These are the lenses that I think I will get with the D850

The only one I am not sure of is the 200-500mm

All of the below is solely from reading, I haven't ever owned any Nikon glass. I had the same lineup (or close to) in Canon L glass.

If anyone has any suggestions, they would be very appreciated.

You cant really go wrong with any of those tbh. The 70-200 f/2.8 is simply sublime. The 24-70 f/2.8E is nice but if you'd like a much cheaper Nikon the 24-120 f/4 is very nearly as good, infact in most cases as good but with extra reach and a third of the price.. The 105 f/2.8 is sharp as a tack and well worth the money. I can't speak for the others as i dont own (or owned) them. The 200-500 isnt quite in the same league as the others you mention there but still very capable. You'd have to step up to a long Prime for that

Thanks Jay for your thoughts.

I'll do some reading on the Nikon the 24-120 f/4 is

Not sure what to get to replace the Canon 100-400, I can't afford a prime at that length.

I'm not saying the 200-500mm is a poor lens. I went for the Sigma 150-600mm Sport after a lot of reading about comparisons vs the Nikon 200-500mm in the IQ department etc. I did a shoot off between my Siggy and my Nikon 500mm f/4 prime. (Results linked below)
https://nikonites.com/telephoto/402...-sport.html?highlight=nikon+500#axzz4vIYA3RpY

The 200-500 isn't on Nikons D850 approved (or recommended) lists of lens. What would that reason be? The lens being out resolved by the sensor?

Thanks for the link above Jay.

My guess would be that the 200-500mm isn't on their 'pro' lens list (no gold ring around the front of the lens), the D850 being part of the pro line up of course

Quintrex said:

The 200-500 isn't on Nikons D850 approved (or recommended) lists of lens. What would that reason be? The lens being out resolved by the sensor?

Thanks for the link above Jay.

Click to expand...

It doesn't cost enough for a long lens Nikon think if you buy one of their cameras you have money to burn.

What is the 80-400 like? Would it make having the 70-200 redundant besides the size and weight of course.

Its tough as I live in a remote area and I can't get to see any of these they all have to be bought and chosen online.

Quintrex said:

What is the 80-400 like? Would it make having the 70-200 redundant

Click to expand...

I bought an 80-400mm when they first came out, i found it a bit soft at the long end tbh. The 70-200 f/2.8 is in a different league but not a wildlife lens really

I would think you would want something wider than 24mm. Perhaps the Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 would be a good addition (and would complete your holy trinity of Nikon lenses). Also, why the 50mm f1.8 vs. the 50mm f1.4?

I was going to say the same as Jay, i would take the 70-200 and 200-500 over the 80-400 any day, i did a lot of research on the 80-400 before buying my Sigma 100-400,its good but not IMO top notch.

jay_dean said:

I bought an 80-400mm when they first came out, i found it a bit soft at the long end tbh. The 70-200 f/2.8 is in a different league but not a wildlife lens really

Click to expand...

Is there a lot of copy variation in Nikon glass?

Bikerbrent said:

I would think you would want something wider than 24mm. Perhaps the Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 would be a good addition (and would complete your holy trinity of Nikon lenses). Also, why the 50mm f1.8 vs. the 50mm f1.4?

Click to expand...

Hi Brent,

I had a 16-35 Canon, that bulbous lens lens o the 14-24 turned me off it a little to be honest, but I know it shouldn't.

mikew said:

I was going to say the same as Jay, i would take the 70-200 and 200-500 over the 80-400 any day, i did a lot of research on the 80-400 before buying my Sigma 100-400,its good but not IMO top notch.

Click to expand...

Appreciate the feedback, my apologies for asking so many questions, but truly appreciate the help and advice from all.

Quintrex said:

Is there a lot of copy variation in Nikon glass?

Click to expand...

I dont think so normally, could be with the 80-400 though as some rave about it, or it could be later model's have been tweaked by Nikon, no matter how good it is your first option sounds a lot better.

Quintrex said:

Appreciate the feedback, my apologies for asking so many questions, but truly appreciate the help and advice from all.

Click to expand...

Its what this forum is all about!

Quintrex said:

The only one I am not sure of is the 200-500mm

Click to expand...

ColorFoto, a German mag I like for its diligent and consistent testing, gave the Nikon 200-500 an IQ score of 71.5 points. In comparison, Tamron's 150-600 G2 received 61.5 and the Tamron 200-500 got 57.5. All tests were done on a D800 and are thus directly comparable. Here's an idea of what this means:




Unless you are going for a prime, the Nikon 200-500 strikes me as a great choice. I am about to order one myself, in spite of already owning Nikon's more expensive 300 f/4 PF. The only other long lens I would even consider is Nikon's 80-400, which got a 74. Personally, I prefer the longer reach of the 200-500 over the small IQ gain, though, and the fact that the 200-500 shines at the long end while the 80-400 is a bit softer even when stepped down makes this an easy choice.

jay_dean said:

My guess would be that the 200-500mm isn't on their 'pro' lens list (no gold ring around the front of the lens), the D850 being part of the pro line up of course

Click to expand...

Since the D500 is also one of Nikon's "pro line up", I better just not use my 200-500 mm lens with it.:loyal:

Appreciate the replies everyone.

Blacktop said:

Since the D500 is also one of Nikon's "pro line up", I better just not use my 200-500 mm lens with it.:loyal:

Click to expand...

I'll take that piece of crap lens off your hands in Florida Pete :encouragement: apparently it gets Painted Buntings