Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Porkibear" data-source="post: 280173" data-attributes="member: 22251">So I just placed the order for a new D610.&nbsp; I'm happy with my decision because I was initially torn between the D610 and D7100. Coming from DX with a D5100, this will be a dramatic jump for me in terms of camera performance.&nbsp; I have no FX lens currently,&nbsp; and that decision was also vert difficult for me because of budget and evaluating what type of shots I normally take.&nbsp; After reviewing a lot of my images, I mostly do a lot of landscape and portraiture of family and friends.&nbsp; I also like macro photography (i own a 40mm 2.8 micro DX), and also do use telephoto when shooting candid portraits and sporting events like car races.&nbsp; After a lot of research, I decided to go with a 16-35mm f4 UW and a 50mm 1.4 instead of a kit lens.&nbsp; I figured the 16-35 will get me great landscape sharpness, and the 50mm will be my walk around portrait lens.&nbsp; I currently have my 35mm 1.8G on the d5100 and find myself using that lens more than anything.&nbsp;&nbsp; I also figured owning a telephoto zoom on the FX body wasn't as important to me as getting the sharpest pictures possible and/or the best bokeh on portraiture. I also like to do long exposures...like nightscapes...so I was wondering if the 16-35mm would be a good lens for that.&nbsp; (I know the 14-24 trumps it in low light but I cant afford that glass at this point).&nbsp; I want to try night sky photography of the milky way.&nbsp; Anyone use the 16-35 for that?What do you all think of these lens choices I made?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Porkibear, post: 280173, member: 22251"] So I just placed the order for a new D610. I'm happy with my decision because I was initially torn between the D610 and D7100. Coming from DX with a D5100, this will be a dramatic jump for me in terms of camera performance. I have no FX lens currently, and that decision was also vert difficult for me because of budget and evaluating what type of shots I normally take. After reviewing a lot of my images, I mostly do a lot of landscape and portraiture of family and friends. I also like macro photography (i own a 40mm 2.8 micro DX), and also do use telephoto when shooting candid portraits and sporting events like car races. After a lot of research, I decided to go with a 16-35mm f4 UW and a 50mm 1.4 instead of a kit lens. I figured the 16-35 will get me great landscape sharpness, and the 50mm will be my walk around portrait lens. I currently have my 35mm 1.8G on the d5100 and find myself using that lens more than anything. I also figured owning a telephoto zoom on the FX body wasn't as important to me as getting the sharpest pictures possible and/or the best bokeh on portraiture. I also like to do long exposures...like nightscapes...so I was wondering if the 16-35mm would be a good lens for that. (I know the 14-24 trumps it in low light but I cant afford that glass at this point). I want to try night sky photography of the milky way. Anyone use the 16-35 for that? What do you all think of these lens choices I made? [/QUOTE]

Verification