Nikon D750: Lens recommendations

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mikethewxguy, Dec 22, 2014.

  1. mikethewxguy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    #1
    I'm going to be picking up Nikon D750 within the next couple of months. I have previously owned the D90, D7000 and D7100. I no longer have any of those and do not own any Nikon lenses/glass at the moment either.

    For the time being (for perhaps the next year), I'm only going to go with one lens...I primarily shoot family activities, travel, some sporting events and some work events as well (all of these are both indoor & outdoor activities). My lens budget is somewhere between $700-$1000.

    Right now, I'm leaning toward going with the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Lens

    [​IMG]

    If you were in my shoes and could only get one lens...which one would you go with (in/near my budget of $700-$1000)?

    Many thanks for your recommendations...

    Mike
     
  2. Apple fanboy macrumors P6

    Apple fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Behind the Lens, UK
    #2
    I'd look to second hand options. 24-70mm f 2.8 would be my choice. However given the list of activities you mention, I don't think there is a one fit all solution. A 28-300 tries to cover the whole range, but not without compromises.
     
  3. logista macrumors member

    logista

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    #3
    [Drat! I had a longer, more nuanced post but the forum software ate it]

    tl;dr: Decent general purpose lens.
    Cons: Some issues with speed, distortion, and weight. Draws people's attention.
    Pros: Relatively close focus distance, affordable super-zoom for interior and exterior use. Don't need to change lenses.
    Recommendation: Rent one if you can (I use LensRentals.com; some of my friends use BorrowLenses.com). If there's a deal for a camera + kit lens when you're ready to buy, consider just getting the kit since it's by definition general purpose.


    I have this lens, originally on a D90, now on a D600.

    It's not fast -- when you're zoomed out you're maxed at f/5.6, so at an event you'll need to depend on your camera's abilities at high ISO.

    There is some distortion, but most of the time it doesn't bother me, and when it does Lightroom usually takes care of it. I haven't been bothered by chromatic aberration (of course it's there, it's just not much of an issue).

    It is heavy (800g!) and when it is zoomed out you will get people staring at you. Not exactly good for candid street photography.

    It focuses at 18" which means you can be in the same room as your subject, or photograph table settings, etc. without standing on a chair to get distance.
     
  4. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #4
    Your post made me crinch. :eek:

    Please do not slap that lens on a D750! What is the point of a D750 with such a lens on it? It's a large, slow, slow focus and not too sharp (10mpx http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-ED-VR/(camera)/915)

    Listen to :apple:fanboy and get the 24-70 2.8 and the 85mm 1.8g. Excellent standard zoom + excellent prime!
    How about the nifty fifty? Or some samyang glass?

    And maybe you can still bring the body back, get a D610 and invest the savings in some killer-glass.
     
  5. JDDavis macrumors 65816

    JDDavis

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    #5
    I have to agree with Meister. Don't make that big of a compromise with the lens now that you bought that camera. I might consider the 24-120 f/4 that they sell as a kit with the D750. It gets good reviews and I considered it myself. No one lens will be the "one" unless you are willing to compromise and that's what the 28-300 or the 18-300 on DX is. Great lens but they are holding back the camera.

    I just bought a D750 and already have a 50mm so I took a chance on a used Nikkon 24-85 f2.8-4 that I got for less than $400. It gets solid reviews and at that price I thought I'd give it a try. Haven't taken a shot with it yet though.

    I'd say pick a prime, because you can't go wrong, 35, 50, or 85 and then think about the Tamron or Sigma versions of the 24-70 and 70-200. You'll always be glad you have the prime. I'd also consider the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. I've had good luck with the used market so far on lenses so I'll probably keep going that way.

    I'm going to stay with the 50mm and the 24-85 for awhile on my new D750 and then figure out what I want to do on the long end later on down the road. I've rented the Sigma and Tamron 70-200s and they are good. Not having any other hands on experience with FX lens (except the 50mm) I would have to say that if I was forced to keep one lens today it would be the 50. I know exactly what it can do and that's produce rock solid results almost every time.

    BTW, if you want the ultimate do it all lens then go for the Sigma 50-500:eek:. It's a bit of a beast but it actually gets good reviews. I'm tempted to rent it and try it out on a trip.
     
  6. monokakata macrumors 68000

    monokakata

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawai'i
    #6
    Given this, the 28-300 makes good sense. Note the budget, you posters suggesting the 24-70 and other lenses at about twice the OP's budget, and also note the wide range of things he's planning to shoot.

    Given all this, I'd go for the 28-300. I have one, and I bought it before my D800 showed up (back when they were scarce) because I wanted a general-purpose lens. True, it wasn't long before I hit the home equity line of credit and got the 70-200, but the 28-300 was priced right and was (is) effective.

    Of course it's a compromise. Of course it's not as sharp as the others. I can see that easily when I'm processing what I've shot with it.

    And yet it's a handy lens, particularly because it can do moderate closeups as well as fairly wide and fairly long. I don't use mine all that much, but this week I'm headed to about 11,000' elevation in a desolate area to photograph a plane crash. I'll have to hike up about a mile over very rough country to get to the site. Guess which lens I'll have mounted.

    Effective photography's all about compromise anyway. In the OP's situation, the 28-300 is an excellent choice.
     
  7. JDDavis macrumors 65816

    JDDavis

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    #7
    Valid points monokakata and if the OP is ok with sacrificing quality for the convenience of haveing a "do it all" lens then the 28-300 is a viable option. I have to agree with Meister though, in if that's the case, why drop the coin on a D750? (I think that's where he was going). You could save a grand on a D610 and up the lens budget. If a one body / one lens combo at a value (that gave really good results, but not great) was the goal I'd go with the D7100 and a 18-300.

    I have spent a lot of time with a D90 and the 18-200 and then the 18-300. They are fabulous lenses for what they are meant to be and the 18-300 gave me tons of flexibilty when climbing and mountaineering. In the end, probably like you and the 28-300, I found that while they were great for what they are intended for, I wanted more and I got to the point where I was willing to sacrifice convenience for quality. I also found that I was using only the "sweet spot" of the lens anyway, avoiding the wide end and the long end because the quality was not there.

    Want a crazy low budget idea? How about a Nikkor 75-150 f/3.5 MF Series E AIS lens (circa early 80's). You can find one for around $150 and they work fine as MF lens on modern full frames. The reviews are great. I want to try one myself one day as well as the highly regarded 105mm f/2.5 AIS. I have a 135mm f/2.8 AIS and it's fun to use and is tack sharp if you manage to get the focus correct, though MF isn't for everyone.
     
  8. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #8
    That's what I meant. For the purpose and budget of the OP the D610 looks like the obvious choice.
    But if he is happier with the D750, then the 28-300 will suffice as a solide all purpose lens.

    I would however recommend to at least get the 50mm 1.8g just to see what the D750 is capable of.
     
  9. mikethewxguy thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    #9
    I truly appreciate the tremendous amount of feedback that has been shared in this posting.

    After some soul searching and further research...I'm now seriously considering allowing for an additional $600-$800 to likely picking up the 24-70mm 2.8 and possibly the 50mm 1.8 (thanks for pointing me towards these lenses all!).

    Sadly, I am unable to take advantage of the rental opportunities because I currently live overseas (Seoul, S. Korea)...

    I have not purchased the D750 as of yet...but but for all the research and thinking between it, the D610 and even the D7100...everything keeps me coming back to the D750.

    Again, many thanks for your recommendations and feedback...it has definitely helped me out!
     
  10. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #10
    If I could only have one lens it would NOT be an f/5.6 lens.

    But on the other hand if I had a $1,000 budget I'd own more than one lens even if I had to buy used.

    Also 300mm is just WAY to long for most normal subjects. What are you planing on shooting that requires a 300mm lens? For almost all normal, general photography with an FX sized (full frame) sensor a 135mm lens is long enough.

    Also do you really need the FX size sensor? If your budget is limited you might get better images with the smaller DX sensor because then you can afford more than one lens. You say you like the D750 but why?
     
  11. Rockadile macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    #11
    I would personally get the 24-120 f/4 and use the local rental house for your sporting needs.
     
  12. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #12
    You should get what you like most, but give it another thought.

    For your purposes there is no necessaty for the D750s AF module.
    The D610 is a steal and with the $$$$ saved you can get stellar lenses.
     
  13. VI™ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Location:
    Shepherdsturd, WV
    #13
    The kit is great. It gives you the 24-120 for a steep discount. I've used it several times but I'm selling mine. The f/4 isn't quite as wide as the f/2.8 on the 24-70, but you get nearly twice the focal length on the long end and VR, which will help with having to use slower exposure speeds. This won't help with having to stop action but you always have to option of under exposing and bringing it up in post or using a flash. It won't be quite as long as that 28-300, but it has a constant aperture and is probably a better lens. Super zooms usually have more elements and worse image quality vs. zooms that have less of a range and then primes.

    Except for my 16-35, I use f/2.8 zooms, but I did spend $4,200 on 3 lenses.
     
  14. Gav Mack macrumors 68020

    Gav Mack

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Sagittarius A*
    #14
    Still got my D90 and my stock 18-55 and 18-200 lenses, it's still good enough for me for another year or so.

    I am very fortunate that I have an utterly awesome free Nikon lens and accessories lending bank thanks to two very good friends - one shoots glamour photography and the other heavily into shooting jet ski events. You can guess who takes care of all their pc and Macintosh support if they need it :D
     
  15. JDDavis macrumors 65816

    JDDavis

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    #15
    Ha! Must be nice! :cool: I tend to be on the other end of this deal as the older brother / brother n law and more of a gear head. I get "hey, you just replaced your (insert piece of gear)...can I have your old one?".

    ----------

    You can't go wrong with the 50 no matter what camera you end up buying. Don't forget to consider the Tamron and Sigma versions of the 24-70 and the used market for some savings on the Nikon version. If "best in class" AF and ISO capability (D750) isn't a priority the D610 sure is a value at current prices. The only reason I opted for the D750 over the D610 was the low light AF and ISO.
     
  16. crowley213 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Location:
    Mexico
    #16
    For sure a versatile zoom could make sense considering you want to go only with one lens, but maybe keep also in mind:

    There is no lens that covers "everything", you will always have to make compromises. Ask yourself which compromises you are willing to make and which ones not! Personally I am not willing to make a compromise in image quality while I can deal with compromises reg. versatility.

    Coming from a D300 with the 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms I finally also got me the D750 with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art lens. At this moment only the 35mm lives on my D750 and it definitely changed my shooting style quite a bit. Yes, a zoom is versatile, but shooting prime lenses has at least for me now a total different quality.

    My "recommendation", but it is just my personal opinion: If you go for the D750 maybe think about a lens solution like the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 together with the Nikon 85mm f/1.8. They nearly fit into your original lens budget, will give you great image quality and cover quite some of your shooting requirements.

    A final, also just personal, thought regarding the often suggested "normal" prime lens. Most of the times the recommendation is in here the 50mm lens, but it could make sense to compare, before you buy, the 50mm focal length vs the 35mm focal length. I owe both lenses and personally like the 35mm focal length better. But as this is just personal preference it could make sense to try out first.

    Kind Regards Herbert
     
  17. Gav Mack macrumors 68020

    Gav Mack

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Sagittarius A*
    #17
    I know they both have at least ten lenses each, four flashguns at least between them if my SB-400 is not up to it and one has loads of lights too. Not an slr guru like they are so I tell them what I need the lens for and they give me a couple of suitable ones to choose from. I am far, far more capable using Lightroom and PS than taking photos! Can't be a master of all trades :D
     
  18. Dc2006ster, Dec 23, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2014

    Dc2006ster macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    #18
    http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/fx-nikkors/mid-range-zoom-nikon-fx/

    This link gives reviews of most of the lenses mentioned here. The 24-120 f4 is a great deal in the kit.

    http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/choosing-lenses/rationalizing-lenses.html

    This link makes some recommendations.

    I am in the process of switching from a D300 and am torn between the D610 and D750. I lust for the D750 but the D610 makes more sense for me and unless video is big deal for you I second the idea of going with a D610 and putting the savings into glass.

    http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/nikon-d750-review.html

    With the recent reports of D750 issues I will wait until I see if these are real problems or not but it is another reason why I lean to the D610 where the oil splatter issues seem to have been resolved.

    http://nikonrumors.com
     
  19. JDDavis macrumors 65816

    JDDavis

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2009
    #19
    I rented the D610 and I've owned a D750 for 2 days now. The D610 is a great camera and can't be beat at that current price. I'll say this though....now that I've seen what the D750 can do, I would not trade it for a D610. Not even knowing that I could get another lens with the savings. As far as video is concerned for me it's a non starter without an external mic on any DSLR. The D750 picks up focus motor noise just like the rest.

    What I love about the D750 so far...

    The low light capability is truly as good as they say. I've been utterly impressed with the AF in low light and the results. I've never let any other camera I've used utilize AUTO ISO because I'll underexpose to save noise. I've let the D750 roll with AUTO ISO up to 8000 so far and have been extremely pleased. It will simply leave the D610 in the dust in this arena.

    It's thinner and lighter than my D90. (it is wider)

    I can use my 1979 135mm f2.8 MF AIS lens on it. You load the lens info in the camera and the aperture, exposure, and focus aid all work. Basically it's now like any modern MF lens. I'm sure other Nikons do this but my D90 provided no info and it was shooting blind.

    I really like the U1 and U2 settings. Very useful.

    Things that I'm a bit meh about....

    I'm used to years of my D90 with a battery grip. No grip on the D750 for now so it feels a bit dainty in my hands.

    The silly pop up flash rattle I have on mine.

    I'm not really sure I have any use for the wireless functions at this point. I tried it out but turned it back off.

    I'm a little worried about snapping off the flippy screen one day.
     
  20. mofunk macrumors 68000

    mofunk

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Location:
    Americas
    #20
    Good advise here. I totally agree with the 24-70mm f/2.8 and a prime lens. #investinglass
     
  21. vpoms, Dec 23, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2014

    vpoms macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    #21
    I have this lens. I bought it together with Nikon D600 when it came out. I traveled a lot with it in the past two years: Europe, Mexico, East Coast, West Coast and a few places in-between.

    When I upgraded to D610, I kept it as my primary lens. Last year I got Nikon 85mm 1.8 lens and 16-35 zoom. After using 85/1.8, I started to realize the limitations of 28-300. I started to use 16-35 as an all-purpose lens and 85mm as my "Portrait/Headshot" lens.

    I always wanted 24-70 lens and, a few weeks ago I got D750 and 24-70 on sale. I have been using 24-70 and D750 almost exclusively since then. The image quality of 24-70 is head and shoulders above 28-300. However, 24-70 is significantly heavier than 28-300, and, $800 more expensive.

    I understand that 24-70 is about $800 above your budget. A few weeks ago you could've saved $300 if bought together with D750. To me, the image quality of 24-70 is well worth the price difference and additional weight.

    I have never used 24-120, but it maybe good compromise between 28-300 and 24-70, both in price and performance.

    I don't think that I will be using 28-300 that much anymore.

    VP
     
  22. vpoms macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    #22
    This may help: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...ED-VR-on-Nikon-D610___323_915_175_915_321_915

    Looks like 24-120 is a good compromise and the price is right.

    VP
     
  23. creativedogmedia macrumors 65816

    creativedogmedia

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    #23
    I sold my D300 and 17-55 a couple of days ago and picked up a D750 and now I sit....waiting impatiently for FedEx to drop off the 24-70 2.8....my opinion is once you have had really good glass there is no going back.
     
  24. Apple fanboy macrumors P6

    Apple fanboy

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    Behind the Lens, UK
    #24
    Agree.
     
  25. monokakata macrumors 68000

    monokakata

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawai'i
    #25
    Because I said I'd be using the 28-300 -- here's an image of it.

    On 15 December 1974, Navy Lt. John Wantz flew his RF-8 reconnaissance jet into Mauna Kea, Hawai'i, at about the 11,300' level. I don't know that the Navy ever learned why it happened.

    This is part of the wreckage. I offered Lt. Wantz my respects -- it's been just over 40 years since the crash, and it's not clear that every bit of him has been found and removed.

    I did put the 14-24 in my backpack, and 2013 12 26 051-2.jpg gives you a wide view of the site. All the others were made with the 28-300.
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page