Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Lens choice for nikon D750

Moakesy

Moakesy

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 1, 2013
576
1,209
UK
I'm just about to take the plunge and upgrade to full frame, going for the Nikon D750.....however, I remain undecided about the lens choice.....

First, let me say that I'm a keen amateur who takes a mixture of images....family, sports shots (mountain bike races etc) and then holiday stuff. I do enjoy macro work....when I get the time.

I don't think I can justify the pro level f/2 lenses, so it's a choice between

- the 28-300mm f/ 3.5 - 5.6
- go with a pair of f/4 lenses, with the 28-120mm & 70-200mm

Cost wise there is a big difference....£650 for the 'do-it-all' superzoom, or £1500+ for the f/4.

I know the old adage of investing in glass, which I'm prepared to do, but given the power of digital correction, VR etc....I just wondered what the common view is here?

Has anyone here tried both and can give a real world comparison. Highly technical charts from online review tend to lose me and turn me off....I don't understand any of the graphs they show!

Thanks
 
I know where you are coming from with this post. About 6 months ago I switched from a D300 to a D750 and faced the same dilemma.

Online requests such as yours tend to elicit a wide range of often contradictory replies. For every one who says get the 24- 70 you will find others who prefer the 24-120 or the 28-300, all for valid reasons. For the opinions of someone respected and not as controversial as Ken Rockwell, check out Thom Hogan http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses-2.html
 
I use the 14-24 f2.8 for mostly landscapes.
The 24-70 f2.8 for every day stuff.
70-200 f2.8 gets the least outings (as its heavy).
70-300 f3.5-5.6 because it's light and small for the reach.
105 f2.8 for macro.
All work fine for their roles, but depends on what you need the most as to which to buy.
 
Apple fanboy said:
I use the 14-24 f2.8 for mostly landscapes.
The 24-70 f2.8 for every day stuff.
70-200 f2.8 gets the least outings (as its heavy).
70-300 f3.5-5.6 because it's light and small for the reach.
105 f2.8 for macro.
All work fine for their roles, but depends on what you need the most as to which to buy.
Click to expand...


Wow, that's quite a collection!!

How do you find the images from the 70-300 compared to the f2.8's?
 
Moakesy said:
Wow, that's quite a collection!!

How do you find the images from the 70-300 compared to the f2.8's?
Click to expand...
See for yourself.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/image-iq-what-would-you-pick.1875960/
My main issue with the 70-200 is that if I'm carrying that I can't bring all of the others (and my spare D7100 body).
Yes I could get a bigger bag, but there gets a point when you think how much do I want to carry?
The advantage of the 70-200 is I can use my 2 X TC with it.
Of course I quite like the 200-500 Nikon released but that would be even heavier!
 
If you are on a budget, try to find the lenses that fit your needs best. I knew that I wanted the 24-70mm because from time to time I would rent it for my D90. When it wasn't available to rent, I rented the 28-70mm. What I found out with them both was that the 24-70mm focused a little bit faster in low light. People will tell you to get it because on the D750 or any other Nikon DSLR its a BEAST.

You should look at the 24-120mm f/4 since the 24-70mm is out of your price range. This will give you a nice wide angle and some reach around 100-200mm. I thought I would be fine with the 70mm but it looks like that I will need to get the 70-200mm which I loved shooting.


If you go with the 24-120mm, you probably can look at the 85mm (portraits) or 105mm for macro. Sports you will definitely need something longer and that steps down to atleast f/4 or lower. Maybe shoot with the 24-120mm and then later get the 70-200mm f/4 or f/2.8.
 
Well....I'll start with the first one I always recommend. The Nikon 50mm F1.8. No matter what else you decide to get go ahead and pick this one up too. It's dirt cheap (in FX lens terms) and it's a beautiful lens on the D750. Trust me, unless you hate the 50mm focal length, this is a must have on the D750 and it makes for a light and compact setup (for a DSLR).

Another thing...I went from a D90 to a D750 about 9 months ago. A 12mp camera to a 24mp camera. Most folks wouldn't look at it like this but I can crop a D750 image up to 50% and have the same size image as my D90 but with better IQ. I haven't really decided yet what "pro" lenses I want but being able to crop like that makes a 24-85 or a 24-120 a useable option for awhile even if you want something longer.

For the past 9 months I've been using a 24-85 and the 50 for stills and it's worked out pretty well. I bought the 24-85 used to hold me over while I thought it all out. I do a lot of landscape and adventure (climbing, hiking, etc...) and I want something a bit more compact than the 24-70 / 70-200 combo. The 24-85 isn't going to cut it for the long run but I'm close to switching to all primes for outdoor adventures. I change my mind every other day though.

I recently made the mistake of renting a Zeiss 21mm and the images were the best I've seen on my D750 so far. I'm having a hard time resisting making some "lifetime" investments in Zeiss glass. That's what has me leaning towards something like a 20, 50, 85 prime kit and something crazy like the Sigma 150-600 for wildlife (that's more just for fun with me). I'm also considering something like a 20 prime and the 24-120 as my outdoor kit.

If you do start looking at pro glass I'd suggest renting it at least once to see if it really fits the bill for you. Also don't be afraid of used lens from the right source. I've had good luck with KEH.com and actually Amazon.

Oh...lastly...the D750 is pretty darn good with high ISO. I'll run it up to 4000 - 6000 without even thinking about it (for sports or indoor family stuff...not for landscapes). Just something to think about and it makes those f4 lens a real option.
 
Moakesy said:
...family, sports shots (mountain bike races etc) and then holiday stuff. I do enjoy macro work....when I get the time....given the power of digital correction, VR etc....I just wondered what the common view is here?
Click to expand...


The only problem shot I can see you have is mountain bike sports, the superzoom won't be able to freeze motion in dim light (winter, under trees). You will need to work out whether the quality at the ISO you will need is such that you find it acceptable. VR won't help freeze motion.
 
Moakesy said:
I'm just about to take the plunge and upgrade to full frame, going for the Nikon D750.....however, I remain undecided about the lens choice.....

First, let me say that I'm a keen amateur who takes a mixture of images....family, sports shots (mountain bike races etc) and then holiday stuff. I do enjoy macro work....when I get the time.

I don't think I can justify the pro level f/2 lenses, so it's a choice between

- the 28-300mm f/ 3.5 - 5.6
- go with a pair of f/4 lenses, with the 28-120mm & 70-200mm

Cost wise there is a big difference....£650 for the 'do-it-all' superzoom, or £1500+ for the f/4.

I know the old adage of investing in glass, which I'm prepared to do, but given the power of digital correction, VR etc....I just wondered what the common view is here?

Has anyone here tried both and can give a real world comparison. Highly technical charts from online review tend to lose me and turn me off....I don't understand any of the graphs they show!

Thanks
Click to expand...
The 28-300 is a great lens despite what some people might think or say. I recommend you rent it from a place like lensrentals.com and judge for yourself. I shoot with a D810 and the 28-300 gives me outstanding images. Now granted I can shoot at 3200 ISO and still get acceptable results (if it's not too dark) but if you're going to shoot sports during the day you shouldn't have a problem at 1600 ISO on the D750. Rent it and try it. That's your best bet.
 
Just more peanuts from the gallery -

Find all the lenses you think you might be interested in and consider the following
1) cost
2) ease of handling and carrying
3) quality of the lenses
4) type of photography that will be done the majority of the time

There are several sites that use and test various Nikon lenses and also lenses that will fit Nikon (like Sigma, Tokina and Tamron). These should help in deciding which lens has the least compromise. Zooms in particular often are inherently beset with drawbacks but some more than others.

Sometimes a lesser costing lens is a better lens for one's needs. As pointed out, some faster zooms are quite heavy and going to to the next stop* down zoom provide both a lighter option and similar quality of optics.

I think if you delve into the above, you'll find some candidates that meet your needs and hopefully, you can test them out at a camera store or rent them to see if they WORK FOR YOU (rather than you having to overly accommodate the lens offering).
 
Some great options there, thanks.

Its really made me think about how I take photos. Normally, apart from the summer holiday, I don't take my camera on long treks away from the house or car. Therefore a lightweight, do it all lens it not really my biggest priority.

For bike shots, it's can be either in the woods or quite dull, winters days, so need a good aperture.

Although I could stretch to the f2.8 lenses (at a push) my photography skills don't warrant it and so the f/4 lenses feel like the right choice. With the 50mm in there as well because, well, why wouldnt you at that price? :)

Thanks for all the advice, it made me think about how, when and what I shoot in a different way than I've ever done before. I just can't wait until the weekend now to go and buy!!

Cheers
 
On my D810 in the studio or mainly around wales and scotland I pack my 85mm f1.4G and my 70-200 f2.8, both excellent performers, best lenses on FF I have found over the years through my work with the military and some nature websites are primes (my Canon 5D and mkII with a 35mm was a workhorse of a set up only weak point was the battery life) a nice trilogy is 24, 50, 85...... or add a nice long tele if wildlife is your thing 400 or 500mm.

but have a look for some nice used primes if your budgets tight
 
I thought about mentioning, too, about renting which is how I found what I needed. But I saw that the OP lives in the UK thus the £ sign. So I wouldn't have mentioned lensrental.com lol They do have great service though.

I'm guessing you will probably end up with a few primes and atleast one zoom lens. I started using only my 50mm with my D90 and renting whatever I needed because when I first moved to Digital I bought a bunch of lenses and then later return them. When I got the D750 I added a kit zoom and a wide angle prime. Next I will add a long zoom to get that reach. What ever you get with the D750 will be nice. But if you go with one fast glass you will see more of the camera's potential. Today I was sitting in a low lit room and was messing around with the D750. I was really impressed how it followed subjects in low light. I bumped the ISO up and got a lot of photos in focus.


@Mr.Noisy I'm leaning towards the 85mm as my next lens.
 
I should stop looking at websites....the new 200-500mm looks nice!! Could go with the 24-120mm

Self restraint is not my strong point, although lack of availability in the uk could reign me in.

Making a decision on this is hard work, thought I was done until I wandered onto the Nikon lens website this morning after thinking there was a lot of overlap between the 24-120 and 70-200...effectively I only get an extra 80mm of range
 
Moakesy said:
I should stop looking at websites....the new 200-500mm looks nice!! Could go with the 24-120mm

Self restraint is not my strong point, although lack of availability in the uk could reign me in.

Making a decision on this is hard work, thought I was done until I wandered onto the Nikon lens website this morning after thinking there was a lot of overlap between the 24-120 and 70-200...effectively I only get an extra 80mm of range
Click to expand...
I've been eyeing the 200-500 myself. Especially as UK prices are going up on January 1st. Not sure if a 300mm prime 2.8 would be better as I have a 2x TC. Decisions decisions!
 
Apple fanboy said:
I've been eyeing the 200-500 myself. Especially as UK prices are going up on January 1st. Not sure if a 300mm prime 2.8 would be better as I have a 2x TC. Decisions decisions!
Click to expand...

I guess you'd get the same aperture using the TC, but without the flexibility of the zoom? IQ I'm guessing would be better though??

at the end of the day, it's a big investment so want to get it right.
 
Moakesy said:
I guess you'd get the same aperture using the TC, but without the flexibility of the zoom? IQ I'm guessing would be better though??

at the end of the day, it's a big investment so want to get it right.
Click to expand...
Same aperture but an extra 100mm reach.
The other option is just to rent a 600 when I need one. Decisions, decisions. It would be easy if I was broke. Trouble is I just have the money sitting there. Tempting.
 
Moakesy said:
I'm just about to take the plunge and upgrade to full frame, going for the Nikon D750.....however, I remain undecided about the lens choice.....

First, let me say that I'm a keen amateur who takes a mixture of images....family, sports shots (mountain bike races etc) and then holiday stuff. I do enjoy macro work....when I get the time.

I don't think I can justify the pro level f/2 lenses, so it's a choice between

- the 28-300mm f/ 3.5 - 5.6
- go with a pair of f/4 lenses, with the 28-120mm & 70-200mm

Cost wise there is a big difference....£650 for the 'do-it-all' superzoom, or £1500+ for the f/4.

I know the old adage of investing in glass, which I'm prepared to do, but given the power of digital correction, VR etc....I just wondered what the common view is here?

Has anyone here tried both and can give a real world comparison. Highly technical charts from online review tend to lose me and turn me off....I don't understand any of the graphs they show!

Thanks
Click to expand...

I bought the D750/24-120 lens combo last year. Over the last year, I purchased the Nikon 28-300mm and Tamron 15-30 lens. The 28-300 is the one that mostly stays on the D750 except when I want to do landscapes using the Tamron. The 28-300 recently broke (under warranty) so I am using the 24-120 for the time being.

Nikon has recently upgraded the 24-70 lens that already had good reviews.
 
That's interesting.

What are the reasons the 28-300 has become your main lens. Is it weight, zoom range or something else? Does it just suit you better?

Also, do you mind me asking how it broke? I never had a lens break on me, even similar DX lenses, so wonder about build quality of this particular 28-300?
 
Never had a lens break on me, but my D750 is off back to Nikon as the display at the bottom of the viewfinder has stopped working :(.
As a manual shooter, loosing that data was a real pain earlier this week.
So tomorrow will be back to my back up, D7100.
 
I seen this one in action, Very nice lens!.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/872406-REG/Nikon_AF_S_24_85mm_f_3_5_4_5G_ED.html

Moakesy said:
I'm just about to take the plunge and upgrade to full frame, going for the Nikon D750.....however, I remain undecided about the lens choice.....

First, let me say that I'm a keen amateur who takes a mixture of images....family, sports shots (mountain bike races etc) and then holiday stuff. I do enjoy macro work....when I get the time.

I don't think I can justify the pro level f/2 lenses, so it's a choice between

- the 28-300mm f/ 3.5 - 5.6
- go with a pair of f/4 lenses, with the 28-120mm & 70-200mm

Cost wise there is a big difference....£650 for the 'do-it-all' superzoom, or £1500+ for the f/4.

I know the old adage of investing in glass, which I'm prepared to do, but given the power of digital correction, VR etc....I just wondered what the common view is here?

Has anyone here tried both and can give a real world comparison. Highly technical charts from online review tend to lose me and turn me off....I don't understand any of the graphs they show!

Thanks
Click to expand...
 
I took the plunge yesterday and now have the D750, 24-120mm and the 105 macro, courtesy of Grays of Westminster (something of a legend for Nikon in the UK).

I spoke to the guy there, who gave me all sorts of options...explaining how for FX the margins of acceptable distortion in lenses has to be so much tighter (as things you'd get away with in a DX lens you can't in FX), and the relative merits of more expensive lenses.

After about 2 hours of chatting, and trying a variety of lenses, I decided on the above. I also put my name down for the 200-500 when it comes in, but will take a view on that at the time, as it is a good bit of money in there. Certainly worth the journey into London to get the quality of service from that place.

All the advice above really helped me think about my needs, and although I've only had the camera for less than 24 hours, I feel very happy with my decision. The capabilities of this camera are just incredible, especially in low light, so not having the fastest glass doesn't appear to be a major restriction so far.

Thanks again for comments and feedback....
 
Moakesy said:
I took the plunge yesterday and now have the D750, 24-120mm and the 105 macro, courtesy of Grays of Westminster (something of a legend for Nikon in the UK).

I spoke to the guy there, who gave me all sorts of options...explaining how for FX the margins of acceptable distortion in lenses has to be so much tighter (as things you'd get away with in a DX lens you can't in FX), and the relative merits of more expensive lenses.

After about 2 hours of chatting, and trying a variety of lenses, I decided on the above. I also put my name down for the 200-500 when it comes in, but will take a view on that at the time, as it is a good bit of money in there. Certainly worth the journey into London to get the quality of service from that place.

All the advice above really helped me think about my needs, and although I've only had the camera for less than 24 hours, I feel very happy with my decision. The capabilities of this camera are just incredible, especially in low light, so not having the fastest glass doesn't appear to be a major restriction so far.

Thanks again for comments and feedback....
Click to expand...

Good choice on the zoom, as it will cover most every need. The extra 4 mm from 28 to 24 makes a hugh difference.

On the Marco, I would have picked the Sigma 70mm macro, as it is known to be one of the sharpest Macros ever made.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/444462-USA/Sigma_270306_70mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html
 
Last edited:
Moakesy said:
I took the plunge yesterday and now have the D750, 24-120mm and the 105 macro, courtesy of Grays of Westminster (something of a legend for Nikon in the UK).

I spoke to the guy there, who gave me all sorts of options...explaining how for FX the margins of acceptable distortion in lenses has to be so much tighter (as things you'd get away with in a DX lens you can't in FX), and the relative merits of more expensive lenses.

After about 2 hours of chatting, and trying a variety of lenses, I decided on the above. I also put my name down for the 200-500 when it comes in, but will take a view on that at the time, as it is a good bit of money in there. Certainly worth the journey into London to get the quality of service from that place.

All the advice above really helped me think about my needs, and although I've only had the camera for less than 24 hours, I feel very happy with my decision. The capabilities of this camera are just incredible, especially in low light, so not having the fastest glass doesn't appear to be a major restriction so far.

Thanks again for comments and feedback....
Click to expand...
Enjoy. The combo of the D750 and 105 Macro is awesome. Not just for Macro either. I'm still thinking about that 200-500 mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back