18-200 and/or Bigma on D800

Robert

Hi, I have not been on dgrin for a long time. It's not that I don't like Dgrin. It's just that there never seems enough time in the day. There's people in this world that have 48 1/2 hours in the day. They have families, run a business, jog, go to the gym, work for charity and sing in the local church choir. I'm not one of them. I seem to have only 12 hours — and I need 8 hours sleep. So as soon as I go online the day is over. Not sure if anyone understands what I'm trying to say, but here's my question, anyways:

Is there anybody out there that uses an 18-200 and/or a Bigma with a D800. I am not looking for any theoretical opinions, only for hands-on experience and facts as you know them.

If you don't want to leave any comments here on the thread, I'll be happy to hear from you in a private message. I promise I will keep any private information to myself.

Many thanks in advance.

Ferguson

When I got my D800, I had a D300 with an 18-200. I tried it, it worked fine. Better than on the D300 (the density in the DX crop is higher, and a better sensor).

But with the D800 I had bought some good glass (the 24-70/2.8) and had a 70-200, and there was no comparison. The 18-200 almost never came off the D300, it was a real workhorse, I loved the range. But if you are going to get a D800 you want all that resolution to be used, right? And the 18-200 just doesn't do it justice.

If you want something similar try the 80-400/G, it's got outstanding sharpness, and the new one solved almost all the problems form the older. It's not as wide of course as the 18 (+/- FX), but it is good long.

I have no experience with the Bigma.

Robert

Ferguson wrote: »

When I got my D800, I had a D300 with an 18-200. I tried it, it worked fine. Better than on the D300 (the density in the DX crop is higher, and a better sensor).

Thanks for your reply Ferguson, that's encouraging.

I have the D200 and have been looking at the D800 ever since it came on the market. The price has come down to an affordable level now, Nikon cashback offer included, so I am hoping to get it fairly soon. Needless to say that I will be starting to look at FX lenses once I have a FX camera, but buying one at the same time is not really an option. That's why I am trying to find out where I stand with using my two main lenses on the D800 and D200 in exchange.

My theory is that, given that the cropped image with my 18-200/50-500 lenses on the D800 is 24 MP, it is still more than twice the size than what I get with the D200. This should make a considerable difference on an A2 print.

Thanks again, and if anybody else has hands on experience with either or both of the mentioned lenses (NIKKOR 18-200mm, Sigma 50 -500mm) in use with the D800, I'm very keen to hear about it.

Ferguson

Robert wrote: »

My theory is that, given that the cropped image with my 18-200/50-500 lenses on the D800 is 24 MP, it is still more than twice the size than what I get with the D200. This should make a considerable difference on an A2 print.

No, the DX portion is 15 MP not 24, remember you're dealing with a 1.5 crop each direction (1.5 squared). Though that's still 15 vs 10, and your theory is good.

Fundamentally you will get a much better print of any size with the D800 than the D200 with the same lens. You will get improved resolution (significantly, more like going to a D300s), a LOT better high ISO performance and dynamic range. If you are pixel peeping you will see significantly more softness then you do with the D200 not because the lens is more soft, but because you are using more magnification to look (i.e. where some people say "my lens is worse on the D800" it's not -- you are looking harder). All that's going to apply with either lens.

It's a bit like, though, buying a corvette and putting a pinto engine in it. It's a lot more fun to drive even that way than the pinto was. But once you put the corvette engine in it will even be better. And unlike a car, swapping the engine later is pretty easy, if pricy.

Just expect the urge to get more glass to be strong.

Robert

Thanks for pointing that out Ferguson. Yes, I did miss the fact that it's 1.5 squared, and sure, 15 vs 10 is still an improvement. I also like the idea of less noise a lot. And it's not as if I don't already have the urge for a new lens. Just got to be patient.

zoomer

I have the 50-500 Sigma, used it a lot. Does just ok at F8 in good light with a dead solid rest..at 12mp....at 36mp would be another story I imagine.
On a D800 just don't think it would be sharp enough....on the subjects a person would normally use a 50-500, like birds and wildlife.

Robert

zoomer wrote: »

I have the 50-500 Sigma, used it a lot. Does just ok at F8 in good light with a dead solid rest..at 12mp....at 36mp would be another story I imagine.
On a D800 just don't think it would be sharp enough....on the subjects a person would normally use a 50-500, like birds and wildlife.

Hi Zoomer, as Ferguson just pointed out, using the Bigma in DX mode with the D800 would be 15MP. But I don't quite understand why the same lens should be less sharp on a FX Camera in DX mode than it is on a DX.

Robert

Ferguson wrote: »

When I got my D800, I had a D300 with an 18-200. I tried it, it worked fine.

I've just thought of something else. Have you used the 18-200 for video with the D800?

Ferguson

Robert wrote: »

I've just thought of something else. Have you used the 18-200 for video with the D800?

No, in fact I've probably recorded all of 5 minutes of video in 1.5 years.

endurodog

Not thread jacking here but responding to a post. I use the Sigma 50-500 on my D600 (FX sensor) and it is very sharp. Can't imagine the D800 being a lot different.

zoomer

Well I guess the 50-500 is very sharp according to your frame of reference and your requirements.
I used one for years to shoot birds....but it never quite got me to where I needed to be quality wise.
Compared to really good lenses it falls short of being very sharp....and there is no margin for error...perfect rest F8 and a lot of light are required to get the best out of the 50-500.
The higher the resolution...the less margin for error there will be I imagine...have not shot it with any camera with more than 12 mp.

Robert

endurodog wrote: »

Not thread jacking here but responding to a post. I use the Sigma 50-500 on my D600 (FX sensor) and it is very sharp. Can't imagine the D800 being a lot different.

Thanks endurodog, you could hardly be acused of thread jacking. It's first hand experience I've asked for, and that's what you posted.

Can you tell me a little bit more about how hard/easy it is to frame an image with a DX lense on a FX camera; and if you ever used the lens for video.

Robert

zoomer wrote: »

Well I guess the 50-500 is very sharp according to your frame of reference and your requirements.
I used one for years to shoot birds....but it never quite got me to where I needed to be quality wise.
Compared to really good lenses it falls short of being very sharp....and there is no margin for error...perfect rest F8 and a lot of light are required to get the best out of the 50-500.
The higher the resolution...the less margin for error there will be I imagine...have not shot it with any camera with more than 12 mp.

Hi Mike, I appreciate your input, but I own the 50-500 for a good few years now, and the question wasn't really how good the Bigma performs in general or how it compares to lenses that cost thousands of Dollars/Euros.
What I am really interested in is how the 50-500 performs on the D800 compared to the D200 (or on a FX camera compared to a DX camera).

I do think though that I am starting to see your point regarding the lesser margin for error the higher the resolution.