Help me assemble my FX kit
- Thread starter Belo
- Start date
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Besides a budget I'd really need to know what your shooting needs and style are? One camera or two? Are you holding onto the D7100? Studio, landscape, wildlife, portrait?
You've obviously been there before, so you know the basics. I can't help you without more help from you.
You've obviously been there before, so you know the basics. I can't help you without more help from you.
I am a VERY BIG FAN of my Nikon 70-200VR F2.8. The Nikon 24-to 70 F2.8 is also supposed to be a great lens but I choose the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 which is supposed to be close to the Nikon, less expensive and has stabilization. These lenses are FX but will work just fine on your D7100 DX which I would keep. There is nothing like having fast quality glass.
I switched over from a D7000 to a D800 about 2 yrs ago. Here's what I decided on (and probably what I would do again, if I had the opportunity.)
14-24mm f/2.8
24-70mm f/2.8
28mm f/1.8G
85mm f/1.8G
105mm f/2.8
The wild card, IMO, is on the long end lens category and like Hippie suggested, it really depends on how you plan to use it. Because I've been in the market for a long telephoto, this range is something I've spent a lot of time looking into. The 70-300mm is a very nice and inexpensive way to get reach. The 80-400mm is also very nice but considerably more expensive than the 70-300mm and like the 200-400mm, doesn't play nice with TC's above 1.4. The 300mm f/4.0 is a very popular choice and according to Nasim is slightly better than the 80-400mm, however, it lacks the VR that makes the 80-400mm so versatile. Then there are the 300mm f/2.8G and 400mm f/2.8G, both are highly rated but also quite pricey. After weighing the pro's and con's, I went with the 300mm. For one, it is considered by most the sharpest lens Nikkor makes and is the lens others are most compared with. In addition, it is one of the very few (possibly only) Nikon lens that plays well with all the TC's, with the 2.0 being the least of the 3. Also important is that unlike the 400mm, the 300mm is relatively small, weighing about half that of the 400mm (6.4 lbs vs. 11.2), and is still capable of fitting in a normal camera bag.
14-24mm f/2.8
24-70mm f/2.8
28mm f/1.8G
85mm f/1.8G
105mm f/2.8
The wild card, IMO, is on the long end lens category and like Hippie suggested, it really depends on how you plan to use it. Because I've been in the market for a long telephoto, this range is something I've spent a lot of time looking into. The 70-300mm is a very nice and inexpensive way to get reach. The 80-400mm is also very nice but considerably more expensive than the 70-300mm and like the 200-400mm, doesn't play nice with TC's above 1.4. The 300mm f/4.0 is a very popular choice and according to Nasim is slightly better than the 80-400mm, however, it lacks the VR that makes the 80-400mm so versatile. Then there are the 300mm f/2.8G and 400mm f/2.8G, both are highly rated but also quite pricey. After weighing the pro's and con's, I went with the 300mm. For one, it is considered by most the sharpest lens Nikkor makes and is the lens others are most compared with. In addition, it is one of the very few (possibly only) Nikon lens that plays well with all the TC's, with the 2.0 being the least of the 3. Also important is that unlike the 400mm, the 300mm is relatively small, weighing about half that of the 400mm (6.4 lbs vs. 11.2), and is still capable of fitting in a normal camera bag.
Belo
Senior Member
Thanks Dave, I am with you on the 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and the 105mm 2.8 having owned these before and wouldn't think twice to get them again. I used the 14-24 and the 70-200 much more than the 24-70 as the range worked for me. I currently have a 50mm 1.8 D and 85mm 1.8 D which I got for a steal and would never part with them. I am interested to know about your experience with the 300mm albeit way out of my price range for now 
Actually a 300mm F4 with TC1.4 is an excellent buy. Unless you are a big time sports shooter or require Super Telephoto shots in low light this combination is the best for its price.
At lower end you can try the AIS lenses still in production, as they are excellent lenses and pre owned quite reasonably priced. My Future acquisition list has
. 28mm F2.8 AIS
. 50mm F1.2 AIS
. 200mm F4 Macro (I have the 105mm F2.8 AIS, cannot decide on whether to augment it with this lens)
. 300mm F4 AF-S
. TC 1.4
At lower end you can try the AIS lenses still in production, as they are excellent lenses and pre owned quite reasonably priced. My Future acquisition list has
. 28mm F2.8 AIS
. 50mm F1.2 AIS
. 200mm F4 Macro (I have the 105mm F2.8 AIS, cannot decide on whether to augment it with this lens)
. 300mm F4 AF-S
. TC 1.4
Belo
Senior Member
I pretty much have the lens line up sorted but the body is the issue. I am down to the big guns and simply cannot decide between D800/E and D4/s. I have a few friends here in Dubai who have moved from D800 to D4 and they simply could not be happier.
It's a tough one.
Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk 2
It's a tough one.
Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk 2
Cowleystjames
Senior Member
Don't agree with Dave-W statement regarding the 200-400 f4 and teleconverters above the TC1.4II. I have that lens and regularity used it with the TC1.7II and occasionally the TC2.0 III.
Perfectly acceptable iq and with my D4s or D800e focus is bang on.
Perfectly acceptable iq and with my D4s or D800e focus is bang on.
I've never tried the 200-400mm however Nasim has done a pretty thorough job exploring Nikon lenses and this is his statement below
Autofocus with the TC-17E II on the Nikon 200-400mm is very unreliable and unless you are OK with manual focus, I would not count on the Nikon 200-400mm f/4.0 + TC-17E II combo. Forget about using the TC-20E II on the Nikon 200-400mm – it will not autofocus.
Read more: Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II Review - Page 5 of 8
Cowleystjames
Senior Member
Can't disagree more, I have this kit and regularly use it as I said. I have no problem with auto focus at all. Even in low light levels which I find almost daily at the gallops.
Haven't read that review but in my experience there's nothing like first hand experience and I've done that. So go and try it for yourself and post from first hand instead of pointing to just one review.
You really should read the review and look at his evidence. I think the difference is the level at which Nasim is examining the results. And even if it doesn't play well with TC's, that's not to say it's a bad lens, not at all. In fact, Nasim claims the 200-400mm has been his work horse. But nevertheless, you're right. I have not actual experience with this lens and the various TC's. If you tell me it works great for you, I believe it.