First Time FX Camera buy, Wondering Best lens to get

WestEndBoy

Don't be defensive. It's a simple fact that less experienced photographers tend to focus on the camera more than the lenses. But remember, the reason why a Leica takes a great photo is not because the sensor is better (it's not, not even close), but because you can buy spectacular lenses for it.

From top of the line to bottom of the line, in "easy" shooting conditions, the difference between the D3300 and the D810 (top of the line in terms of IQ), you're maybe talking a difference of maybe 20-30% better in terms of the usual factors (color/sharpness/ISO/dynamic range). The difference between a kit and a pro lens may give you an IQ difference of several hundred percent, depending upon the conditions (color/sharpness/light gathering). Of course in "hard" shooting conditions, the differences may be greater because of missed shots and opportunities, but this doesn't apply to most shooters.

Of course the D3300 feels like a toy, but I assure you it most certainly is not.

To add to Pitchblack's point, you are concerned about the DX holding you back. But until you upgrade your lenses, you will be held back regardless of the camera you buy. You will solve 90% of your problem with new good lenses and only 10% with a camera. This will not be apparent to you now (and certainly not your friends), but as you get more experience, you will start to appreciate the truth. Note that Pitchblack and I both have both DX and FX cameras, so we know what we are talking about.

Also, regarding the 14-24, I would be cautious buying that. Note my signature thread and that I have it. This lens has a very limited "useful" focal range". Optically, it is the same quality as the 16-35. It is more expensive because of the professional build and ability to shoot at 14.

Like you, I like shooting landscapes. On my last trip to Oregon and California (see my Flickr for my images), I brought a my 20 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.4 and 200 f/4. You should know that my most used lens for landscapes was the 28. My SECOND most used lens was the 50, not the 20. I used my 85 almost as much as the 20.

There was ONLY ONE TIME I wish I had something wider than my 20 and it wasn't shooting a landscape, but when I was in the top of a lighthouse trying to shoot the Fresnel lens (that is also in my Flickr if you want to have a look).

I came back from China last week where I was shooting more indoor or tighter street shots. I did use my 14-24 on several cases, but even then, most of those shots were at the 24 end of the focal range. When I upload those Flickr images, I will be surprised if I took more than 1 or 2 images wider than 20mm that will be worth uploading.

So buy the 16-35, it is a much more useful focal length range, just as sharp, and much cheaper. If you want a professional build (and you really don't have the money to be that fussy), buy the 17-35 2.8, an older but very fine lens (though the 16-35 beats it optically).

The reason to get the 14-24 is because it is the best 14mm prime that you can buy.

PS:
You will note that my manual focus lenses are quite old. They all started production in 1981-1984. It will be easy to dismiss them as optically inferior. If you are shooting them wide open, they should be dismissed in favour of the 16-35. The ability to shoot wide open is where most lens quality progression has occurred.

However, for landscapes, you are shooting from f/5.6 to f/11. These lenses are still competitive with today's lenses at these f stops. In fact, from f/2.0-4.0, my 30 year old 50 1.2 is the sharpest 50mm Nikon makes - you will note that I also have the 50 1.4G, The weakest (but still good at f/8.0-11.0) of the three is the 20, and Nikon just came out with a replacement a few weeks ago that is very good.

These lenses are even cheaper if you buy the auto-focus versions. They are the cheaper plastic build while the MF lenses are the best professional build that Nikon every made in primes. However, optically they are the same. And you certainly don't need auto-focus when shooting landscapes.

So if you are on a budget and shooting primarily landscapes, maybe you should have a look at the auto-focus versions of these lenses.

METALBLADE

@WestEndBoy

Thank you so much for the response when it comes to landscape shots and lens! Stupid questions while were talking about lens and landscape and stuff. A whole back when i felt as though my pictures werent "sharp enough" a lot of you were like hey! You dont need an aperture that small go from 8-11F because you have more depth of field with the DX. Now from my understanding the FX has less depth of field. So, stupid question. Would i still be shooting between 8-11 on average or will i need to bump it up a bit since ill have less DOF?

WestEndBoy

The two main considerations are:
1.
Depth of field. For more on this, google "landscape hyperfocal distance". If you are shooting landscapes, you need to burn this in your brain, especially the charts for the lenses that you are using.
2.
Diffraction - the more you stop down, the "less sharp" the lens gets because of diffraction. This does not mean that you shoot wide open as the lens will get less sharp due to other aberrations. But there is an optimum focal length where opening up will cause sharpness loss due to aberations besides diffraction and stopping down will cause sharpness loss due to aberations. This number is a good touchstone for how sharp the lens really is; the lower the number the sharper the lens. Also, the number will tend to be lower in the centre than the edges or corners as lenses are generally sharp in the centre.

For my 28, that number is about 5.6. It is a very sharp lens which I find very impressive considering it is an early 80s design. For my 50, I would say about f/8, though f/11 is usuable if you need more depth of field. For my 20, that is f/8 in the centre and f/11 across the frame (as I said earlier, this lens is the weakest of the three).

I can set up most landscape shots so that depth of field is not a factor in the above. However, if you really want to get that stump 4 feet away in focus while getting the mountains in the background in focus, there are some techniques to deal with this:

1.
Shoot at f/11, f/16 etc. You will lose due to diffraction, but if you are only posting to the web or on an a4 sized paper, I doubt anybody will notice.
2.
Ensure the foreground shots are in sharp focus and tolerate softness in the background. Again, most people will not notice and most that will notice will find that acceptable (this is something to do with how the brain works, we find fuzzy things in the foreground "weird" but expect the background to be fuzzy).
3.
Focus stack. You will need a tripod, good technique and good software for this (Photoshop, Photomatix etc.).

And you are right, all things being equal, FX would "dictate" a higher f-number. However, that "rule" is just a simple approximation of the more complex issues described above as applied to DX or FX.

WestEndBoy

At the end of the day, just multiply your budget by two or three times and go to town. That is what I did and it solved all of my constraint issues. Careful though and don't tell Golf, or you will end up spending $4,000 on a tripod (Golf, I have no regrets, it is amazing).

Photobug

+1 Msmoto
Too many people, including myself, forget to recommend buy used lens. Refurbished lens are a good buy too or used.

Golf007sd

At the end of the day, just multiply your budget by two or three times and go to town. That is what I did and it solved all of my constraint issues. Careful though and don't tell Golf, or you will end up spending $4,000 on a tripod (Golf, I have no regrets, it is amazing).

I would never recommend something that, I myself, am unwilling to do. I have learned that if I do my homework and plan accordingly, I will not regret any of my action in buying the things I want in life....photography is just another area that this applies too. Photography is my hobby; thus I'm willing to go the extra mile. YMMV.

WestEndBoy

Agreed, and you have certainly done your homework on RRS.

Bokeh_Hunter

@METALBLADE - Don't take anything personal off of what people suggest. Realize that you are probably the 270th person asking similar questions this year, of which we are on day 279th. You are newer to photography (at least in it's current state) and are asking the usual questions. Everyone is trying to help in their own way.

I would point out that you started with wanting an all-in one, and you have migrated. I just hope that is not due to this thread and more due to you finding out what you shoot most of. It is not written somewhere that you can't sell a lens if you don't like it, or advance beyond it's capabilities. All of us on here have traded gear, bought and sold used gear to where we are now.

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.

Somethings to always realize:
- There is no black or white, absolute answer to this question. Actually to any question within the photography realm. Photography and it's gear is nothing more than a dance between compromises.
- 80% of the lens price is due to build quality. Very little has to do with IQ, sharpness or the like. Pro lenses are built to be used hard every day, day in and day out for years.
- And also keep this in mind; Review sites don't get hits when they inform people the gear they bought really isn't that good.
- Lastly: There is no such thing as bad glass/lenses or unsharp ones. The "bottom of the barrel" of today's lenses are a million times better than they were 30 years ago. All lenses are capable of creating great images.

With that all said, cost of the lens is proportionately connected to how well it performs on the "edges."
24-85vr vs 24-120vr f4 - There is quite a noticeable difference between the two in the quality of images they produce. At F8-F11 on a tripod, they probably perform close, but not in hand use, wide open etc. I use my 24-120vr f4 professionally. I would not use the 24-85vr professionally. I have the old 24-85g ED and use it for family stuff or if I think I'm going to be somewhere where the IQ is a big deal.

14-24 vs. 16-35: I mentioned above I have the Tokina 16-28 - and I chose that because I don't use that range to much, and it is over $1,000 cheaper and only falls short of the Nikon wide open at f2.8 - where I never shoot it - So that never has made a difference. Filters are a pain, and if you want to get filters for those, plan on spending $500-750 more just for the kit to do so. I was on the edge of getting the 16-35vr but the Tokina is cheaper and has a lot less distortion. Half the time though I wish I had the 16-35vr. Tamron is releasing a new one as well. Probably be worth holding out a bit to see what they release.

Here are a few recent threads about the ultra wide angles.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/comment/103538#Comment_103538

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1788/nikon-d800-should-i-get-14-24-f2-8-for-it-or-16-35-f4-vr-cant-decide-/p1

henrik1963

It is true that some of us who has a lot of money invested in gear tell newcomers to buy the right thing the first time. There is a reason for that. If you have ever tried to buy the third best thing only to discover that maybe the next best thing might work better ............... and finally upgrading to the best thing - then you know why.

As for lenses. There is more to a good lens than sharpness. There is color, contrast and bokeh just to name a few. Some of that is of course up to personal taste. But it is real.

METALBLADE

@Bokeh_Hunter

Thank you so much for the reply! What you have said is pretty much exactly what i was looking for when it comes to this whole post. I was just looking for a run down in comparison between a few lens and what the differences may be between the lens. With that being said maybe i should have gone for the 24-120. But hey well see what happens if anything ill just sell it im not to worried about that. I shoot mostly at the wide angle so having a good wide angle is going to be important which is why ive been between the 16-35 vs the 14-24. I think from what i see and how i would use it i will be going with the 16-35. Would that be a good lens to get or would that be considered cheapening out and i should go with the 14-24?? Just wondering.


Thank you all for the rest of your comments i feel like im truly getting down to the bottom of my question with these answers thank you all!

Photobug

It is true that some of us who has a lot of money invested in gear tell newcomers to buy the right thing the first time. There is a reason for that. If you have ever tried to buy the third best thing only to discover that maybe the next best thing might work better ............... and finally upgrading to the best thing - then you know why.

As for lenses. There is more to a good lens than sharpness. There is color, contrast and bokeh just to name a few. Some of that is of course up to personal taste. But it is real.

+1 yup you hit the nail on both heads.

I have a friend who upgrades bodies when he should but he buys cheap glass and gets all excited about his shots. When we talk about IQ, sharpness, and color and contrast he gets really quiet, especially when we compare to some of my recent images taken on my D7100. Now I am helping him sell off his cheap lens so he can buy better lens. Finally. Sorry, I digress.

heartyfisher

RE : 16-35 vs 14-24 : I think for landscape photography like you are doing, the 16-35 is a better choice because it can easily fit filters (CPL, ND, GND etc..) . The special(and cumbersome) setup to allow you to use filters on the 14-24 is quite pricey!

WestEndBoy

RE : 16-35 vs 14-24 : I think for landscape photography like you are doing, the 16-35 is a better choice because it can easily fit filters (CPL, ND, GND etc..) . The special(and cumbersome) setup to allow you to use filters on the 14-24 is quite pricey!

An excellent point and another reason I have my MF lenses. The 16-35 is an excellent lens. My only compaint would be the consumer build quality.

METALBLADE

Sweet! 16-35 it is then, Thank you guys!

Parke1953

I think the 16-35 is a good choice. Saving to get one myself.

Photobug

Lots of good information exchanged in this forum. I like the decision for a 16-35mm for the wide angle lens. Sometimes we all get carried away thinking we "have to have" multiple lens. To that point I just read an article about a pro landscape photographer who traveled for 21 months and took 1 DSLR and one lens - a Tamron 18-270mm ƒ/3.5-6.3. Yes he had batteries, tripod, and memory cards. For MetalBlade there is nothing wrong with starting with one zoom lens and one prime and learning to use the new DSLR and lens. By the time he can afford the next lens he will have mastered the body and lens. Plus it forces you to get the best pictures you can with what you got.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/how-to/shooting/have-camera-have-lens-will-travel.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=OPeNewsOct_100614/#.VDNCFRawQ1B

henrik1963

@Photobug: Good point - we can do a lot more with the gear we have.

Two extreem positions: "The camera does not matter at all - it is all up to the photographer" Vs. "I need the most expensive gear to take any photos at all". I think there is a "middel ground" in between.

The Canon 40D + the Tamron super zoom might work for landscape where you use a small aperture and a tripod. But I would hate that combo for "general shooting".

A Nikon D750 + a decent lens would be a far better tool - and I think Metalblade sould not worry to much :-)

METALBLADE

I think im not to worried at this point @henrik1963 lol

So i think im going to pick up the 16-35 in the next day or two. I was really thinking about it last night and was like... i shoot a lot of wide angles, in fact i use my wide angle currently maybe the most out of all my lens. With that i think im just going to bite the bullet and pick it up sooner then later because i am suppose to be going on a little vaca in a week or two to Mass. I think the 16-35 better suites the way i shoot since i dont always use a tripod and like to just walk around and go sometimes to the VR will be key. Plus i like to use my ND filter as well.

Also i came to this conclusion because well the referb lens i got in from cameta camera i noticed the smallest little scratch on the front lens all the way towards i guess you can say the corner. It looks like dust but i couldnt get it off. I checked the test pictures last night and i did not notice any problems with the pictures when looking for a spot or something to show up and i zoomed in like crazy and couldnt find anything. However i feel as though its going to make it more complicated for me to sell in the future, since it has a scratch on it. I contacted them today and well see what happens. Do you guys think it makes sense to send it back even though it doesnt affect picture quality?

Lastly i was wondering. Do you guys use UV filters at the end of your lens? I mean i know they dont really do much anymore since you dont have to worry about UV with digital. All of my DX lens i put the filter on and i was wondering if you guys do the same mostly i guess for protection? when it comes to them i always use B+W for quality. Is it worth it or do they degrade the picture quality??

Ironheart

Please do a search. Upper right hand side of the window, custom google search. I put the word "filter" in, and we have discussed this topic ad nauseum.
http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1524/to-filter-or-not-to-filter-where-do-you-stand-/
This is one of them. Feel free to post this question there, if you feel it necessary after reading the hundred or so pages out there on the topic

METALBLADE

Thank you @Ironheart i am sorry i didnt do that to begin with.

Ironheart

No worries, I just know how folks here get wound up :-)
As for the tiny scratch on your front element, I wouldnt worry about it at all. I've seen cracked front elements that still take flawless pictures. You will never see it in a photo. Consider it a battle scar, and chicks dig scars...

METALBLADE

@Ironheart

Haha thank you they really do! My only concern is that when/if i do decide to sell it. When i do sell it the buyer will be like.. WTF you are selling something defective or wont want it for the same reason, theres a slight scratch on it. Like you were saying i dont see anything in the image and it doenst look like cracked deep or anything it looks more like dust. Ide add a picture but i dont have it up on a site to link it to which seems to be needed on here.

Photobug

@METALBLADE - It's easy to open an account on Flickr. Then come back here and check the 2nd or 3rd forum on "How to Post a Photo on Photo-A-Day- NEW INSTRUCTIONS". It's really very easy. Plus we need pictures posted to PAD taken on the D750. )

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/46/how-to-post-a-photo-on-photo-a-day-new-instructions#Item_133

METALBLADE

@Photobug
Yes i do need to open a flickr soon. Ive just been posting all my stuff up on 500px but looking into flickr and will start using both probably. Stupid question, what is PAD? lol

I will say ive taken some inside shots with it just to see what its all about and learn where the buttons are (much different then the D3300) lol. They came out good for what i was shooting and was very very impressed at the iso. I was shooting a 3600 and on the dx it would have been equivalent to like ... 800.. amazing.

I cannot wait to get out and really use this thing especially with the new 16-35 i just got in today

heartyfisher

You should be able to use your 500px account for posting pictures here.