Help: Nikon D750 Lens Choice

T

TieuNgao

Senior Member
Based on several reviews, the Sigma Art 24-105mm f/4 is slightly better than the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 and it's also cheaper (the Nikon will be cheaper if you buy as a kit lens bundled with D750). It'd be a good walk-around & travel lens before you invest more on great prime lenses.
The Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is also too inexpensive to ignore.
For tele zoom I'd go for Nikon 70-200mm f/4, arguably the best value and paired well with the D750.
For wide-angle lens I'm thinking Sigma Art 24mm f/1.4 for best quality or Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 for best value.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
TieuNgao said:
For wide-angle lens I'm thinking Sigma Art 24mm f/1.4 for best quality or Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 for best value.
Click to expand...

I have the 18-35mm and like the lens. It's not wonderful throughout the range, the 35mm is a bit weaker, but all in all it's a great lens for the money they ask. If you use the right range/aperture she can be very sharp.

As wides, I use the Samyangs. The 14mm and 24mm are both sharp as a butcher knife but you have to know how to handle the distortion. The 14 f/2.8 is ridiculously cheap for such a sharp lens, the 24mm f/1.4 costs a bit more. Oh, and they're manual focus only but for what they deliver, I'd even feed them cookies if that was needed.
 
Last edited:
S

Slipperman

Senior Member
just today i ordered the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro for $550 from B&H (on sale til Wed 3/4).

before that, the Nikkor 24-85 AFS f/3.5 for about $700 and the Tamron 70-300 f/4.0 Di Macro for about $200. the Tamron being cheaper because it's an older lens (at least i think). works fine though.

also have a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 prime that i got last year. i figured i have all my bases covered now.

what helped me find not only lenses for FX format but prices as well was this site..
neocamera
 
Last edited:
I

Ironwood

Senior Member
While the Tamron 70-200 is without a doubt a fantastic lens, and will be great for portraits and longer shots. But if your budget only allows for one lens for you to get started I think it will be too long and will restrict you too much.
You state that you want the lens for parties, weddings etc, I think you would be better off getting a standard zoom for your first lens, e.g. 24-70, or the one Marcel has mentioned, the 24-120, you can still do portraits with one of these lenses. Then get a 70-200 next when your budget allows.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
undercoverbrother said:
Hi J-See

I believe this is the lens we are talking about please correct me if wrong (price $1289 AUD).

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Lens

how do you like the lens for portraits ?
Click to expand...

That's her. I only have the lens for a bit so I can only say something about speed and sharpness. For portraits I'm the wrong person to ask since I shoot people as often as a shark eats vegetables.

What Ironwood said is good advice; if you only have one lens, 70mm is a bit at the long side for a lot of shots.
 
Last edited:
A

Ad B

Senior Member
Hi,
TieuNgao said:
Based on several reviews, the Sigma Art 24-105mm f/4 is slightly better than the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 and it's also cheaper (the Nikon will be cheaper if you buy as a kit lens bundled with D750)...
Click to expand...
The minor thing is that the Sigma lens isn't environment sealed at all, while the Nikon is better protected (as far as I know...).
Something that I think is quite important for a walk around lens.
I enjoy the Nikon 24-120 lens a lot.
It even works very well with my Kenko 1.4 Telepus Pro 300 extender to get a longer (170 mm) lens.
(If I don't want to walk around with more than one lens, leaving my 70-200 F4 lens home).

Ad B
 
B

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
I'm surprised how many people are recommending zooms. They certainly are versatile, and I use them a lot, but prime lenses are easier to make, and therefore cheaper, usually faster, and all rate higher on DxoMark scores for sharpness than the zooms.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Blade Canyon said:
I'm surprised how many people are recommending zooms. They certainly are versatile, and I use them a lot, but prime lenses are easier to make, and therefore cheaper, usually faster, and all rate higher on DxoMark scores for sharpness than the zooms.
Click to expand...

They're not that much cheaper if you have to fill the 14mm-200mm range with primes only.

I'm a prime fan but if there are zooms just as sharp, I don't mind a zoom at all. They're darn handy.

14mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm, 200mm prime: that's still a decent price you have to pay.

I just checked DxO and used the prices there. I have that range of primes I mentioned without the 85mm and 105mm (200mm is a macro) and the DxO dollar price was 3200. Not that cheap for five primes. I didn't even know how much money I was investing in glass until I calculated this.
 
Last edited:
C

Chris E

Senior Member
Blade Canyon said:
I'm surprised how many people are recommending zooms. They certainly are versatile, and I use them a lot, but prime lenses are easier to make, and therefore cheaper, usually faster, and all rate higher on DxoMark scores for sharpness than the zooms.
Click to expand...

I bet your eye at under normal viewing circumstances can't tell the difference between one of the zooms discussed here and one of the primes. Only if you pixel peep can you start seeing some difference, maybe, in a perfect situation. I take those scores at DXO Mark etc. as only one piece of info to make a decision.

I use zooms because I don't want to carry around alot of different lenses, and I don't want to have to move or crop alot to get the composition I want. Plus, like I implied I believe it is getting a little too anal complaining about sharpness of primes and test scores vs one of these good zooms.

Now that I have the D750, I sold my D7100 and the 16-85 and 10-24 to a friend, I will probably buy the 20 1.8 prime for wide angle uses and astro photography because I will not pay high dollar for one of the wide angle Nikon zooms. But other than my macro I see no need to get other primes for what I shoot. Maybe portrait people can get better use of primes than me....

And to stay on topic, I have the 24-120 f4 and highly recommend it, regardless of what the 'tests' say. What helps as well is the great price of it bundled with the D750.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Chris E said:
I bet your eye at under normal viewing circumstances can't tell the difference between one of the zooms discussed here and one of the primes. Only if you pixel peep can you start seeing some difference, maybe, in a perfect situation. I take those scores at DXO Mark etc. as only one piece of info to make a decision.
Click to expand...

There is a degree of sharpness we hardly notice at first sight and only when used to the lenses, we are aware which is sharper but if the difference gets bigger, you don't need to pixel-peep to see that directly.

If one of my lenses scores 15/16 at optical sharpness and I shoot a 19, it directly shows why she scores 19. But in the end, it's what you are satisfied with. The only problem is that once you get used to a certain sharpness, it's hard to go lower. Best is to buy all your lenses in the same range to avoid the constant urge to upgrade.

Not that anyone of us does that. ;)
 
B

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
Chris E said:
I bet your eye at under normal viewing circumstances can't tell the difference between one of the zooms discussed here and one of the primes.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you look back in the thread, I recommended two primes plus one zoom for his budget. My point is that most of the recommendations are for zooms, and there are some great primes for low prices.

I carried a Nikon 28-300 zoom all over Manhattan for three days, so I'm well aware of the versatility of zooms. I have also been building my stable of the great 2.8 Nikon zooms (though the 24-70 is the new Tamron).

My first negative experience with a zoom, however, was in college back in the film days. I could never get a really crisp shot, so I traded it for a prime 105, and even shot sports with that.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
So true. Once I saw what top-notch glass could do, that was it... I was hooked. I'm not satisfied with anything less now.

It's horrible, really...
.....
Click to expand...

I have my set about complete but after taking some shots with the 70-200mm and then shooting the 150-600mm again I went "hmmm...."

I've always considered the Big Tam sharp enough but now after doing some similar shots with both, I get this urge again. Luckily there's nothing left in that range that costs money I'm willing to pay.
 
C

Chris E

Senior Member
J-see said:
There is a degree of sharpness we hardly notice at first sight and only when used to the lenses, we are aware which is sharper but if the difference gets bigger, you don't need to pixel-peep to see that directly.

If one of my lenses scores 15/16 at optical sharpness and I shoot a 19, it directly shows why she scores 19. But in the end, it's what you are satisfied with. The only problem is that once you get used to a certain sharpness, it's hard to go lower. Best is to buy all your lenses in the same range to avoid the constant urge to upgrade.

Not that anyone of us does that. ;)
Click to expand...

So, look at the various pictures on this forum and around the internet, and in print. Can you tell which ones were shot with a prime and which ones were shot with a zoom? Even side by side, there are tangibles that go into sharpness that depend on the user. I see alot of crap in magazines....I get some travel magazines and the pix are horrible, probably from alot of primes. I would put that pic I posted of the windmill in best of first time out with the camera, shot with the deplorable :) 24-120 at f16 without tripod, and the stuff you have been posting at night, against most of the stuff I see in mags or anywhere. I stand by my assertion that 99% of the time for most of our uses a zoom is just fine, especially the ones under discussion...chasing speed of primes when DOF is so shallow and lugging all of those primes around is not something I am into. Sharp photos can be achieved with these good zooms easily with good technique...the same technique required to shoot sharp photos with primes and that sharpness difference will be negligible in the real world. Again, depending on what the OP wants to use it for.

The OP asked for advice, I assume for general use and advising a prime(s) is different from what I suggest. The OP can take all opinions into account and make the decision he/she can live with.....we just offer opinions on what works best for each of us :).

But, I see what you mean by wanting more once you experience it. A few years back I had my heart set on a BMW 335, that is until I test drove an M3. That test drive cost me about $20k.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Chris E said:
So, look at the various pictures on this forum and around the internet, and in print. Can you tell which ones were shot with a prime and which ones were shot with a zoom?
Click to expand...

Nope, I probably would not see which shot has been taken with what sort of lens, or even what type of camera. I would see a difference in quality between shots but such depends on many factors but good lenses make it easier to get good shots. But again, I can't tell you what was used to get that photo. But that's not the problem.

The problem is that I see how my lenses perform and it's pretty hard to ignore those differences when I'm constantly subjected to them.

But for others, they have to decide what they want and how much they are willing to pay. But the one lens is not the other and people have to decide what they want, or what performance they expect. Some sharp lenses are not even the most expensive. Others are.
 
C

Chris E

Senior Member
Blade Canyon said:
Yes, if you look back in the thread, I recommended two primes plus one zoom for his budget. My point is that most of the recommendations are for zooms, and there are some great primes for low prices.

I carried a Nikon 28-300 zoom all over Manhattan for three days, so I'm well aware of the versatility of zooms. I have also been building my stable of the great 2.8 Nikon zooms (though the 24-70 is the new Tamron).

My first negative experience with a zoom, however, was in college back in the film days. I could never get a really crisp shot, so I traded it for a prime 105, and even shot sports with that.
Click to expand...

Understood, and I am not really slamming people that like primes; I am just saying that for the most part it is negligible vs the inconvenience that I personally would have with primes. For $1k I would recommend the 28-300....I student in a class I took with Bryan Peterson in Key West in January had one on a D610. I was pretty impressed. I had such a blast I'm actually taking a workshop with him in NY in August, and spending a few more days there afterwards. Any suggestions on pic locations? I've never been there.

Have you tried the 20 1.8g yet? I'm waiting for some reviews on astrophotography capabilities.
 
Top