I've been shooting a D5100 (first real camera I've owned) for about 4 years, and I just upgraded to a D750 (should get it Wednesday!!). This move is to make extra money, but definitely also to take better shots. The D5100 was more than I needed when I got it, but its limitations have been doing my head in for over a year now. Not being one to half-step, I went full frame, and I'm giddy.
The only FX lens I own is the 50mm 1.8G. I'm most fond of taking landscape, macro, and any shot that flexes strong bokeh, but I know that I'll need to be able to take good portraits if I'm going to make any money doing this, at least at first. So, my dilemma is which lens(es?) to purchase next.
I read that the 14-24mm is the standard ultra-wide zoom, but I'm much more a fan of primes. What would be a good focal length for low-elevation landscapes and east coast mountain images?
For a prime/portrait lens, I'm really leaning toward the 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR, but I also have my eye on the 105mm f/2.0 AF DC. Should I also be considering the 85mm 1.8G? (could I get away with something like the Mitakon 85mm f/2.0 for strictly macro shots?)
Thanks for any help!
The only FX lens I own is the 50mm 1.8G. I'm most fond of taking landscape, macro, and any shot that flexes strong bokeh, but I know that I'll need to be able to take good portraits if I'm going to make any money doing this, at least at first. So, my dilemma is which lens(es?) to purchase next.
I read that the 14-24mm is the standard ultra-wide zoom, but I'm much more a fan of primes. What would be a good focal length for low-elevation landscapes and east coast mountain images?
For a prime/portrait lens, I'm really leaning toward the 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR, but I also have my eye on the 105mm f/2.0 AF DC. Should I also be considering the 85mm 1.8G? (could I get away with something like the Mitakon 85mm f/2.0 for strictly macro shots?)
Thanks for any help!