikon 14-24mm.

I'd be interested in seeing how the famed Zeiss Distagon 21mm stands up to the 14-24 

From what I've seen from the Zeiss, it's not a very fair comparison. It's as sharp or maybe sharper than the Canon 24 f/1.4 MkII (I haven't seen many direct comparisons), which is sharp right to the corners at around f/5.6 to f/11.

[Albi86]

I just might get a 14-24mm lens for the D800 if it works out, and it is off to a good start. 
 

Do it. The Nikon 14-24mm lens will blow your socks off unless you have experienced something similar before. I went ahead and purchased it for my Nikons back before the tsunami (thankfully!), and it's a rock star. I would own it even if I didn't need the extreme wide angle capability. The only bad thing is that I am used to lenses that go to f/1.4. People brag about lenses like the 16-35mm II or the 10-22mm, and they don't even live in the same world as the Nikon 14-24mm.

I'd be interested in seeing how the famed Zeiss Distagon 21mm stands up to the 14-24 

Look also at the very cheap Samyang 14mm f/2.8
A surprise indeed

[akclimber]

I'd be interested in seeing how the famed Zeiss Distagon 21mm stands up to the 14-24 

Lloyd Chambers (www.diglloyd.com) has tested them head to head.  His site is payed subscription only but I guess I can say that generally the 14-24 compares pretty favorably with the Zeiss, especially when stopped down a bit.  I've got a D800E on order as well as a Zeiss 21/ f.2.8 on its way.  I hope to borrow a 14-24 from a friend and compare them myself.  I'll report back (but who knows when I'll get my D800e?).

Cheers!

[preppyak]

Over at Luminous Landscape, they went with the Tamron 70-300 VC and the Sigma 120-300/2.8.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800__e_initial_impressions.shtml

The Sigma I can believe...the Tamron 70-300? That I think would be a big mistake. It produced decent results on a crop camera (my 60D), but on a 36mp full-frame, I can't imagine it holding up. Especially not at the long end.

[Invertalon]

The samyang is incredible... I get blown away just how sharp text and such is at the very edge of the frame with this lens. And to think I got it for brand new at like $329.  Best value out there, IMO.  You don't need AF with this lens due to the incredible focus depth.

I highly recommend it for somebody who wants an ultra-wide for FF.

[Jettatore]

I just might get a 14-24mm lens for the D800 if it works out, and it is off to a good start. 
 

Do it. The Nikon 14-24mm lens will blow your socks off unless you have experienced something similar before. I went ahead and purchased it for my Nikons back before the tsunami (thankfully!), and it's a rock star. I would own it even if I didn't need the extreme wide angle capability. The only bad thing is that I am used to lenses that go to f/1.4. People brag about lenses like the 16-35mm II or the 10-22mm, and they don't even live in the same world as the Nikon 14-24mm.

'Helpful' to be fair about it, the Nikon 14-24 is not without it's downsides.  It's big, it's heavy, it has a protruding front element that can't be protected with a filter, and it's focal range is not nearly as useful for most styles of photo-journalism or walk around photography as a 16-35 focal range which can give you ultra wide angle, to a normal to life view depending on what end of the zoom you put it on and how close you get.  Aside from that, it's expensive, and one might well consider a 14mm prime (Canon's of which I hear is superior to the 14mm end of the 14-24 Nikon as well as the regular 14mm Nikon prime) along with a 24mm prime which would be much faster than the max aperture of the 14-24 on the 24 end.  So you get a good, but very arguably not the best, large, heavy, expensive 14mm with a high quality but slow 24mm prime built in for some extra utility/convenience.  I'd rather have the 16-35 or a 14mm Prime.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I may still go for a D800E, but I want to sell the D800 first.  I will also want a faster computer, and to do that will not be a minor upgrade, since my 64 bit i7 with SSD is pretty fast already.  I'll need everything new and upgraded to get the power to efficiently handle those huge files.  They are 100-200mb when uncompressed.
 
My 24-70G lens is sold, I found f/2.8 to be too slow for my low light usage, even f/2 and f/1.4 is marginal.