Help me spend some money on Nikon glass

[Supermoon]

So, I'm finally going to get a full-frame camera. After much debating with myself, I'm going with the D750 for it's ergonomics, speed, video capabilities and newer sensor. This means I need some lenses to replace my crop lenses.

I have a 50mm that I'm keeping, so I need a wide/normal zoom and a telephoto lens. Total budget is our $2500 but it could stretch a bit if necessary.

Originally I was going to get the 17-35mm 2.8 which is around 2k new, but I see them used in the 900 range. Turns out, I can get the D750 in a kit with a 24-120 f4, and that would make that lens only about $500 on top of the body. It also had more range and VR, which the 17-35 doesn't.

For tele, I like the 80-200 2.8, which is about 1200 new or 7-800 used. Reviews on this are that it's a staple in a lot of pros bags, well built, etc. Cons are that it doesn't have VR (not a huge deal for action, but trying to hand hold it to shoot portraits, the VR would be nice), and is pretty heavy. There is the 300 f4 with VR that's a little more money, but significantly lighter, new model etc.

Anyone shoot with these lenses and have opinions? I'm leaning towards going with the 24-120 and the 80-200 but I'm open to be talked out of it.

[mtcham]

My advice is save your money and pick up one lens at a time. I have the 50 f1.8 and it is a super sharp light lens. If you want the best get the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII but they are not cheap. The 70-200mm is one of my favorites and I will own it for life. My 24-70 doesn't get used much except for night photography. I just picked up a cheap 24-85mm with VR for my last trip and was quite pleased. Don't forget the Rokinon 14mm f2.8, it also is a great inexpensive WA lens.

I also don't hesitate to buy used lenses. If they have been well taken care of you can save quite a bit of cash. Check out the Sigma lenses, the docking system is fantastic on their newer lenses. You may want to test some of their comparable lenses, especially the 70-200mm.

[smmokan]

I'm a Canon guy, but I'm familiar enough with Nikon that I figure I'll throw in my $.02. First off, what are you using the camera for? Are you getting paid for the pictures you take, or is it purely as a hobby? To me, that should somewhat dictate what you're buying... unless you just have gobs of money to throw at your setup, in which case you can ignore me.

I think you will want a lens like the 24-120mm to serve as your walk-around lens. I have the Canon 24-105, and it's the lens most frequently on my 5DIII. It might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's the most useful. If only Canon made a 20-200mm equivalent...

When it comes to long zooms, Nikon is a little short of Canon in terms of options. The 70-200 f/2.8 is an expensive- and large- piece of glass, even though it's super sharp. That being said, I'd recommend something cheaper like the Tamron 70-300 VC for you, at least at first. My friend shoots with a D750 and uses it, and his shots are always excellent and sharp. If you want to add a prime for portraits, the Tamron is cheap enough to allow you to buy a solid f/2 or f/1.8 lens on top of that.

And to echo what mtcham said above- don't be afraid to buy used. I highly recommend joining the Fred Miranda board if you haven't already, as there are a ton of great deals on there for both camera bodies and lenses. I've never had a bad experience with buying used from a respectable site (FM and POTN).

[Supermoon]

My advice is save your money and pick up one lens at a time. I have the 50 f1.8 and it is a super sharp light lens. If you want the best get the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII but they are not cheap. The 70-200mm is one of my favorites and I will own it for life. My 24-70 doesn't get used much except for night photography. I just picked up a cheap 24-85mm with VR for my last trip and was quite pleased. Don't forget the Rokinon 14mm f2.8, it also is a great inexpensive WA lens.

I also don't hesitate to buy used lenses. If they have been well taken care of you can save quite a bit of cash. Check out the Sigma lenses, the docking system is fantastic on their newer lenses. You may want to test some of their comparable lenses, especially the 70-200mm.

Thanks. I don't know why I haven't really had the 24-70 on my list, but I'll start looking around for those as well. It sounds like you maybe think the newer tele zoom is a better investment? Reading the review of both the 70-200 and the 80-200 on Ken Rockwell, he seems to think that if you don't need/want the VR then there isn't a ton of difference. He seems like a crotchety old man though, so maybe he's just stuck in the old school.

First off, what are you using the camera for? Are you getting paid for the pictures you take, or is it purely as a hobby? To me, that should somewhat dictate what you're buying... unless you just have gobs of money to throw at your setup, in which case you can ignore me.

I've been shooting a little bit of everything over the last couple of years, and getting paid here and there for family photos or dog photos. The last year I have shot a ton of stuff for the marketing agency I work for (which has gone out for some big brands), and I think I want to give it a go as a side gig for a bit to see if I can make something out of it.

My first priority is to upgrade my shitty personal gear, and get covered for a wide range of things since I don't really know what I'll be shooting primarily. My guess is more lifestyle/editorial stuff, but I also love to dabble in landscapes and action when I can. I have a Christmas bonus coming my way to cover about 5-6k of gear including things like a tripod, some lighting, filters, batteries, etc. I want to get pro or close to pro glass where I can, but I obviously don't have the money to go crazy.

That's a long-winded answer to a short question

I highly recommend joining the Fred Miranda board if you haven't already, as there are a ton of great deals on there for both camera bodies and lenses. I've never had a bad experience with buying used from a respectable site (FM and POTN).

I'll definitely look on those sites. Either of you two used KEH before?

[smmokan]

The 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 are obviously the cream of the crop... But be prepared to carry a LOT of weight. That's a big deal for me, but if you don't care then I think those are your answers.

Never used KEH, but one of my photog friends swears by it.

[mtcham]

The VR is quite nice to have. I have /had several lenses without and always think they would be so much better with VR, but you learn good technique especially with long lenses and no VR. I looked at the 80-200, 70-200 VRI and 70-200VRII and the VRII gave me the best results and it also takes a 1.4 TC well. I also have the 70-300mm and it's better on the full frame than a cropper, but not great. If you travel with your gear weight may be a consideration also.

I buy used from my local camera store or from Fred Miranda(always check seller's feedback). I usually put up a WTB on FM when I'm looking for something. Never have used KEH.

Camera bodies devalue quickly where good glass holds it's value.

Good Luck!

[Plainview]

I shoot with a DX camera and the 16-85 almost never gets taken off. That's the equivalent of the 24-120 on the D750. It's a fantastic range that will cover 90% of what you'll want to shoot. Every review I've read of the 24-120 f4 says that it's a very sharp lens, so that's where I'd start, especially since great deals on the D750 bundled with 24-120 come along frequently. For telephoto I'd pick up the previous generation 300mm f4 G and a 1.4 TC. They're going for very reasonable money now that the new 300 f4 PF is starting to trickle into the market and I'd definitely buy used. Keep an eye on Craigslist and Ebay for the best deals. It's real hard to screw up a prime lens like that, so any one that's been well taken care of will work great. 300 with the option of the 1.4 TC gives you some flexibility in the focal length and that lens is sharp, sharp, sharp. The best BiF pics I've ever taken have been with that lens. Down the road you can pick up a wider angle but until then good technique will allow you to stitch pics with the excellent stitching software that's available out there now.

For a more flexible and cheaper telephoto option the 70-300 VR is a good deal. I'm not sure why it would be better on an FX vs. a DX camera? The DX is only seeing the center of the image circle which is the sharpest part with the least CA. I've had excellent results with the 70-300. It's nowhere near the 300 f4, but it does produce good results when used properly.

Here's my favorite photo of a Northern Harrier shot with the 300 f4 (which would be pretty much what you could expect with the 300 f4 + 1.4 TC):



Here are two examples of the 70-300:

[Supermoon]

Thanks. Love that Harrier shot!

I've decided on the 24-120 for now. I know that I can sell it later for whatever I pay for it now whenever I want to upgrade. Or just get a WA zoom. I'll have my 50 1.8 if I need something faster than F4.

The tele is where I'm undecided. I know for the money the 300 is going to be the sharpest/best IQ, but I just worry that it'll be too long for everyday use.

I also know I'm over thinking it at this point, but hey, it's TGR.

[Plainview]

Thanks! For everyday use the 24-120 will cover most everything. The only time I take the 16-85 off my camera is if I'm shooting wildlife, then the 24-120 equivalent range is too short. It's hard to be too long when shooting wildlife and I often wish I had that 300 with the 1.4 TC myself. I rented the 300 when I shot that Harrier. The 70-300 is much lighter and does almost as good of a job so that's what I carry backpacking.

The 16 at the wide end (24mm equivalent) is wide enough to cover most landscape stuff. Later on down the road, if I was in your shoes, I'd just add something like the 12-24 or if you want to do milky way/star stuff something like the Rokinon 14mm f2.8 would be a great choice.

The great thing about the latest generation of cameras, like the D750, is that they are superb at higher ISOs, so f4 isn't the limitation it used to be. My first digital was a D200 and anything shot above ISO 400 was very noisy. My D7000 is quite good up to ISO 1600 and its sensor is way behind the most current offerings.

Here's another goat from that same series as above shot at ISO 800. I don't see any objectionable noise in this and a D750 should be even better.

[Bronic]

I'll definitely look on those sites. Either of you two used KEH before?

I've used it many times and always thought the product was in better shape than described. Certainly a bit more $ than ebay but you get a return guarantee and a trustworthy rating of used stuff. I'll check them before anywhere else looking at used glass