Per Msmoto, How about someone starting a discussion on a specific lens/body as desired and let the newcomers drop info here as related to their introduction to the Forum.
For everyday use I really like my 18-140 on either of the two cropped bodies I have. The D7200 and D5300. Some days the articulating back of the D5300 really helps by keeping me upright instead of lying on the ground. Such was today as I need to purchase something wider than my current widest Sigma 35mm A for the D810. For these two cropped sensor bodies I normally carry the 18-140mm on one and a 70-200mm f4 on the other. All I believe is missing is the Nikon 200-500mm for what I like to do.
Comments
a 24-85 for video on another 7100 and 55-300 for long Aisles shots from rear.
Tamron 150-600 for a bit of birding on the 7100
sigma 300 f4 +1.4 on a 7100 for the wife to bird with me
The two 810s use 28-300mm zooms
As far as the fixed faster f-stop on the 70-200 I did like the one stop gain and longer reach with the D7200 shooting action in dim light. It was catching frames in addition to what the D810 was.
With my D500 I'm still happy with the 16-85VR I bought with my D90, along with the Nikon 10-24. I've also found the 70-300VR performs well.
On my D810 - 24-85VR, 20/1.8G and 70-200/4.
I also like the Voigtlander 58/1.4 - small, fast and great for FX (long normal focal length) and DX (portrait length).
The 200-500VR is excellent with both, but the D500 AF is clearly superior. I'm looking forward to the D850.
The rest are FX, Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 G, 70-200 f2.8 G VRII, Tamron 150-600 G2. These are my work hose lenses usually on the D500.
Hope to move to FX with the D850 at some point.
Back when I was shooting DX I had a few others, the first gen Tokina 12-24mm F4, which was good for most wide subjects. The only other DX lens I had was the 85mm F3.5 macro, totally under rated lens, and much lighter than the FX macros.
I usually take the D7200 on hikes with the 10-24, the Sigma, and either the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G or the Nikkor 70-200 f/4G and call it good for the sake of weight and space.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126560387@N02/22351250746/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126560387@N02/17842920039/in/dateposted-public/
https://alaskamcgillphoto.smugmug.com/Landscapes/California/i-8vvVzVw/A
https://alaskamcgillphoto.smugmug.com/Nature/Denali-2012-09/i-LJJBdfq/A
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126560387@N02/16505128954/in/dateposted-public/
Do not be too concerned about how Denali, the mountain in the distance in this last photo is not so sharp - it is over 50 miles from the camera. That is a lot of atmosphere between here and there.
Turns out I have used the 300 f/4D more for wildlife than landscapes.
I have no experience with the 300 f/4E. The size is definitely appealing.
My only other DX lens is the 35 F1.8 and I know it is pretty good, but I just don't use it. It doesn't give me much over the 17-55 and I lose all the flexibility of the zoom.
The 105 F2.8 and 300 F4 have their purposes. Longer. Both can do pretty good portraits. My 105 is my go to portrait lens. I would also walk around with my 105 any day over my 35. 300 mostly just for animal photography.
The one lens I sold that I wish I still had was the 18-200. It to me was the all around do it all lens in one. I wish I had it to carry on my D5000 as a second body that never needed to change lenses. For me in a lot of cases it was good enough and the master of flexibility.
I kept the kit 18-55 that came with my D5200...and I tried to use it once and I think I threw it in a drawer and am not really sure where it is actually. Last option on that one.
I also use a 70-300 afs for limited wildlife and auto racing, a 105 2.8 macro that serves a number of purposes from macro work to portraits and 50 1.4 that I still wonder why I bought. The 70-300 works ok for me but takes far too much sharpening when pushed much beyond 200.
As of now I'm salivating over the 70-200 f4 and the 200-500 5.6. I suspect which ever goes on sale first will join the stable, unless GAS wins out over reason.
Really Big: https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/33842133003/sizes/o/
I think shooting the "equivalent" of 1200mm means I have to use a far faster shutter speed than with the D4 when 800mm is out front. I missed about two hundred shots (maybe an exagerration) to get the one shown... at slower shutter speeds. Anyway, I get to try again tomorrow.
I think this is the equivalent sweet spot of the D50:18-200mm
I am developing an interest in a wide large-aperture prime, but I'm paying off re-siding the house first...
Monopod used
Estimated bike speed 80 mph
This link shows as 27" wide on my monitor and looks acceptable to me:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/36478257693/sizes/o/
My conclusion is with the "1200mm equivalent" a shutter speed of 1/800 is about correct to be able to capture a sharp image yet have the wheels blurred, an essential quality in photos of moving vehicles....
For a shot without the TC...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/37301824145/sizes/o/
D500, 400/2.8, 1/640, f/9, ISO 280, monopod
Estimated bike speed 70 mph
I have become a fan of the D500 now....LOL