First Time FX Camera buy, Wondering Best lens to get

ThomasHorton

ALL THE LENSES!

Written like a true photographer!!! :-bd

Vipmediastar_JZ

@donalddejose good point but I think the value in what most people are saying is saving up and buy once. Unless you buy and return within the return period then you can try several lens just pay the shipping or restock fee if they have one. I haven't been burned by the returned period or even charged a restock fee.

I started out with DX and sold almost everything to buy a FX camera and lens to go with it. It took me months to decide on which lens to get and my top two indecision were 14-24/16-35 or 24-70. I went with the 24-70 when it was on sale. I now use the 14-24 mostly for my work but take out the 24-70 for events. The 24-70 doesn't fail.

We had a nice debate of which nifty fifty to get a while ago.

I suggest to start out with a 50mm and save up for another lens otherwise the 24-70 is great in coverage and good first buy. Keep an eye out for the nikon rebates.

For macro I have a manual focus 55 2.8 AIS lensthat I use with the Nikon DF but I will be considering a longer one like the 105vr or like @donaldejose maybe a 60mm or third party macro might do the job well. I have to do research on this one soon.

METALBLADE

Thank you all again for the feedback that keeps on coming in! Ive been doing a lot of research on the subject since i started it and you all have great responses and some have actually swayed me into a different lens than i may have thought. One of which was going from a 24-120 and instead buying the 24-85 which i hear and have read to be just as good but just not as long focal wise but for 300 refurbished im fine with it. With that i have saved over 1000 so far so i decided to get the 50 prime 1.8 for it as well. The next step will be the wide angle which from what ive heard is a you must get the 14-24 because it is the best. I want the best equipment i can buy dont get me wrong but after reading and researching the 16-35 i think that may be next. I can add a filter which is key because right now i use my ND filter a lot with my wide angle currently. Also the set up i have now 10-20 sigma to a 18-55 kit lens, i sometimes feel like i switch back and forth a lot wanting more from one and less from another. So in concept the 16-35 would actually seem like a lens that wouldn't really leave my camera for a majority of my landscape shots, which i do mostly. After reviewing it on dxo and review after review it seems as though yes the 14-24 might be slightly sharper but for what ide use it for the 16-35 might be the better bet and for nearly 600 less.

I think only time will tell but i think i have a good starting set at the moment for what ide use it for. I thank you all for your responses, this is truly a great forum community! I am sure i will have more questions in time when it actually comes time to buy my next one but for now this has been great!

heartyfisher

So much great advice ! I would like to add my voice behind a couple of points.

1) refine your info on the range of focal lengths you shoot at. You said you use 10-50 the most. See if you can narrow down the percentages at certain focal lengths. I did this some time ago and I found that 70% of my shots are at about 170mm. (which is totally different from you !! )

2) Get the best lens for you. if its the 24-70 so be it. get a second hand one to get it within your budget. However, I still dont think that the 24-70 is THE lense for you not untill you provide more details .. see (1)

3) F4 is not that bad compared to F2.8 especially for land scape which is what you like. I got my 70-200 F4 and I am just over the moon !! it covers almost everything I want to take and does it in style! the only issue i have is I take 20% of my shots at 28mm so I am missing out on that! ( I dont really have a good solution at the moment. I am making do with my 12-24DX at 18-24mm to cover that wide angle functionality for now, but I may get the 24-70 VC tamron)

4) Nothing wrong with using your DX lenses until you decide on your Main FX lense to purchase. The FX sensor on my D610 is darn awesome even in DX mode and the D750 is even better! It has 1.2 crop mode which will allow you to use more of your DX lens focal length zoom range.

Congrats on your D750!
Oh yes .. lense suggestions.. .. at least until you provide more details.
1) 28mm F1.8,
2) 24-105 F4 Sigma
3) 16-35 F4 VR

METALBLADE

@heartyfisher

Thank you so much for the feedback! I like how your number 3 lens was the 16-35 not many people would say that. I dont think that the 24-70 lens would be for me as much as the 24-85 due to focal length but at the same time i need to look more into it and see how many times i really do go over 70mm in Fx size.

While your talking about using the dx lens on fx camera i have a question. I understand that you can do it and it doesnt use the whole sensor which results in less mp correct? So if i used a DX lens on my FX camera it comes out to like 10 or so from what i believe ive read. Is that correct? If so i might consider maybe keeping the DX camera with me for times that i dont have the focal length desired since my D3300 is a 24MP camera.

KnockKnock

I think the D3300 is an excellent partner for an FX camera. If you ask the FX camera to do a DX crop, then yes, you get a 10MP image. However some lenses, like the 35mm f/1.8 DX are almost able to cover the entire FX frame. Hence my thought that the 1.2 crop mode would be useful with this lens. Equivalent 42mm lens, 17MP image. Tiny street shooter!

Parke1953

@METALBLADE Sometimes I use a AF-S 10-24 on my FF so, from just under 15mm to 24 mm I fill the frame. I turn off DX mode so it does not automatically go to DX when I use it. There are a few more that you can do this with. I think 18-200 is another. not sure about the rest. You can use your DX lenses a few different ways.

WestEndBoy

My two cents, and it will be different from everybody else's. Lot's of good advice above though.

The vast majority of people buy a camera and then decide what lens they can afford. In my opinion, that is a huge mistake because it is the lens that determines image quality, not the camera (unless you have the sharpest most expensive prime lenses). By the time you can afford the holy trinity your camera will be outdated and available used for $1,000. Then you will still not be able to afford the holy trinity because you will want a new camera.

Figure out what lens you want and will continue to use for years to come. Likely the only zoom that will fall into that category is one of the holy trinities and you can't even afford one of those.

If I was in your shoes and set on the D750, then I would buy the new 20mm and either the 50mm 1.4G or 1.8G (either will be as sharp as the 24-70 2.8, 3 or 4 times faster, and less than a third of the price. You then have a pretty sharp 20mm and 50mm that will be good for all but the widest landscapes (my 20mm is more than wide enough for landscapes - the 28mm is the most usable - and my 50 mm lenses are used more for landscapes than my 20mm) and good for portraits in a pinch. The rest of the zooming can be done with your feet which costs you nothing and will improve your composition ability.

And if you can't afford the D750 after the above, then buy a D610. Then whatever FX camera you get, commit yourself to keeping it until you have filled out your lens collection. There is no reason that you can't get 6 to 8 years out of an FX camera. Most of the improvements in image quality that will be achieved have been achieved.

I started out thinking I was going to buy a D4 and the holy trinity. Knowing what I know today, that would have been a costly mistake.

My opinion. Lots on this forum will disagree.

Ironheart

Just for fun, I will take Jeff's advice and prescribe a completely different direction. You would get more image quality if you put a 17-55 or one of Nikon's primes (even the 35mm 1.8 DX) on the D3300 you already have. If you are going to step up to the D750 and throw a $300 lens on it, you're no better off than your kit lens on your D3300 (well, I exaggerate a bit...). There is a reason the "kit" lens for the d750 is $1300.

Take your dough and sink it into lenses. The D400 will be here soon anyway ;-)

WestEndBoy

Ironheart's advice is something worth thinking about as well, in my view.

Beware that most of us are infected with NAS. NAS is a highly contagious and costly disease.

Photobug

Ironheart's advice is something worth thinking about as well, in my view.

Beware that most of us are infected with NAS. NAS is a highly contagious and costly disease.

Amen about NAS. I have a terrible case of it right now due to the D750. It fits my needs exactly.

I also agree about Ironheart's comment about putting a cheap ...inexpensive lens on a D750. It would not be long and I believe he will be disappointed with IQ. The 17-55 F2.8 is an excellent idea for the D3300 until he can grow his $$$$$ to buy the 24-140 lens. But then again I am prejudiced about the 17-55 f2.8 lens, see list of lens below.

METALBLADE

This has been some interesting feed back! There are a lot of good things on the D3300 but i feel as though there are things that i am missing which is why i decided to upgrade. instead of getting another DX i am going FX because i am planning on that direction as is. I understand what you guys are saying buy better lens then get the camera but some of my problems i have are with the camera itself. Money is important to a certain extent. Yes i decided on a 300$ refurbished lens for now to get kick started with it, which was once a kit lens on other FX models. I was originally looking at getting the 24-120 that will be coming with the d750 however after reading many reviews between the 2 i heard that when it comes to image quality there isnt a big difference if any between the 2 which is why i went this route. I also ordered the 50mm 1.8 prime as well which has been highly suggested on here.

Now i understand the concept of the holy trinity and maybe that will fit into what i want to do or maybe it wont. I have heard a lot of people who have them and barley use them because they are to heavy or dont have the focal length needed or they find other lens to have almost equal IQ. I mean yes the 24-70 would be a great lens, but i can see myself switching it for a higher range at times because i do shoot up to 55mm dx at times so it would be just outside what i would use. I have also been considering the 14-24 a lot since its the best of the best however there are things about it that after researching i dont know i like about it and might opt for the 16-35.

For now i got the 24-85 to get me started as i think more about what glass would be best for the best quality going further. I will also really be able to test it out with the 50mm prime in the meanwhile.

Photobug

Okay it looks like you have ordered your D750 & lens. Just remember that when you are ready to unload the 24-85 lens, you should be able to sell it on eBay for almost what you paid for it. That should help with recovering the $$$ spent.

Don't forget when you are ready to replace the 24-85 lens, you can buy a refurbished 24-70 or 24-140 at a nice savings from buying a new lens and you get a nice warranty.

Let us know when you get your gear and be sure to post pictures on PAD.

heartyfisher

Re DX lenses on FX.. there is a whole tread on that on this forum. But basically most DX lenses will cover a bit larger than the DX image circle. You can take advantage of that. with the FX sensor. In DX mode you get about 10.5 MP with Great DR and high ISO. That's an Awesome "DX camera".. and 10Mp is more than enough for most things ! I regularly use my DX 12-24 F4 at around 18-24mm which covers FX. I am envious of the 1.2 crop mode which should add more range and usability to my 12-24 on the FX camera.

I have looked at the 24-85 VR kit lense and its weakness is its not very sharp at the edges which for me was not too bad but for you being a landscape photographer may well be annoying. ..

re FX lenses .. remember that there are a whole bunch of AIS manual focus lenses and older AFD lenses out there with very good prices and IQ. I still use my 50 1.4 AIS and 35-70 F2.8 AFD which together cost me less than $250/ (yes I was lucky but there are some nice bargains around if you look! lol the filters almost cost as much as the lenses !! ) eg for your needs consider the 28mm AIS F2.8.

re Keeping a DX FX 2 camera kit is fun. You basically almost double your lense functionality! (I do that with my D610 + D7000) eg my 35-70 is a nice "normal" zoom on my FX camera. however on the DX it becomes a very nice portrait zoom ! Most lenses change in functionality when used on FX and DX ! its awesome !(I have a CX camera as well !! :-) )

WestEndBoy

re FX lenses .. remember that there are a whole bunch of AIS manual focus lenses and older AFD lenses out there with very good prices and IQ. I still use my 50 1.4 AIS and 35-70 F2.8 AFD which together cost me less than $250/ (yes I was lucky but there are some nice bargains around if you look! lol the filters almost cost as much as the lenses !! ) eg for your needs consider the 28mm AIS F2.8.

That is a good point that I should have brought up Heartyfisher. The three manual focus lenses in my signature are basically my landscape set and range in price from $500 to $700 at B&H. The auto-focus versions are even cheaper (they are the plastic, not metal construction but have identical optics). They are not as good as the latest lenses wide open, but for landscapes that does not matter as I am shooting them from f/5.6 to f/11.0 where they are very competitive with today's offerings. In fact, the most useful of the three for landscapes is the 28mm and that lens is ultra-sharp from f/5.6 to f/8.0 where diffraction is already making the centre less sharp (yes, it is that good). The 24mm 2.8 Ais is also very good but it was too close to 20mm. I would try to avoid getting the 35mm as it is not that good. However, the Voightlander 40mm is very worthy of consideration.

Bokeh_Hunter

Now i understand the concept of the holy trinity and maybe that will fit into what i want to do or maybe it wont. I have heard a lot of people who have them and barley use them because they are to heavy or dont have the focal length needed or they find other lens to have almost equal IQ

You should be aware of one thing on this site - few care about your budget and suggest the highest priced stuff, and most suggest gear they can't afford or choose not to either. And everyone pixel peeps way too much. But all mean well and have good intentions. That is the territory NR.

I have owned so many lenses and used so many more it gets hard to keep track of. I have been lucky to have that opportunity. In that whole time I have only had a handful of times where a lens just didn't perform well enough for 99% of end uses. Now I have had camera bodies fall short many times. The difference between the D33oo will be night and day. That is a true consumer camera and you are moving into an advanced amerature body. The body will not hold you back any more.

On the lens realm, most all of us all started like you have and just moved up to better quality of glass over the years. We all have learned that Glass is the better investment over the long term, but most have forgot the good reasons why they didn't at the beginning. It is best to figure out what you like to shoot before picking where to spend your money.

On the super wide angle, you may want to check out the Tokina 16-28. It is 99% of the Nikkor 14-24 and is only $600 refurb or $750 new. That is what I use professionally just because there isn't that much difference. There is a thread on the 14-24 on here where we go through all of the options.

henrik1963

@Metalblade: Only you can decide if you want zooms or primes. You will have to find out what you like the best.

One reason the holy trinity is a good way to start? It is the cheapest way to cover 14-200 and get good image quality.

You can get better image quality with primes. But if you want to cover 14-200 with primes and get better image quality than the holy trinity you will have to spend more.

My strategy has been to start out with the holy trinity - 2 out of 3 i got used at a good price. I am now adding primes where it makes the most sense for me and the way I shoot.

$300 is not bad for a kit zoom. Use it to find out if a zoom is really what you want. Use the 50mm to try to compensate for the lack of zoom. If you put your mind to it you will find that a lot of things can be done with Nikons cheapest lens - 50 1.8.

WestEndBoy

If you're going to spend a bunch of money on an expensive full-frame camera, you might as well have good lenses, else you're better off with your old camera and buying the better lenses instead. The difference you'll see in your photography will be greater.

I have often wondered what it is that causes so many to fall into this trap. Perhaps it is because a camera is a much simpler instrument to understand than a lens. Sounds strange, but I think it is true. Sure the camera has a lot more buttons and menus, but people can boil down the performance to a few simple statistics. Not so with a lens.

gnoshme

Don't rule out older lenses. The early era AF lenses were still made in Japan and many are great optically. The 50mm f1.8 (D or non D) from the 90s is one of favorite lenses of all time and it's cheap and I see no reason to spend more on a prime lens.

Personally while I think VR is a great innovation if you are budget conscious then it's an expensive luxury and you can have a whole range of good older non VR lenses for the same price as one new VR zoom.. and if you really want to spend the money on VR then it's of most use at the tele end of the spectrum.. should really be VT (virtual tripod)!

When buying old lens (and I buy and sell them every day) there are definitely pitfalls and say 1 in 3 I buy from Joe Public that is labelled "works great!" has an issue of either:

- doesn't focus to infinity (my least favorite)
- oil on the aperture (doesn't shut down fast enough so overexposes on higher apertures)
- physical issues with the zoom or focus

If you buy on eBay don't buy "seems to work great" from some random person, buy from a camera related seller and buy where there is a return policy. In terms of what to choose, http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm is a great resource.

K

WestEndBoy

I have often wondered what it is that causes so many to fall into this trap. Perhaps it is because a camera is a much simpler instrument to understand than a lens. Sounds strange, but I think it is true. Sure the camera has a lot more buttons and menus, but people can boil down the performance to a few simple statistics. Not so with a lens.

People are conditioned to think "newest/best tech possible!" You'd take better pictures with a D3300 and a Sigma 35/1.4 Art than you would a D810 and a Nikon 50mm/1.4g at a fraction of the cost. The reasons to get the expensive camera are:
1. You need to have fast/precise autofocus.
2. You need more control over the exposure/lighting.
3. You need more latitude in post.
4. You need a versatile/responsive camera.
5. You need redundancy/safety with your recorded data.
6. You need excellent ISO performance.

Other than that, you're just being foolish with your money.

Yeah, for his budget he could have bought two of the three holy trinities and got great image quality right away on his DX camera.

PB_PM

I do agree that some here are pushing every new user all to the most expensive lens every time. Yes you get the best performance out of the most expensive lenses (generally speaking), but does the user asking need the same level of performance that the person giving the advice needs/demands? It is important to keep in mind that for some people good enough, is just that, good enough. When building an SLR system keep in mind that you are building it, not throwing it together in a mad rush. It is okay to take time and get the lenses you want, rather than compromising. When you compromise you end up spending a lot of extra money on things you don't want and have no intention of keeping. I did that for a while, and would not recommend it.

If I was starting from scratch with a D750 and no FX lenses, my first lens would likely be the 50mm F1.4 Art. From there I would get a AF 180mm F2.8D, and then the 16-35mm F4G VR. I also like my super telephoto lenses, so I'd be getting either the Nikon 80-400mm VRII or the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 OS.

WestEndBoy

What would you do if you were starting from scratch with a DX camere, which is the case with this thread's OP?

Msmoto

"I shoot mostly landscape and cityscape with macro occasionally". "I was thinking about getting the 24-120 f4" Suggests budget of $1000-$1500?

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

Lens = one lens.

Used 24-120…. the obvious answer…..

The other approach might be to decide which is most important…. of the categories and purchase the best one lens for this…. like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art lens….. or, the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8….great with extension tubes, super for portraits on the street…..

If I had the 35 and 85, this would cover a lot to begin with, then as budget permits, expand where you want to…..

METALBLADE

Thank you again for the many many responses to this matter. Its interesting seeing the going back and forth as to whats right to do first, get the camera or the lens. Most people say lens and yes i do agree with that to a certain extent. Yes i am buying a FX to get better image quality but for many other reason then just that, a lot has to do with better iso control faster and better autofocus in dark situations and many other reason. I personally have been feeling lately that my ultra consumer bottom of the totem pole D3300 has been keeping me back a bit so i wanted to upgrade. Yes i could have gotten a higher end dx like a 7100 and such and saved over a grand and then used that money for a better lens. However i plan on upgrading to an fx in time.

A lot of people have said why buy a cheap lens and waste money now on that when you should just buy the better higher quality lens to begin with and save the money. My point is, if i should buy what i want and what i think is best the first time, then why buy another dx camera for a grand to then later upgrade later? Wouldnt that be like wasting money? Which is why i am upgrading to FX now so that the body is no longer holding me back.

When it comes to lens i got the 50mm f1.8 so that will be a great lens as everyone has said. I do love my zoom lens though, i currently use them the most. I was torn between the 24-120 and the 24-85. Its not that i cannot afford a 24-120 because thats what i was going to originally order. However after reading reviews and looking at them on dxo ive seen barly a different on paper and in reviews. So why not save the grand and get that lens if they are going to be very similar. For 300$ its gotten me into the game. Sooner then later i will be purchasing a wide angle because well.. i shot A LOT at 10-35ish on the dx so i think that will be next. I will be looking at the 16-35 and the holy 14-24. They both have their pros and cons.

Which brings me really to the i guess true point of this whole forum post on the matter. All in all i was looking on feedback on what would be best and if there would be a big difference when it comes to certain lens when it comes to sharpness and iq. Since it will be my first (well second now) Fx lens i just wanted to get the best bang for the buck. I do want to have the best images so i will be upgrading in time to better lens as long as i feel the price matches what it puts out. It brings me to the question now of, with the 16-35 being a really good lens from what i hear and have a lot going for it in the way i shoot, for 1300 or the 14-24 which is the best of the best from what i hear, however i dont know if it will 100% fit my shooting profile but i know i can make it work for $2000. I guess like going back to my original post and concept, is the 14-24 worth the extra $700. Is there that big of a difference in the quality of the image to justify a $700 difference??

I am sorry if i am coming off a bit defensive in this post i just feel like a lot of posts have been great and helpful however some just seem to be very critical of what i am saying and aren't understanding what i am trying to get across by starting this post.

Golf007sd

....I guess like going back to my original post and concept, is the 14-24 worth the extra $700. Is there that big of a difference in the quality of the image to justify a $700 difference?

They say: "a picture is worth a thousand words." So lets us do that: Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S Group!. You be the judge.

But know this, the 14-24 is a specialty lens, thus, it does take some getting used to. You need to understand how to see, and in a way, feel the shoot, before hitting the shutter button. PitchBlack himself, a very skilled photographer, was at first a bit lost while using this lens; yet for his girlfriend, it was love at first site.