Nikon Full Frame - Lens Recommendations?

[WDWFigment]

Found a great deal on a D700 for less than half the price of a D800 locally (thank you, Craigslist!) and now I need some lenses. I'm looking for recommendations.

I already know I'm going to purchase the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. That has been my dream lens for a while. I also already own a Nikon 50mm f/1.8. I haven't used it much at all with my current setup (my go-to prime has been the Sigma 30mm f/1.4), but I think it'll become much more useful with the D700.

I have access to a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, and since money is somewhat of an issue, I won't be picking up a 70-200 right away.

Basically, this leaves me needing something that covers the 24-70 range. Obviously the Nikon 24-70 is a sterling option, but I'm wondering if there is something cheaper (perhaps from Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Rokinon, etc.) that might fill that void. I'd rather not spend a ton of money up front, but at the same time, if nothing compares to the Nikon, I don't want to waste money now on something I'll upgrade in a year anyway.

Or, are there any "wildcard" lenses I'm forgetting? An underlooked 'value' full frame prime? Something from Rokinon/Samyang that is off the radar?

 

[Experiment_626]

Stop upping your game! How do you expect the rest of us to keep up?!



I can't really speak from experience, but here's what Thom Hogan recommends for that range as a "budget FX" choice: The (deep breath) Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IF-ED AF-S. See the review at http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm

It's a lens you'll have to buy used, but the price isn't bad -- apparently available for "significantly less than $400." Not a fast lens at f/3.5 on the wide end and has a variable aperture. But it is an AF-S lens, focuses fast and has good optics (going from the review, of course). If you look at the link, he also addresses the newer 24-120 and why he recommends this lens instead. The only thing he recommends as a step up from the 24-85 is the one you mentioned as costing more than you want to spend at the moment.

Congrats on the D700. You know, yesterday was my birthday and I didn't get a blasted thing for photography. [Jedi Mind Trick] You want to send your D700 to me -- along with that 14-24 zoom; those are not the camera body and lens you're looking for ... [/Jedi Mind Trick]

SSB

 

[Gdad]

The Nikon 16-35 f/4 vr & 24-120 f/4 vr make a nice combo you can get for about the same price as the 14-24.

 

[TC09]

Congrats on the D700! I picked up mine used too, but didn't get as good a deal as you did.

I have the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 lens mentioned above and it really is sharp. Picked it up used for $280. I recently picked up a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 used (for $280 as well), but haven't taken enough pictures with it to comment on it.

Have you looked into the Rokinon 14mm f2.8? Just thought I'd ask since I know you have the Rokinon 8mm fisheye for DX.

 

[YesDear]

Tom I know you are very much into saving money but the Nikon Trifecta 14-24
24-70 and 70-200 are all amazing glass. The 24-70 is now my carry around lens. Please rent it and give it a try. Welcome to the world of full frame. I think you will like it!

 

[handicap18]

I bought the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 a few years back and while it is nicely built and is a good size, I was disappointed with it overall. Finding focus seemed to be a problem more often than I would like. I was doing a wedding and even in an area that had good lighting this lens was constantly hunting for focus and missed focus a lot. I had to ditch it and use the Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 for the rest of the wedding and it worked flawlessly. I don't know if I got a bad copy of that lens or not, but after that I pretty much never used it again and found a way to buy the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. The Nikon version is all its cracked up to be and more. Since I got that lens a little over a year ago I have used it almost exclusively. It finds focus almost instantly and I don't think its ever been off. It is super sharp. Image Quality is outstanding. For me it has been more than worth its expensive cost.

If your going to be using a full frame body now, that will tend to show off more of the flaws in any lens you use. As you grow and upgrade your equipment to more high end stuff, using lower quality tools with it is going to be more disappointing.

I was able to sell my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, but lost money on that deal.

 

[WDWFigment]

Stop upping your game! How do you expect the rest of us to keep up?!



I can't really speak from experience, but here's what Thom Hogan recommends for that range as a "budget FX" choice: The (deep breath) Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 IF-ED AF-S. See the review at http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm

It's a lens you'll have to buy used, but the price isn't bad -- apparently available for "significantly less than $400." Not a fast lens at f/3.5 on the wide end and has a variable aperture. But it is an AF-S lens, focuses fast and has good optics (going from the review, of course). If you look at the link, he also addresses the newer 24-120 and why he recommends this lens instead. The only thing he recommends as a step up from the 24-85 is the one you mentioned as costing more than you want to spend at the moment.

Congrats on the D700. You know, yesterday was my birthday and I didn't get a blasted thing for photography. [Jedi Mind Trick] You want to send your D700 to me -- along with that 14-24 zoom; those are not the camera body and lens you're looking for ... [/Jedi Mind Trick]

SSB

Ha, thanks. For some reason I now inexplicably want your mailing address so I can send you some camera gear. This is odd...

The Nikon 16-35 f/4 vr & 24-120 f/4 vr make a nice combo you can get for about the same price as the 14-24.

The more I read about the 16-35mm, the more tempted I am to do this, but I am a huge ultra-wide angle 'fan', and I just know I wouldn't be content with that lens. I ended up owning BOTH the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 8-16mm (and still do...for now...) because the Tokina wasn't wide enough, but the Sigma couldn't accept filters.

Now, the lens I want to buy doesn't accept filters and doesn't have VR, but is wider and has f/2.8. I think I can get past the filter thing, and VR would be nice...but ultimately here we're talking about redundant thousand-dollar plus lenses, whereas owning both the Sigma & Tokina UWA lenses was a $1,000 total expense.

Congrats on the D700! I picked up mine used too, but didn't get as good a deal as you did.

I have the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 lens mentioned above and it really is sharp. Picked it up used for $280. I recently picked up a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 used (for $280 as well), but haven't taken enough pictures with it to comment on it.

Have you looked into the Rokinon 14mm f2.8? Just thought I'd ask since I know you have the Rokinon 8mm fisheye for DX.

I have heard good things about the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, but I'm not going to mess with it. My dream lens for a while has been that Nikon 14-24, and I'm going to shell out the coin for it...

Tom I know you are very much into saving money but the Nikon Trifecta 14-24
24-70 and 70-200 are all amazing glass. The 24-70 is now my carry around lens. Please rent it and give it a try. Welcome to the world of full frame. I think you will like it!

I am definitely into saving money, but I also spend it when I see the need to do so. Because of that, after doing some research, I think the Nikon 24-70 will be my next purchase after the Nikon 14-24. It probably won't be for a little while, but I can justify it as an investment.

As for the 70-200, I have access to the Tamron version. I've used both the Tamron and the Nikon (VR I, not II) fairly extensively, and while the Nikon is clearly better, it's low on my list right now of lenses to purchase. Maybe someday, though!

I bought the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 a few years back and while it is nicely built and is a good size, I was disappointed with it overall. Finding focus seemed to be a problem more often than I would like. I was doing a wedding and even in an area that had good lighting this lens was constantly hunting for focus and missed focus a lot. I had to ditch it and use the Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 for the rest of the wedding and it worked flawlessly. I don't know if I got a bad copy of that lens or not, but after that I pretty much never used it again and found a way to buy the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. The Nikon version is all its cracked up to be and more. Since I got that lens a little over a year ago I have used it almost exclusively. It finds focus almost instantly and I don't think its ever been off. It is super sharp. Image Quality is outstanding. For me it has been more than worth its expensive cost.

If your going to be using a full frame body now, that will tend to show off more of the flaws in any lens you use. As you grow and upgrade your equipment to more high end stuff, using lower quality tools with it is going to be more disappointing.

I was able to sell my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, but lost money on that deal.

So another vote for the Nikon 24-70? May I have your guys' addresses so Sarah knows where to send the hate mail?

 

[traylorc]

Another vote for the Nikon 24-70mm....fantastic lens.

 

[rossb]

That 24-70 is big, heavy, expensive, and lacks VR. I'm patiently waiting for my D800 to be delivered. My old AF-D Nikkors will be going back into service, unfortunately they also lack VR. I'm eventually going to get a consumer level Nikkor FX zoom with VR.

 

[traylorc]

That 24-70 is big, heavy, expensive, and lacks VR. I'm patiently waiting for my D800 to be delivered. My old AF-D Nikkors will be going back into service, unfortunately they also lack VR. I'm eventually going to get a consumer level Nikkor FX zoom with VR.

That may be....but IMHO it's still a great lens.

With great pictures, comes great sacrifice.

 

[wbeem]

I use the Nikon Trifecta. However, you could get by with the 28-300 & the 14-24...unless you need fast glass above 24mm. I'm going to get that 28-300 and use this combo for travel. Carrying all three lenses is heavy.

 

[WDWFigment]

I use the Nikon Trifecta. However, you could get by with the 28-300 & the 14-24...unless you need fast glass above 24mm. I'm going to get that 28-300 and use this combo for travel. Carrying all three lenses is heavy.

We've never met, so you wouldn't know this, but I'm very well-known for my almost inhuman strength. Seriously. Usually when people mention the name "Tom," they don't follow it with, "the guy who likes to take Disney photos." They follow it with, "the ridiculously tough human male." I can easily carry these three lenses while laughing like a pirate. It's no big deal.



Okay, so perhaps I'm not quite that tough. I really am not concerned about weight, though. On an average day in the park, I carry around 25 pounds of gear. I'd much rather have heavy good gear than light mediocre gear.

 

[traylorc]

We've never met, so you wouldn't know this, but I'm very well-known for my almost inhuman strength. Seriously. Usually when people mention the name "Tom," they don't follow it with, "the guy who likes to take Disney photos." They follow it with, "the ridiculously tough human male." I can easily carry these three lenses while laughing like a pirate. It's no big deal.

As someone who is also named "Tom", I can personally vouch for the accuracy of his statement regarding of being "the ridiculously tough human male".

It's a burden all "Toms" must carry....

 

[handicap18]

That 24-70 is big, heavy, expensive, and lacks VR. I'm patiently waiting for my D800 to be delivered. My old AF-D Nikkors will be going back into service, unfortunately they also lack VR. I'm eventually going to get a consumer level Nikkor FX zoom with VR.

I have as of yet found the need for VR using this lens. Unless you want to do a lot of very low light no flash stuff for subjects that aren't moving, then it would come in handy. That is if you don't have a good tripod.

While VR would be a nice addition, I think it is not needed and would just add extra cost to something that is already a high priced item.

Now the 70-200mm f/2.8 I do think the VR is useful and necessary. It is a much heavier lens and the longer the focal length the harder it becomes to hold the lens steady.

 

[Gdad]

So what are you doing for an FX fisheye? I really like the Sigma 15mm f2.8.

 

[WDWFigment]

So what are you doing for an FX fisheye? I really like the Sigma 15mm f2.8.

This is probably surprising given my propensity for fisheye photos, but I'm not getting one right away.

I'm keeping my D7000 (I need it for video, anyway), so I'm going to keep the Rokinon 8mm fisheye and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 to use with it.

My plan for now is to just buy the 14-24mm f/2.8, giving me that and the 50mm f/1.8 with the D700. I also have access to the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. After a bit, I'll pick up the 24-70mm f/2.8, and then sell the Tamron 17-50mm. After that I'll pick up a fisheye (probably the Sigma you mentioned) and sell my Rokinon.

You've used an assortment of primes, right? Any you recommend?

 

[Gdad]

You've used an assortment of primes, right? Any you recommend?

I've always been partial to fast/wide primes- I like the Sigma 20/1.8 or either the Nikon 24/1.4 or 28/1.4 if you want to spend that much.

You loved the Sigma 30/1.4 and the 50/1.4 is even better- I like it much better than the old or new Nikon version.

My favorite macro lenses were the old Nikon 105/2.8 AIS or the Tamron 90/2.8

On the longer end of things the Nikon 180/2.8 is awesome- a great bargain you can pick up used pretty cheap and it takes up hardly any room in the camera bag (compared to a 70-200/2.8 anyway.)

 

[WDWFigment]

I've always been partial to fast/wide primes- I like the Sigma 20/1.8 or either the Nikon 24/1.4 or 28/1.4 if you want to spend that much.

You loved the Sigma 30/1.4 and the 50/1.4 is even better- I like it much better than the old or new Nikon version.

My favorite macro lenses were the old Nikon 105/2.8 AIS or the Tamron 90/2.8

On the longer end of things the Nikon 180/2.8 is awesome- a great bargain you can pick up used pretty cheap and it takes up hardly any room in the camera bag (compared to a 70-200/2.8 anyway.)

Yes! These are the kind of recommendations I love. Under-the-radar value lenses (sort of like the Rokinon 8mm fisheye once was). If you have any others, let me know!

 

[YesDear]

Tom: I have a Nikon 50mm 1.2 MF lens that Jeff put me on to. It is amazing on the D700. Pretty easy to find on Ebay.

 

[WDWFigment]

Thanks - another great tip.

Anyone tried the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4? I've heard some really good things about that lens...