Where to get?

B

blank

Senior Member
What to get?

Hello!
I recently got into photography (6 months) and decided that it's time to get more lenses or lens.
I have a d750 with the
kit 24-120 f4 that I use for everything
And 20mm f1.8 that I use for landscape and astrophotography.

My budget currently is about 700? I could save more if needed but for now!

I'm currently thinking of getting a wildlife lens (150-600 or anything in between) but I'm so conflicted.
There's so many options like grabbing some fast primes like the 50mm 1.8G and 85 1.8G + maybe a cheap macro lens or maybe a 70-200 lens?

Brand-wise I have no hate/love for any 1 brand. I'm open to and lens/brand that has a good reputation :)

I would love some experienced photographers opinions! Getting that 150-600 range lens will open up wilderness photography which I know I will enjoy.

I currently shoot landscape photos along with some street photography and normal family portraits. Oh with some astrophotography when I get the time!

Thanks a lot :D
 
Last edited:
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Welcome,i think you need to firm up your interests,as the 150-600 will be a wild life lens and the others will not,its decision time :D,the primes i will not suggest any but the long zoom my money would be on the Sigma.
 
Z

Zeke_M

Senior Member
blank said:
Hello!
I recently got into photography (6 months) and decided that it's time to get more lenses or lens.
I have a d750 with the
kit 24-120 f4 that I use for everything
And 20mm f1.8 that I use for landscape and astrophotography.

My budget currently is about 700? I could save more if needed but for now!

I'm currently thinking of getting a wildlife lens (150-600 or anything in between) but I'm so conflicted.
There's so many options like grabbing some fast primes like the 50mm 1.8G and 85 1.8G + maybe a cheap macro lens or maybe a 70-200 lens?

Brand-wise I have no hate/love for any 1 brand. I'm open to and lens/brand that has a good reputation :)

I would love some experienced photographers opinions! Getting that 150-600 range lens will open up wilderness photography which I know I will enjoy.

I currently shoot landscape photos along with some street photography and normal family portraits. Oh with some astrophotography when I get the time!

Thanks a lot :D
Click to expand...

Macro. Inexpensive but not cheap. Doubles as a portrait lens.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801491238-USE/nikon_1992_telephoto_macro_105mm_f_2_8.html





 
S

SteveH

Senior Member
The 24-120 f4 is a great lens, so I wouldn't spend too much on lenses that "Overlap" that at this early stage in your photography - If you go for a 150-600, you are covered from 24-600mm (Except for that pesky 30mm in between, but that is only 1.5 paces forward or backwards)
If you later decide that the 24-120 isn't doing what you want, then replace it but unless you're at that point, why spend in that focal length?

I have a Sigma 150-600mm C, and I LOVE it - Perfect for wildlife and moon shots etc, many people also have the Tamron version and some have the Nikon 200-500mm.

A 70-200 f2.8 is an awesome lens, but there is also quite a lot of overlap with your 24-120, although the f2.8 will be sharper and is of course faster......

Also, don't forget when buying lenses, that the more you think about it, and consider more lenses, the more you realise you WILL buy them all - It is just a matter of what order you do it in!
 
Last edited:
B

blank

Senior Member
Hello everyone! Wow thanks for all the replies :) and I also meant to say "What to get?" LOL... yeah I figured that because the 24-120 covers the 50 -80 range anyways, it would be kind of wasteful to spend more money on lenses that overkap.
Sounds like a lot of people like the sigma, how does it compare to the nikon and Tokina in that range?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
 
S

SteveH

Senior Member
Well I like Sigma lenses generally, I have 3 now and find the quality excellent - I did have a problem with my 150-600 where the OS motor failed, but they sorted that quickly and without fuss so I can't complain.

Optically, the 3 are very close - The Nikon is shorter at the long end (500mm), but it is also faster having an aperture of f5.6 right through the range - The Tamron and Sigma "C" (Contemporary) are the same, specs-wise so it really is personal preference, although the Sigma has an optional USB dock that you can use to update the firmware, fine-tune focus and set the custom modes up to your preferred settings.

For extra funds, there is the Sigma 150-600 Sport, which is heavier, more robust and has weather sealing and some say a little sharper....

I took my camera and memory card to a shop that stocked all four (Sigma C & S, Tamron & Nikon) and had a shoot-out... The guy in the shop popped my shots up on a big monitor in the shop and we looked at them all - I came away an hour later with the Sigma C.

It is always worth finding a local retailer and trying things out before you buy - Build a relationship with them and they'll often be happy to let you out of the shop for 15-20 mins with a lens to try.
 
R

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Howdy and welcome to Nikonites!

Since you already have the 24-120/f4 (one of my favorite all around lenses!), unless you find yourself needing a faster 35/50/85 for what you already shoot then I tend to like the option of going with something new.

I looked long and hard at picking up a 70-200/f4 for the extra reach while staying lighter weight than my 70-200/f2.8, but ended up going with the 70-300/VR as my 2nd walk around lens. It won't reach out where my 200-500/5.6 goes, but it's a heck of a lot easier to carry 'just in case', and was a whole lot cheaper too. If you know you want a dedicated wildlife lens, the 150-600s from Sigma and Tamron are good affordable lenses too, just with the extra weight like Nikon's 200-500.
 
B

blank

Senior Member
RocketCowboy said:
Howdy and welcome to Nikonites!

Since you already have the 24-120/f4 (one of my favorite all around lenses!), unless you find yourself needing a faster 35/50/85 for what you already shoot then I tend to like the option of going with something new.

I looked long and hard at picking up a 70-200/f4 for the extra reach while staying lighter weight than my 70-200/f2.8, but ended up going with the 70-300/VR as my 2nd walk around lens. It won't reach out where my 200-500/5.6 goes, but it's a heck of a lot easier to carry 'just in case', and was a whole lot cheaper too. If you know you want a dedicated wildlife lens, the 150-600s from Sigma and Tamron are good affordable lenses too, just with the extra weight like Nikon's 200-500.
Click to expand...
I was also thinking of grabbing the 70-300 vr just because it's so cheap. How is the sharpness and etc from it? Do you like it?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
 
B

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
Welcome aboard. Enjoy the ride.

If you really want to get into wildlife, I would strongly recommend the Sigma 150-600mm C. I have one and am very impressed. It is sharp and works well. From everything I have seen the Tamron 150-600mm is about equal to the Sigma for performance, but the Tamron seems to have some reliability issues on the first generation version. Tamron just came out with a more expensive second generation lens, but it has not been out long enough to really have a feel for it.
 
Z

Zeke_M

Senior Member
blank said:
I was also thinking of grabbing the 70-300 vr just because it's so cheap. How is the sharpness and etc from it? Do you like it?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Take a look at the signatures of the members that list their gear. The 70-300 AF-S VR f4.5-5.6 is a very popular lens around here.
 
Danno

Danno

Senior Member
Welcome to the show. I mostly enjoy landscapes and such, but I also enjoy birds. I have the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and I really like it. The only downside is the weight, but all these lenses are heavy..
 
B

blank

Senior Member
Hello again everyone!~ after a ton of consideration, I've decided to go with the 70-300 VR f4.5-5.6G + a macro lens that's on the cheaper side instead of the larger wildlife lens (150-600 Sigma). I figured, even though I do love going out and hiking and etc. to places to take landscape photos, it would be more practical for me to go with something at that range. I'll.. definitely be getting the 150-600 in the future though :) The Macro lens will also double as my portrait lens like @Zeke_M said. He also recommended the nikon telephoto Macro 105mm f2.8 AF Micro https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/801491238-USE/nikon_1992_telephoto_macro_105mm_f_2_8.html It's a pretty old lens, (although I don't really care as long as the image quality is good), but would you guys recommend anything else? (Under 400 would be ideal, but definitely recommend the ones that cost more too so I can take a look at what's good :D )

Thanks a Ton!
 
Top