Older Lenses on D800

They should all work fine. The only problem, as people are pointing out on other threads, is that the resolution of the D800 is so high that it may well show up weaknesses in your old lenses that you never noticed before!

it depends on whom you believe. some folks say that the D7000 out-resolves some lenses, while others, like bjorn rorslett, reported that many older lenses perform very respectably on the D3x. remember, the pixel density of the D800 is really lower than that of the D7000, so while it may sound like a staggering number of pixels, relatively speaking the demands won't be as high as they intuitively seem. i for one am looking forward to finding out. i'm sure there will be some that won't cut it -- at least not at full rez -- but many, i expect, will be just fine. and remember, the D800 allows for 4 different image sizes, including 5:4, 1.2 "crop" as well as DX.

the pixel density of the D800 is really lower than that of the D7000

Just barely. The D800 in the DX crop mode yields a 15MP image, just shy of 16MP from the D7000. However, the catch is that the D800's FX sensor covers more than twice the area than DX. Therefore, you are using a lot more areas from the edge of the lens' image circle where quality tends to be poorer.

For example, my 24mm/f2.8 AF-D is rather poor on the D3X; even the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S is not that great in the corners. The D800 will simply make them look worse if you are looking for corner-to-corner sharpness from landscape images.

That was my other question.  36MP for me as a wedding photographer is to much.  Will there be a option for different megapixel sizes?  12-16 is perfect for me.  Also I was thinking the D700 is more of a wedding camera where as the 800 is more of a commercial camera. Thoughts?

some folks say that the D7000 out-resolves some lenses, while others, like bjorn rorslett, reported that many older lenses perform very respectably on the D3x.

I am finding few, if any lenses that I have used on the D7000 to be "outresolved". The only one that I can say for sure is a 70-300 VR. 35mm f1.8 DX, 50mm f1.8D, Voigtlander 20mm 3.5, Nikkor 55mm Micro (Pre-AI), and Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS all resolve just fine and stand up great at 12x18 prints.

That said, Shun's points about the area is probably a bigger concern. And unless you are going to utilize pixel exact information at 36MP, it shouldn't be too big of a concern.

It's just not a big deal, I find the 17-35 to be pretty excellent between 20-35 on FX, 17 in a pinch. That is really my only lens out of over a dozen that I feel falls a tad short on full frame and only really at 17-20.
I bet most of Nikon's good glass will be great on the D800....

I think the lens tests on a Nikon D3X on photozone show that there aren't many lenses that "outresolve" the sensor - but simply show their weaknesses more pronounced. And as Shun mentioned, those weaknesses are mostly in the corners. What I have trouble understanding is that a AF-Nikkor 20/2.8 does relatively poorly on a D200 (with soft corners) but then performs quite well on a D3X. By contrast, the AF-Nikkor 24/2.8 does fairly well on a D200 but then shows corner softness on the D3X - something I would expect.

There is a lot more to a lens than just sharpness/resolution. There is also contrast, color saturation, resistance to veiling flare, resistance to CA, distortion, not to mention the huge improvements in usuabilty such as VR, AFS. I personally am staying away from any lens made from before ~2002 if possible. The newer digital coatings, newer CAD design, and so on do help performance. I put high performance lenses on high performance cameras. Why would I do anything else? Why buy an expensive full frame camera and then put on older lenses that aren't sharp across the frame?

Kent in SD

I, too, am a little nervous about my (recently-acquired) 80-200 AF-D. Still, fingers crossed at f/8. As for why you'd buy inferior/old lenses, the sample images make the 24-70 look a bit iffy in some places even at f/8. Shun has reported that the D7000 requires the (generally epic) 500 f/4 to be stopped down for sharpness.

Sharpness isn't everything in a lens, or in an image. I do sometimes run out of pixels with my D700, and it'll be nice to have the ability to get past that problem, but the more resolution you want the harder it is to get. Hence the need to stop down and tilt 5x4 cameras, shim medium format backs, etc. If sharpness was all that mattered, my 50mm f/1.8 AF-D would never get used wide open and people wouldn't like the 135 f/2 DC.

I'll also be interested in how my cheap 28-200 holds up. It's pretty respectable at f/8 on my D700...