+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Junior Member

    Introduction to myself

    Hi evrybody
    I am a newbie on this website.
    I have been playing photography for many years but quality is still very poor.
    I just started to try a full frame camera. I have DX 18-140 AF-S lens. I know it is not perfect for a full frame camera and upgrade to something in future.
    I am thinking F4G lens something like 70-200 mm or may be prime lens . I cannot decide yet .
    I would be grateful if somebody can advise me what is the best lens to upgrade.
    I live in London UK.


    › See More: Introduction to myself



  2. #2
    Staff
    Super Mod
    Don Kuykendall's Avatar

    Re: Introduction to myself

    Welcome to the forum

    Which Full frame camera are you using now?
    If you fill out your profile and add the camera gear we can better answer any questions that you might have.
    You can do that at http://nikonites.com/profile.php?do=editprofile

    Under camera just put the model number like D7100; Once you put the first letter like D you will see a list of all the cameras in the database pop up. The more numbers you put in the smaller the list becomes. When you see your camera just click on it, Be sure to click on "Save Changes" in the lower right corner.

    Thanks

    ================================================== ============================
    D750***D7100***24-120 f/4 ***70-300***Tamron 150-600***Tokina 16-28 f2.8***50mm f/1.8***Photoshop/Lightroom CC

  3. #3
    Junior Member

    Re: Introduction to myself

    My camera is Nikon D810.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Bikerbrent's Avatar

    Re: Introduction to myself

    Welcome aboard. Enjoy the ride.
    We look forward to seeing more posts and samples of your work.
    Brent: Poway, CA
    D7200, D200, D70, F100
    Tokina 12-24mm
    Nikon 18-200mm
    Nikon 18-70mm
    Tokina 28-70mm f2.6-2.8
    Nikon 80-200mm f2.8
    Sigma 150-600mm
    Nikon 50 AF f1.8
    Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro
    Nikon SB800

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    WayneF's Avatar

    Re: Introduction to myself

    Welcome to the forum.

    The DX lens will of course not be optimum on the D810, but of course it can be used (but its smaller view crop will cost more than half of your pixels).

    The "equivalent field of view lens" on full frame would be 27-210 mm (giving the same view as 18-140 mm DX).

    Do you favor the wider end or the longer end? Would you be willing (with one lens) to give up the other end?

    No one can tell you what focal length, since that depends on your choice of what you shoot. Focal length determines the size of the field of view you see. The full frame 24-120 mm f/4 lens would be good for the wider end, and the 70-200 f/2.8 would be good for the longer end. I have both of those, and find the 24-120 mm to be best choice for a walk around all day with one lens... wide enough and long enough and sharp enough. The D810 has ample pixels to crop some shots a bit tighter (longer). But 70 mm is not the same as 24 mm, and 120 mm is not the same as 200 mm.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    MorkC68's Avatar

    Re: Introduction to myself

    Welcome from a sunny Nottinghamshire

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Marilynne's Avatar

    Re: Introduction to myself

    Welcome!

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Re: Introduction to myself

    Welcome aboard!

  9. #9
    Junior Member

    Re: Introduction to myself

    Thank you. I appreciate your advice. I will think seriously 24-120 mm f4G. I heard that it is much lighter than f2.8 70-300.
    If I have that lens do I still need Prime 35 mm F1.8 G which is around 500 GBP? Previously I was thinking that lens for wide angles and thinking about another zoom lens for telephoto. But I believe F4G can replace the Prime lens and probably I do not need it. I will forgo the telephoto shot.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    WayneF's Avatar

    Re: Introduction to myself

    Quote Originally Posted by thetnaing007 View Post
    Thank you. I appreciate your advice. I will think seriously 24-120 mm f4G. I heard that it is much lighter than f2.8 70-300.
    There may be different lens models confusing me, and I am not aware of a Nikon 70-300 f/2.8, but the Nikon site says those lenses are 24 or 25 ounces weight. Far from the smallest, but far from the largest. Maybe you meant 70-200 f/2.8, which is 54 ounces.

    But the range of 24-120 mm seems not directly comparable to 70-300 mm, in that they only share the 70-120 mm range. And 24 mm is moderate wide angle and 70 mm is mild telephoto, no wide angle at all (on full frame), which simply does not serve the same purposes, hard to compare.

    Focal length choice really should match some goal of yours? What do you want it to do? How do you plan to use it?

    Sorry, but I did not understand the meaning of the f4G reference? I probably should range wider on the internet?

    If I have that lens do I still need Prime 35 mm F1.8 G which is around 500 GBP? Previously I was thinking that lens for wide angles and thinking about another zoom lens for telephoto. But I believe F4G can replace the Prime lens and probably I do not need it. I will forgo the telephoto shot.
    The 24-120 mm will do 35 mm too, but at f/4 maximum, not at f/1.8. With both at 35mm, f/4 will have more than twice the depth of field span that f/1.8 has, which I find pleasing. I find f/4 no issue for walk-around-all-day-with-one-lens general use, even indoors in old dark cathedrals. IMO, high ISO better does that job today that we needed f/1.8 for in older days. Those are just my own notions though, all opinions exist somewhere.

    24-120 mm on a full frame would be the range from moderate wide angle to moderate telephoto, but not extremes at either end. That seems useful to me, very general purpose. Extreme wide angle might be 14 mm (on full frame).

    The so-called "normal lens" on full frame is of course 50 mm. "Normal lens" meaning about the same view that we remember our eye saw there, making it appropriate for many usual things. It is very difficult to describe the eye however, we only see a sharp image in a very narrow spot, and it progressively is less sharp at wider angles. A "normal lens" typically has a focal length near the same as the sensor diagonal dimension, which is 43.3 mm for full frame, and which is viewing angle of about 45 degrees of width. 50 mm is about 40 degrees width, and somehow, that often seems about "normal" to us.

    35 mm is only mildly wide angle on the full frame camera, where 24 mm is moderately wide angle, but not extreme wide angle.

    And 70 mm on full frame is mildly telephoto, not wide angle at all.

    Mild and moderate is just my perception, I think we cannot really define those words well in this context.
    But at 2 meters distance, 35 mm coverage is 2 meters wide, and 24 mm coverage is 3 meters wide. That can be important for indoor shots, when you cannot back up very far.

    And whether you need the f/1.8 or the prime lens would be a personal decision, if you have needs you think that would solve. Speaking for myself, the 24-120 seems a great choice for general use, but it does not reach the extremes. No one lens can do everything.
    Last edited by WayneF; 03-15-2018 at 01:34 AM.





Quick Reply Quick Reply

If you are already a member, please login above before posting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •