First Time FX Camera buy, Wondering Best lens to get

METALBLADE

So i am looking at upgrading from a D3300 to what i finally decided, a D750. Now all of my lens are DX so i am going to need to get a one for the FX. And with the price of them it looks like i am only going to get one for a while before getting a second one. I shoot mostly landscape and cityscape with macro occasionally. I was thinking about getting the 24-120 f4 because i hear its super sharp and has a good amount of zoom. My dream lens is the 14-24 f2.8 but the price is steep for my first fx lens and only being able to shoot such wide angles i think would be a bit of a waste because i will only be able to shoot so many subject with it, if that makes sense.

What lens would you guys suggest for a first time FX buyer that shoots mostly landscape/cityscape/macro??

ThomasHorton

Yikes that's a tough question to answer.

Do you have your heart set on a zoom or are you considering primes?

Landscape/cityscape a 35mm should work out. I got the Sigma and it is my carry around lens for my land/cityscapes. I don't have any zoom lenses so I can't opine about them.

You probably can't go wrong with a nifty fifty as a first lens either.

PB_PM

Hard to give suggestions unless you give use a rough idea of how much you want to spend. There are so many high quality lenses available today that it is honestly hard to go wrong with any of them. It's simply a matter of getting the best lenses possible that fit your budget.

METALBLADE

Yes @PB_PM i agree. i have a budge of 1300 for a new lens.

Also while im hear posting there are a lot of advantages of the FF that i like over the Crop style but just out of curiosity. Will i notice a difference in quality of detail in my pictures by switching to FF?

henrik1963

@Metalblade: Two religions - zoom and prime :-) If I was to go with the zoom folks I would go with a 24-70 2.8. But that would be more than your budget if you want a new lens. If I was going with the prime folks I would go with a Sigma 35 1.4 Art. That is within your budget.

Both lenses are big and heavy but very good.

One other way to start out would be to go with Nikons 1.8 primes - 28, 35, 50 or 85. That way you could get two lenses.

METALBLADE

@henrik1963 Thanks for the response! I plan in time of getting the 50 prime from nikon, i was stupid and got the 35 a few months ago for my DX and wish i got the 50. Im looking more into getting zoom lens that cover a good amount seeing how it will be my first FX lens for the new camera. I wish i could shell out that much now but im already a bit over budget with the 24-120. Ide love get get the "holy trinity" at some point but 1 at a time lol. I was also looking at a 24-300 nikon. What do you guys think?

henrik1963

@Metalblade: If at one point you want to buy a 24-70 2.8 as part of the holy trinity set I don't think it is a good idea to buy a 24-120 now. One way to save money is to buy the right things the first time. That way you don't have to pay twice.

I have the holy trinity set. And I am happy. But some times I want to go light. That is when I put on my Nikon AFS 50 1.8G - A very good lens for the money. Why not start with that. Then save up some $$ to get what you really want.

KnockKnock

That DX 35mm might be usable in 1.2 mode on the D750. I might otherwise be tempted to recommend the new 20mm f/1.8 a 50mm f/1.8 and some Kenko tubes. Under budget!

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@METALBLADE - I'm waiting for my D750 today, too. ;-)

I got the Tamron 24-70mm with their vibration control. It's a bit less expensive than Nikon's, and it might not be as sharp, but then neither am I.

You likely can parse what you need from what you like from your pictures you like taking. Just look at your pictures in your albums you like and note what focal length they are in DX and bump that to FX by the crop to full frame.

I tend to disagree, slightly, that prime lenses are inherently sharper than zooms. The degree of sharpness may be so slight in most cases as to argue angels dancing on needles. The wideness of aperture is another thing. How much that plays into one's shooting and output is hard to assess. Portrait photographers like to isolate using narrow DOF, and shallow apertures allow that nicely. Landscape and scenic shooters want crisp sharpness throughout the photo and often stop down (there was a movement called Group 64 from f64). So what's important to you becomes key to answering what you need to do.

Bokeh is another thing and is highly subjective.

Good luck to you (and me) on the purchase and my best,

Mike

donaldejose

You will have to decide between sharpness and versatility. Nikon's 28-300 surely will be versatile, except in low light, but won't be as sharp as the 85mm f1.8, for example. However, the sharpness of the 28-300 will be perfectly adequate on a computer monitor or printed less than poster size as long as you use good technique.

I suggest you read all the reviews so you know the basic trade offs of the lenses you are considering and then analyze which focal length you use most now with your DX lenses (remember to convert between DX and FX). Finally, consider the truth about how you are going to view your results: on a computer, printed 8x10, or printed poster size. I suggest that unless you are printing poster size you should elevate versatility over sharpness because you won't see the added sharpness you are paying for when viewing an image at less than about poster size but you will immediately see the difference between 28mm and 300mm even when viewing the photo on a cell phone. Most of us here love to chase the maximum sharpness when viewed at 100%. However, that is not really how anyone views photos normally. Just shoot at f8 if you want to get more sharpness out of a lens like the 28-300. Remember until you can add a real macro lens you can always "macro by cropping" since your 24mp file will allow for a lot of cropping.

Elvishefer

I plan in time of getting the 50 prime from nikon, i was stupid and got the 35 a few months ago for my DX and wish i got the 50.

35mm on DX is about the same FOV as 50mm on FX. Try before you buy, imHo.

METALBLADE

@MikeGunter Congrats on the new purchase i cant wait to join you, this camera looks amazing i cannot wait!

Thank you all for your feedback. It seems as though primes could be overall the sharpest lens which is something i will look to in the future. At the moment i would like to have the versatility of a zoom. I went back to my old albums and see i shot between 10-50mm DX the most which should equare to 15- 75Fx size. Now my holy grail is the 14-24mm however i dont think it would give me as much versatility as the 24-120 that will be coming on the camera as part of a kit in the coming weeks. I guess from the reviews ive read the 24-120 seems sharper then the 28-300. I vary rarely ever go over 55mm dx anyways.

I mean is the 24-70 that much sharper or better then the 24-120? I know its quicker but is it that much better to be worth the price?

donaldejose

If you are shooting mostly at 15 to 75mm FX size why not consider a D750 body plus a refurbished 24-85 zoom? The 24-85 I have is plenty sharp when shot at f8. A D750 plus 34-120 kit is $3,600. A D750 body is $2,300 and a 24-85 refurbished is now on sale for just $290. (http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?category=4294963370+4294950388+3695&term=Nikon-24--85) Refurbished lenses are just as good as new ones. With this combination you have spent $2,600 total and have saved $1,000 which you can use for a wide angle lens or zoom. Consider the Nikon 16-35 f4 zoom for $1,300. Yes, you have now spent $300 more than if you just purchased the D750 kit with the 24-120 lens but you also now have a range from 16mm to 85mm which better covers what you have mostly been shooting at. The point is that since that 24-85 is now on sale for only $300 perhaps it would be good to take advantage of it and purchase the D750 body with two or three lenses at this time. After you buy the D750 body with the 24-85 for $300 you have about $1.000 left to spend and instead of the 16-35 f4 zoom you could get the new 20mm f1.8 for $800 and a 50mm f1.8 for about $220 along with the 24-85. Then you would have three lenses covering wide angle, low light, and zoom range instead of one zoom which doesn't go as low as you usually shoot and goes higher than you usually shoot. Just some options to consider.

Killerbob

The Nikon 24-70mm is IMHO the most versatile, high quality lens Nikon has on offer today. I know it a big chunk of cash to shell out, but like Henrik says, it only get's more expensive if you make purchasing mistakes... Look around for it used if need be. I know the 24-120mm and the 28-300 are good options, but they have nothing on the 24-70mm. It is my walking around lens. It is the one on my camera most of the time.

If i was to mention a second choice, it would be between the Nikon 14-24mm, or the Sigma 50mm ART, but they are more specialised lenses. I know the 50mm is a "standard", but the ART is unique in that it is f/1.4 and it has marvelous bokeh - and you pay for that... Do not bother with Nikon's 50mm options, IMHO they are both inferior to the older Sigma 50mm F/1.4 EX DG HSM.

Remember one thing; you buy such a good camera as the D750, and the math on that inital purchase should be 1/3 for the camera, 1/3 for the lenses, and 1/3 on equipment...

If you have to ask about the gas milage on an Aston Martin, you can't afford one:)

METALBLADE

@killerbob you say that the 24-120 is a good option but it has nothing on the 24-70. Why is the 274-70 so much better other then the lower f stop? Can you actually notice the difference in quality of the image?

@donaldejose you bring up an interesting post with the 24-85 that is extremely cheap for an fx lens, one of the cheapest ive seen that isnt prime and yes i know its refurbished but it still cheap and that honestly kind of makes me nervous for some reason. I havent had anyone say anything about that lens till you brought it up. Im just worried because i am looking for the best sharpest lens for the buck especially for my first FX camera. Ide hate to get a soso lens and then think to myself this is just eh maybe i shouldnt have upgraded to the FX format. However reviews are quite good on it. Maybe its worth looking at since it seems very comparable when it comes to angle of view with my current kit lens i use a lot.

Symphotic

I'd go with a Sigma 35 1.4 for my first FX lens. It's perfect for city and landscape. It focuses quite closely, so although it isn't a macro, you can get right in on flowers and the like. None of the zooms, including the 24-70, give as good results up close.
I don't think there are too many better lenses out there now: you won't be disappointed.

Killerbob

I can't speak for the technicalities, but i have owned the 24-120mm, and got rid of it. The 24-70mm is not only faster, it is simply better as well. It is very subjective, but I find it sharper, less distorted, and more even across the image. Take a look at the comparisons you can make at www.dxomark.com, and you'll see what I mean...

Photobug

@METALBLADE - great question for a new D750 buyer.

There are lots of great replies to your questions above and here are my suggestions.
Short term:
1. Buy one of these packages:
D750 + Nikon 24-120mm kit or
D750 body & Nikon 24-70 F2.8
Comments:
a. There is a reason that the 24-70 F2.8 is a member of the Nikon Trinity. Do your research before buying the lens.
b. The 24-120 is a good lens and there are many who swear by this good lens. There are people who bought the Tamron 24-70 because it's less expensive and has VR and later buy the Nikon 24-70. As several said above buy the 24-70 now...it's actually cheaper than buying something else first and then buying the excellent 24-70. Unless you really like the longer reach of the 24-120...then go for it.
c. Last spring I spent 30+ minutes using the 24-120 and the 24-70 and then research on the DxO values and buyers feedback. I also factored in ergonomics and the 24-70mm was the better lens for ME. I wrote a long post on this evaluation in one of the forums, you can find it buy running a search. I did all this research because I knew I was adding an FX body in 2015.

2. For family photography & street photography I would buy a 50mm prime next. It's a great carry around lens. Do your research and let your wallet determine when to buy. Suggest the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 G AF lens, about $425. If you want to spend less, then 50mm f/1.8. If you want to spend more then look at the Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART lens.

Long Term - Lenses:
1. Save money for the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8. Again, there is a reason why it's part of the Nikon Trilogy. Read the reviews.
2. Later add the Tele extender 1.4X or 1.7X to extend the reach of that 70-200.
3. 35mm prime. Look at the Sigma F1.4 ART lens.
4. Wide angle zoom:
Look at the 14-24 F2.8 and the Nikon 16-35mm f4.
Comment: If you are a creative guy and love wide-wide angle pictures, get the holy trilogy 14-24. If your budget is tight and you only like moderate wide angle pictures and don't need the extremes, then buy the 16-35mm.

Finally, don't forget the following:
1. Buy a sling strap and do not use the Nikon D750 strap. You don't want to advertise what your carrying. I would look at the Black Rapid Curve strap or Black Rapid Sports strap. And you must the BR Stealth adapter, much quieter than the standard equipment attachment to the body. An alternative is to compare the BR straps to the Boss Straps which connects to one of the normal camera strap connection points. Cost less than $75
2. Go buy the RRS (Really Right Stuff) "L" bracket to use on your tripod. They are now taking preorders and I believe the price is $150.
3. Allocate $75-100 for a Hoya, B+M filter for every lens you buy.
4. As part of your budget for the 70-200mm F2.8 lens, allocate money for the RRS replacement foot and replace the Nikon foot. It lowers the center of gravity of the lens on your tripod and is far superior to the Nikon foot. Cost $100. See the LCF-10 here http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/s.nl/it.A/id.3220/.f You will not need a plate for your tripod if you buy the LCF-10. If you don't get the LCF-10 then budget $55~65 for the plate that attached to the Nikon foot.
5. Learn more about RRS by joining us in the Nikon RRS Forum
6. Backpack and/or roll along camera bag. Checkout LowePro and ThinkTank bags.
7. Even though I have a backpack and a ThinkTank International bag, I still have LowePro lens cases for when I don't want to carry that backpack on trails or at a zoo. Lens cases run from $25 to $55 each.

You have done a nice job providing the type of photos you shoot so that helps us with recommendations. If you don't have a quality rugged tripod and a good ball head, then put it in your long term plan and allocate $1,000~$1250. Just remember, when you buy a great tripod it last for 20+ years. Don't do like my friend did, he is on his 3rd tripod in 5 years and he still has a medium weight tripod.

We have given you lots of information and I have laid out a long term plan. Getting it down on paper and as time goes on you make changes to the document while you continue to stash money in your "slush fund" to use for NAS. Assume you know what NAS is?? Do your research and make "smart decisions".

METALBLADE

@Photobug

Thank you so much for the full run down you provided great information that i will remember from here on out. I understand the trinity and plan on working my way towards it in the future with the 14-24 wide angle as being my frist in that set. However at the moment i was looking for an overall lens. Now another member turned me onto the 24-80 and after doing some research it seems to be just as good as the 24-120 if not a bit sharper. Now i was looking at getting it refurbished for 300. I dont seem to be able to pull the trigger on spending the extra 700 to get a bit more reach. Ive been doing the math and angles and i think 80 is as high as i really shoot on a regular basis and another 700 for a it more reach i dont think is something im super interested in unless there is a visible difference in sharpness or clarity between the 2. Have you tried out the 24-80 at all, or anyone tried it. If given the choice between the 2 is there one directly better then the other?

FlowtographyBerlin

@METALBLADE: When I got my first FF, I had the same concern as you. One last suggestion:

The first thing that came to my mind was "no-brainer: the 24-70" before I read the thing about the budget. The 24-70 is most likely exactly the lens you want and you will use all the time. Since you're planning to get it in the long run anyway, I wouldn't waste any, really any money on something that you will end up replacing later. Get something that's still of use when you get more lenses.

That would be the 50/1.8g or 1.4g (make sure your copy isn't flawed, though). That's what I started out with as well (on Canon, back then), I used it for everything for quite a long time. The 1.8 G is very sharp, and although the bokeh is certainly not one of its strengths, you won't notice in most situations, quite the contrary, it will be beautiful. It's cheap, too, so you don't waste too much money from your future lens budget. And you will still be able to use it when you get a 24-70.

One last plus about a universal prime like that is that you will really start learning photography all again. Yes, it's a reduction, or a limitation. But one that you can really enjoy, because you're forced to use what you have, and that teaches you a lot, it's the best lesson you can get. And while this happens, you're also travelling extremely light. It's just great.

Just a thought.

calengor

Opinions on getting the D750 plus a sigma 24-105 f/4?

METALBLADE

@FlowtographyBerlin Thank you so much for the feedback! From what i hear the 24-70 is the bees knees and a must have. I was looking at refurbished and they arent that bad in price at around 1500. That is a bit higher then i am looking to spend at the moment but can see myself doing it sooner then later. My concern is that 70mm wont give me enough reach, where as the 24-80 is more similar to where im at now with my kit lens. I do plan on getting the 50 sooner then later as well .

Where i am at right now is i just purchased the lot, the D750 and a lens. At the moment i went with the 24-80 for 300 on a refurbished. With that it give me time with the camera as i decide as to which direction i want to go next with lens selection. I heard very good things about the 24-80 on forums and reviews so i am willing to give it a shot for 300 and then go from there. i am going on vaca to mass in a week or 2 and i think this would be an overall good kit lens to have with me. I know 300 is stupid cheap for an fx lens which has me a bit worried but ive heard good things so far so i figure why not give it a try?? From there im thinking my next will be the 14-24 and then finally the 24-70.

I do hope though that i can see a quality difference in my pictures with this 24-80 lens when to it. I would have been a bit upset to have just switched from DX to FX and have no more detail or quality different then what i started with ya know??

Golf007sd

@METALBLADE: As many of our active members know, the 24-70 2.8 is my favorite lens. It is built like a tank, has great optics, and offers the end user great amount of flexibility for all types of photograph. But it is not a macro lens. If you want macro, you really should consider getting a lens that has been designed for macro photography.

One thing I would also like you to keep in mind when you are considering a pro-level lens: filters. The 77mm filter is by far the most desired by me. In fact, the 24-70 used it, as well as, the Sigma Art 50 1.4.

With the above in mind, my first recommendation to you would be the Nikon 24-70 2.8, followed by the Sigma Art 50 1.4.

Happy shopping.

Photobug

@Photobug

Thank you so much for the full run down you provided great information that i will remember from here on out. I understand the trinity and plan on working my way towards it in the future with the 14-24 wide angle as being my frist in that set. However at the moment i was looking for an overall lens. Now another member turned me onto the 24-80 and after doing some research it seems to be just as good as the 24-120 if not a bit sharper. Now i was looking at getting it refurbished for 300. I dont seem to be able to pull the trigger on spending the extra 700 to get a bit more reach. Ive been doing the math and angles and i think 80 is as high as i really shoot on a regular basis and another 700 for a it more reach i dont think is something im super interested in unless there is a visible difference in sharpness or clarity between the 2. Have you tried out the 24-80 at all, or anyone tried it. If given the choice between the 2 is there one directly better then the other?

No I have not used the 24-80 and yes there are others here that own that lens.
Your welcome for the suggestions. You really need to get a plan down on paper for the long term acquisition of lens and accessories.

Bokeh_Hunter

Option 1 - 24-120 f4 vr - great lens, I use this professionally daily. It is a great lens and the VR is fantastic to have.

Option 2 - 28-300vr - All in one - if you were only going to have one lens, this is it. Covers everything. Last vacation, I really wished I had this, but it would have been the only time where I would want to limit myself to only one lens. It is big-er though and depending on how comfortable you are being "the guy with a camera" this pushes some away from wanting to take the camera with them.

Option 3 - Get the kit 24-80vr, a 70-300vr, and a 50mm 1.8. That covers everything in a zoom range, low light, and gives you the most options for about the same price. It also gives you a smaller "normal zoom" and a very small 50 that is much easier to carry. If you want long tele - the 70-300vr is fantastic for that. They are no less sharp than the 28-300vr (the 50 & 70-300vr are a bit sharper to my eye) and each just slightly less sharp than the 24-120vr f4.

Macros - If you like macro work, get a dedicated macro - it makes a world of difference. In the 60mm range, I would look at the 60 AFD (as used they are going for around $200) and is tack sharp. It is ridiculous how cheap they are going for on ebay. The tamron 60 f2 is nice as well. Actually any macro from any company are good. All of them are tack sharp and that includes any at the 90-105mm range. That is the one thing everyone does a great job at is making macros.

Forget all the marketing and supposed "sharper than this or that" or "not sharp" BS. That stuff is for those who make a living at this or advanced amateurs who have the money to spend. Go with what you are comfortable taking everywhere and what is in your budget. You are making a big jump to a physically much larger system and the cost for everything is much higher - it makes no sense to get something that you leave at home because "it is big" or because of something else that makes you feel uneasy walking around with it. If you are afraid of having buyer's remorse - don't be afraid of it, that is just something that comes with being a photographer and you just have to learn to live with it or win the lottery to be able to buy every lens.

Just my two cents.

donaldejose

Lots of good advice here and lots of good lenses identified. The advice sort of falls into two categories.

1. Those who recommend spending more than your budget to purchase one of the absolute best pro zoom lenses (such as the $2,000 f2.8 24-70) which will be heavy and give you very good image quality at f2.8. Ask yourself honestly, do you really shoot at f2.8 that frequently? Most of us don't. Most photos are taken around f5.6 to f11 where even the cheap zooms will be practically indistinguishable from the big heavy and expensive pro zooms. Because ISOs are becoming almost indistinguishable up to 1,600 now, especially on the D750, one can easily raise the ISO one stop instead of opening up to f2.8 from f4 in most cases. See http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d750.htm#highisos Low light interior shots can be handled very inexpensively by the 50mm f1.8 unless you are shooting interiors of full rooms and need a low light wide angle. Remember, rooms and furniture don't move and you can also shoot at a slow shutter speed. If you really do need a wide angle f2.8 lens, the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 PRO FX lens for less than $1,000 is a good lens. Research it. The increased high quality at high ISO in the newest bodies is reducing the need for shooting at f2.8.

2. Those who are recommending practical and inexpensive options well within your budget. These are more the "common sense" people instead of the "money be damned absolute best lens" people. I tend to fall into this camp. The 60mm AFD macro is a great lens at a great used price. A bit short if you are shooting insects which tend to fly away if you get too close but fine for flowers or other still objects. Most people recommend a 105mm for macro but remember when you put the 60mm on your D3300 it will become 90mm.

Good luck to you. It seems to me you have now received enough varied advice from people here and I won't be commenting on this topic anymore.