Advice needed on FX Lenses Selection

Msmoto

@mwajidali

Thank you for your comments......actually, I am just old.....and have been around a while with no job... Around here I try to keep a positive attitude and atmosphere for folks to have fun.

The lens selection issue is often brought up on NRF. My thinking is that I must first determine what I want to do with the lens, then figure out what is within my budget. Almost any of the lenses from Nikon will perform adequately. The biggest determinant is the money, IMO.

spraynpray

'The lens selection issue is often brought up on NRF. My thinking is that I must first determine what I want to do with the lens, then figure out what is within my budget. Almost any of the lenses from Nikon will perform adequately. The biggest determinant is the money, IMO.'

Absolutely. Except maybe when considering the Sigma Arts, then it is whether the AF is good enough for your usage because in other ways they are better AND cheaper.

mwajidali

Hello Everyone & Thanks for your advice..keeping all viewpoints of experts i have settled down for the following
1) From 24-70 f2.8 / 24-120 f4 - Nothing decided from both, will carry on with my current 28 f2.8 as all time lens & will compromise on my body moments..lols (will think about 24-70 with VR version if released sometime near soon)
2) From 70-200 f2.8 / 70-200 f4 - I have opted for 105 f2.8 keeping in mind all focal lengths required for portrait & i already purchased it. No regrets on this.
3) 14-24 f2.8 / 16-35 f4 - Going to settled with 16-35 f4 & this will be my next purchase along with D810 hopefully.
Cheers..

Msmoto

Good choices IMO

tcole1983

Sounds good. The 105 F2.8 is a great lens. I love it for portraits...looks great wide open and F2.8 gives you perfect depth of field. Not to mention for macro and as a general telephoto lens. Of course you have the 85 which I would get had I not already had the 105. Although I am speaking more from the DX point of view. Not sure how everything will work on an FX body, but haven't ever heard of anyone complain of the 105 either way.

Since you haven't already purchased it...I would like to sway you from the 16-35. I would go for one of the F2.8 wide angle zooms instead (really the 14-24 since the 17-35 has mixed reviews...although a friend has it and it seems to work great on his D800E). I don't think you will be happy with the 16-35 especially not compared to all of your primes. They might be more expensive, but I think they will be worth it...if landscapes are one of your few types of photography it would be worth waiting and saving for. You don't need to get everything at the same time.

WestEndFoto

I think that if landscapes are your thing, stick to the 16-35. You shoot stopped down anyways. I have the 14-24 and after investigating filters, you will spend a thousand and will not get glass even. I bought a 20mm prime for landscapes and save the 14-24 for interiors if I don't need a filter. You will rarely need wider than 20mm for landscapes unless you are a snapshooter and trying to get it all in.

sevencrossing

ALL wide angle zooms seem to get mixed reviews

If you are a pixel and peeper always use a tripod. Yes you will be better of with the

20mm f 1.8 prime
plus a
24mm f 1.4 prime
and a
35mm f 1.8 prime

If you live in the real world and don't need to print wider than about 4 feet, the Nikon 16-35mm f4 G AF-S ED VR is a superb, value for money compromise

I say this from practical experience, shooting real estate professionally and landscapes as a hobby , not as an armchair expert. reading demigods BLOGS

WestEndFoto is correct, you rarely need wider than 20mm, but if like me, you like the ability to crop your landscapes a bit, 16 mm does have it uses

I also find 16mm wide enough for real estate interiors

tcole1983

Ill stick with my thoughts, but clarify. If I were shooting FX I would own the 24-70 (or comparable) and it would probably be on my camera most of the time. It would be what I actually shot most of my pictures with. You actually have an assortment of primes that pretty much covers that range...just means more lens switching, but not a bad thing. The 14-24 is actually an ultrawide and not needed for landscapes...I had the 12-24 on DX and decided I didn't use it enough to justify carrying it around. However if I was looking to use a lens in this range I would own the 14-24 F2.8. It is the best lens in that range period. It has been said over and over again...people from Canon even convert it to use it on their bodies. Filters...well I don't use any. Wouldn't bother me. That is my opinion as an armchair expert who takes pictures sometimes.

However I will say I am sure the 16-35 F4 is a fine lens. It didn't take me long to figure out it was worth saving the extra $$$ and getting what I really wanted. If you would get the 16-35 as a compromise for price I wouldn't. If it is good enough and you like that it is lighter, smaller or something else...then each to his own.

sevencrossing

I did not buy or use my 16 -35 as compromise on price. It was a compromise on the amount of gear I am prepared to carry, plus the risk of an accident, when changing lenses in challenging and hostile situations
Life and photography are always about compromise

In a perfect world I would shoot Medium format, have a team of sherpas to carry my gear and return it to hasselblad, at the end of each shoot, for cleaning

tcole1983

@sevencrossing I am unsure what I said that bugs you so much. My second post wasn't intended at you at all and towards the OP. I shared my opinion which is obviously not yours. I was pointing out that price might be a deciding factor and if it was, that I would save and get what one wants instead of compromising. You obviously got the 16-35 for your reasons...cool. That doesn't negate the fact that the 14-24 is a good lens and someone else might want it.

mwajidali

Hi There Experts,
Finally I have got my Nikon D810 along with 20mm F/1.8 & 35mm F/1.8.
So I have added up few more primes to my collection.
& the list goes like this
20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm all f/1.8 & 105mm f/2.8 & I am still far away from the zooms.
& I categorized the above as follows to suits any kind of shooting environment.
20mm - Landscapes
28mm - Street Photography
35mm - All time Lens for any situation
50mm - Full Body Shots
85mm - Half Body Shots
105mm (f/2.8) - Micro & Head Shots
& I am happy for the above collection.
So basically I am turning out to be prime shooter only lols..
Most probably my next lens in my mind is 300mm - F/2.8 VRII & I started saving for it.

Msmoto

Three cheers for prime lenses....but, my preference is simply about bringing back the past when we did not have any zoom lenses.... 8-|

tcole1983

I started off with an 18-200 for everything. I now have 3 primes and one zoom. I really like to use my primes...I just find myself changing lenses a lot. I like that I have my 17-55 as a walk around lens still.

henrik1963

If you know what you want to shoot - primes are often better than zooms.

On the other hand - if you are just walking around taking pictures - nothing beats a 24-70 2.8 IMHO - near perfect one lens solution.

WestEndFoto

Hi There Experts,
Finally I have got my Nikon D810 along with 20mm F/1.8 & 35mm F/1.8.
So I have added up few more primes to my collection.
& the list goes like this
20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm all f/1.8 & 105mm f/2.8 & I am still far away from the zooms.
& I categorized the above as follows to suits any kind of shooting environment.
20mm - Landscapes
28mm - Street Photography
35mm - All time Lens for any situation
50mm - Full Body Shots
85mm - Half Body Shots
105mm (f/2.8) - Micro & Head Shots
& I am happy for the above collection.
So basically I am turning out to be prime shooter only lols..(
Most probably my next lens in my mind is 300mm - F/2.8 VRII & I started saving for it.

Don't categorize yourself too much. In addition to the 14-24, which I use when I need 14, I also have a 20, 28, two 50s, 85, 135 and 200. I use them all for landscapes. I use the 28 the most for landscapes, then the 50, the 20 and 85 about the same, and you would be surprised how useful the 200 is, which I use for landscapes more than the 14.

If you use the 20 the most, you are probably not cropping enough. Your 35 is more useful in my opinion.

Even on portraits, you may want to think about going longer. Even for full body shots, I use my 135 if space permits. The ideal focal length for head shots, if space permits, is a 400 (which I would also use for full body sometimes if space permitted),

sevencrossing

Re: Landscapes
There are so many different types of landscape photography and styles
There is no ideal lens or focal length
If mwajidali feels 20mm if best for him; who are we to disagree

WestEndFoto

Re: Landscapes
There are so many different types of landscape photography and styles
There is no ideal lens or focal length
If mwajidali feels 20mm if best for him; who are we to disagree

Yeah, I probably came across too strong. It is based on my own experience supported by discussions with other (not all) landscape photographers. I thought that my 14-24 would be my choice landscape lens, but it is not even in the sweet spot, which for me is 28-85.

He has everything categorized so neatly which seems to parrot the marketing. I am trying to encourage him, and other readers, to think from another perspective.

WestEndFoto

Mwajidali, just keep going buying all those primes you listed. You will find your own sweet spots and won't go wrong in the long run.

sevencrossing

which seems to parrot the marketing. .

The D800 was marketed as a Studio and Landscape camera

but ended being the weapon of choice, for lots of other types of photography, as well

The Df was meant to be about PURE photography

What ever that is or was

I don't think any of us are that gullible

manhattanboy

You don't need more lenses :-) and only YOU can decide which is best for YOU.

I second this. You really don't need more lenses. Use the money you save on glass and get the 810 over the 750. It gives you more for your landscape work and you have several crop modes to use with your primes to "zoom" if you need to for portraits. I get the allure of buying more Glass though. Its one of the hardest things in the world to resist (at least for me as I am thinking of buying another lens too

WestEndFoto

He already has an 810, or did I read that wrong.

sevencrossing

Nikon Cameras and lenses are the male equivalent of shoes and handbags

You cannot have too many

Parke1953

+1 sevencrossing

mwajidali

Hello Everyone,
What a healthy discussions we are having here its surely going to benefit someone like me to get better advice/opinions what so ever.
Currently the kit I am having is more than enough for landscapes & portraits I believe, even though I have over done to some extent.
300mm I am considering for future that to for birds & nature.
200 & 400mm are also excellent lenses for portraits I called them big guns..lols.
By the way I am not into commercial photography or any type of marketing.
& I don't make any money from this. It is purely for my passion for photography & I consider my a self hard core hobbyist.
More ever if I do any assignments for my friends & relatives it will be for free.
I just need their smiles in return.