lenses

J

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
I have come to the decision to get the 610. I can get the camera with a 24-85 and 70-300 for around $2800 or I have been looking at getting a 35-70mm 2.8D instead. I already have a manual 24mm vivitar 2.2, a 35mm 2D,50mm 1.8D. Also a few lower grade lenses.
My question is is how is the 35-70mm or should I just get the 2 lenses that come with it.. I am also selling my 3100 and the 18-55.
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I haven't tried the 24-85, but I have the 35-70 2.8. The 35-70 is a great lens except for backlit situations fully open. It does flare a little bit too much, a lot actually. So, since you already have good primes, I'd go with the 2 24-85 and 70-300. This way you'll be covered for a lot of situation. That is until the NAS virus hits you. You will then venture out to get the 24-70 and the 70-200. Read my words... You will get the 24-70 and the 70-200.

Good luck with the virus! :)
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Marcel said:
I haven't tried the 24-85, but I have the 35-70 2.8. The 35-70 is a great lens except for backlit situations fully open. It does flare a little bit too much, a lot actually. So, since you already have good primes, I'd go with the 2 24-85 and 70-300. This way you'll be covered for a lot of situation. That is until the NAS virus hits you. You will then venture out to get the 24-70 and the 70-200. Read my words... You will get the 24-70 and the 70-200.

Good luck with the virus! :)
Click to expand...

I am finding that out right now lol and have been pricing the 24-70 hahaha
 
J

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
The way I was planning was to get the lens kit. Next year (Wife Permitting) I sell the 300s with those lenses and go another FF with the faster lenses you suggested. The reason for the faster 35-70 now was for upcoming weddings. If the 24-85 will do OK then I don't have a problem.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
Just-Clayton said:
I have come to the decision to get the 610. I can get the camera with a 24-85 and 70-300 for around $2800 or I have been looking at getting a 35-70mm 2.8D instead. I already have a manual 24mm vivitar 2.2, a 35mm 2D,50mm 1.8D. Also a few lower grade lenses.
My question is is how is the 35-70mm or should I just get the 2 lenses that come with it.. I am also selling my 3100 and the 18-55.
Click to expand...

24-85 is a good, not great lens, but 70-300, meh. get a used 80-200 if you need to. or even a tamron 28-75 if youre low. I have a 28-70 AFS in my bag with a dead SWM. and I have been using my tamron 28-75 for many weddings instead, and to tell you the truth, im not missing the nikon lens one bit. the tamron is sharp as EFF and I got it for cheap as hell. better you get the 2.8 tamron at $450 with 6 year warranty then spend $500 or so for the variable aperture nikon 24-85. the 24-70 70-200 is a heavy price to pay and if youre low go that way. you wont be disappointed.
 
J

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
I was looking at the tamron also. I really don't need the 70-300 right now. I do need the 24-75 range. It would work good for what I am using it for. I didn't know if anyone had one or used one. You answered my question. 610 w/tamron 24-75mm to start then.

rocketman122 said:
24-85 is a good, not great lens, but 70-300, meh. get a used 80-200 if you need to. or even a tamron 28-75 if youre low. I have a 28-70 AFS in my bag with a dead SWM. and I have been using my tamron 28-75 for many weddings instead, and to tell you the truth, im not missing the nikon lens one bit. the tamron is sharp as EFF and I got it for cheap as hell. better you get the 2.8 tamron at $450 with 6 year warranty then spend $500 or so for the variable aperture nikon 24-85. the 24-70 70-200 is a heavy price to pay and if youre low go that way. you wont be disappointed.
Click to expand...
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
Dude, its a killer lens. and at 2.8 its pretty sharp, but very sharp at f4 or even 4.5. you can find a used 80-200 AFD for around $500 used in excellent condition down the line. that 70-200 VR1 VR2 will cost 1200 used and $1700 used or $2400 new for the VR2 quite a heavy hit to the pocket. and the tamron 28-75/80-200 are excellent lenses. funny how people forget older lenses like theyre garbage now that the 70-200 versions were out. the 70-200VR1 came out, all of sudden the 80-200 AFS was just crap and horrible and thatnk god the 70-200 VR1 came out because we were just suffering too much! same with the 24-70. I wouldnt buy that lens if it was free. Id take it and sell it and get another 28-70 AFS because really the only difference youll see is when youre zoomed in to 100% and comparing one on one. and most likely the photographers skill was the reason the images came out bad. all the lenses I mentioned are tack sharp and if you arent using a lens on a tripod, you arent using its full ability anyway. we hand hold and expect tack sharp. how ironic. put it on a tripod and youll be amazed how sharp the lens really is. get the tamron and dont look back. hands down its the best logical decision here. the sigma is too soft, the nikkors are too expensive and tokina are stupid they dont offer any 24-70/70-200 as of now. but their 16-28 will spank almost all WA zooms including the 16-35 AFS and the 17-35mm without any effort.
btw, I had the 35-70 AFD I bought from a good friend/mentor for almost nothing. the push pull is hard to adjust too and the push pull is counter intuitive because its backwards and confusing at times.
 
Last edited:
J

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
I'm only selling my 3100. The 300 is with me until I can afford another FF. I call it my NAS upward domino effect. I will use the 610 and 300 both for weddings. The 24-75 on the 610 and the other lenses on the 300.
fotojack said:
Keep your D300s! You never know when you might need a backup, especially if you're going to do weddings and such.
Click to expand...
 
J

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
Thanks guys for the inputs. Along with my research and your inputs helped. I like this sight for help. I can get true answers over reviews you read from people you don't even associate with. I will keep you informed when I get the camera and lens.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
Just-Clayton said:
I'm only selling my 3100. The 300 is with me until I can afford another FF. I call it my NAS upward domino effect. I will use the 610 and 300 both for weddings. The 24-75 on the 610 and the other lenses on the 300.
Click to expand...

once youll start using the D610, you wont want to use the D300 as much. I had the D300 and got a D3, then saw the IQ, and I was bummed with the D300. pictures look flat compared to FF. huge dynamic range, grain quality is nicer. high iso, no comparison. DX cant do more than 2000 at most and its suffering from heavy smearing and chroma noise.

then I got the D600 and when loading images in ACDC pro for the first time, I was confused to what I was seeing. it looked like the resolving power was better. and yes, it was. so much more. thats why the tamron is superior than the 24-85 because it will take advantage of the sensor much better.

I use the D600 for family formals because theres more detail there. now the D3 images look soft to my eyes compared to the D600. its a never ending "I want more"race. file sizes are heavy on my pc though. theres a very noticeable delay when editing D600 files. even annoying at times. I use jpeg fine L. problem is the ergonomics and speed (Af, shutter lag, FPS) and no lag with the D3 keeps me coming back to it so im in between them. its just a superior machine technically wise. IQ wise the D600 is clearly the winner.

just watch the chroma noise at iso 3200 and above, ull have to use the high iso NR. I use it at normal and that softens the image just a smidge but its the best balance. I shoot at iso 4-5000 on the dance floor

let me know how your screen is. mine has a greenish cast to it. oh, also, dont forget to sync date and time between both cameras so when you load files in the pc they go according to the event timeline. cheers!

also, I bought this grip
Vertical Battery Grip MB D14 2 x Decoded En EL15 for Nikon D600 DSLR Camera | eBay

includes 2 batteries as well. very nice for the price. oh,btw, I bought 2 just in case it ever fails and I will need it for weddings, I have a spare and at $30 for the grip itself, theres nothing to talk about,=. nikons costs $260

heres a video of it I uploaded
 
Last edited:
J

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
I know what you mean on the 300. When I get the 610 The 300 will be my runaround and the 610 will be my primary. Another reason for the 610 is I'm shooting a school play an the 300 varies in the low light. I need the 610 for sharper pictures and less noise. Thanks for the info.

rocketman122 said:
once youll start using the D610, you wont want to use the D300 as much. I had the D300 and got a D3, then saw the IQ, and I was bummed with the D300. pictures look flat compared to FF. huge dynamic range, grain quality is nicer. high iso, no comparison. DX cant do more than 2000 at most and its suffering from heavy smearing and chroma noise.

then I got the D600 and when loading images in ACDC pro for the first time, I was confused to what I was seeing. it looked like the resolving power was better. and yes, it was. so much more. thats why the tamron is superior than the 24-85 because it will take advantage of the sensor much better.

I use the D600 for family formals because theres more detail there. now the D3 images look soft to my eyes compared to the D600. its a never ending "I want more"race. file sizes are heavy on my pc though. theres a very noticeable delay when editing D600 files. even annoying at times. I use jpeg fine L. problem is the ergonomics and speed (Af, shutter lag, FPS) and no lag with the D3 keeps me coming back to it so im in between them. its just a superior machine technically wise. IQ wise the D600 is clearly the winner.

just watch the chroma noise at iso 3200 and above, ull have to use the high iso NR. I use it at normal and that softens the image just a smidge but its the best balance. I shoot at iso 4-5000 on the dance floor

let me know how your screen is. mine has a greenish cast to it. oh, also, dont forget to sync date and time between both cameras so when you load files in the pc they go according to the event timeline. cheers!

also, I bought this grip
Vertical Battery Grip MB D14 2 x Decoded En EL15 for Nikon D600 DSLR Camera | eBay

includes 2 batteries as well. very nice for the price. oh,btw, I bought 2 just in case it ever fails and I will need it for weddings, I have a spare and at $30 for the grip itself, theres nothing to talk about,=. nikons costs $260

heres a video of it I uploaded
Click to expand...
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The 24-85mm is a fine lens and will be more than "good enough" for a good while. Unless you're shooting wide open and looking for amazing bokeh (which you'll get with your primes anyway) there's not much there to complain about. I used mine solid for a full year with no complaints before upgrading.

I have not shot with the famed f/2.8 zooms, but I have the quartet of f/4's, and until they manage to get VR on the 24-70mm I'm pleased as punch with the 24-120mm f/4. The IQ is definitely a notch above the 24-85mm as is the bokeh, and with the current $300 instant rebate (pricing it at $996) perhaps that might be a better buy with a body rather than the combination if you don't need the 70-300mm's reach? I have the 70-200mm f/4 and it's a great lens as well, and a good bit lighter than the f/2.8, and with the D600/610's sensor that one stop doesn't concern me a bit.

Perhaps one day I will have a reason to justify the 2.8 zooms, but I suspect that the money I'd put in those will go to a 300mm or 400mm at some point.

Just food for thought.
 
J

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
That is the reason I'm getting the tamron 28-75/2.8. I need that size now. The quantaray 70-300 I have works for me now. It might even work better on the 610.
BackdoorHippie said:
The 24-85mm is a fine lens and will be more than "good enough" for a good while. Unless you're shooting wide open and looking for amazing bokeh (which you'll get with your primes anyway) there's not much there to complain about. I used mine solid for a full year with no complaints before upgrading.

I have not shot with the famed f/2.8 zooms, but I have the quartet of f/4's, and until they manage to get VR on the 24-70mm I'm pleased as punch with the 24-120mm f/4. The IQ is definitely a notch above the 24-85mm as is the bokeh, and with the current $300 instant rebate (pricing it at $996) perhaps that might be a better buy with a body rather than the combination if you don't need the 70-300mm's reach? I have the 70-200mm f/4 and it's a great lens as well, and a good bit lighter than the f/2.8, and with the D600/610's sensor that one stop doesn't concern me a bit.

Perhaps one day I will have a reason to justify the 2.8 zooms, but I suspect that the money I'd put in those will go to a 300mm or 400mm at some point.

Just food for thought.
Click to expand...
 
G

gqtuazon

Gear Head
I have tried a lot of lenses and have owned most of the Nikon lenses that were mentioned here.

To future proof your equipment, get the Nikon 24-70-200mm f2.8. You'll thank me later on if you don't mind the weight.

The poor man pays twice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Just-Clayton said:
That is the reason I'm getting the tamron 28-75/2.8. I need that size now. The quantaray 70-300 I have works for me now. It might even work better on the 610.
Click to expand...

I shot you a PM, but let me just say that everything I can find on this particular Tamron tells me that it should have been a DX lens - edge and corner performance on a full sensor are miserable, particularly wide open - but even at f/8 it's a mess in the corner. The 24-85mm is a much better choice, and you only lose 1/2-1 stop of light wide open. If you're willing to spend more and want a 2.8 the 24-70mm Sigma and Tamron are far more worthy of the D610.
 
T

tmcguire17

Senior Member
I had the 24-85 and its a fine lense just a little slow. Ive got the 28-70 f2.8 and love it. Great sharp lense HUGE but great lense. Had the 80-200 f2.8 two ring had to sell it, stellar lense for the cost every bit as sharp as my current 70-200 f2.8. Cant comment on the Tamron's as all I have are my primes and f2.8's now (save a couple DX lenses for my D200)

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
ShootRaw said:
Get the 24mm-70mm 2.8...
Click to expand...

the guy is lowish on funds and the 24-70 AFS is 3 times what hes looking to invest. wheres the logic?

"My budget is $800 for 2 lenses" great!, get the 24-70 and 70-200 for $4300.

cause a poor man buys twice. cmon Glenn. you serious with that comment? not everyone has deep pockets like you :)

if you want to help, recommend lenses within his budget.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
tmcguire17 said:
I had the 24-85 and its a fine lense just a little slow. Ive got the 28-70 f2.8 and love it. Great sharp lense HUGE but great lense. Had the 80-200 f2.8 two ring had to sell it, stellar lense for the cost every bit as sharp as my current 70-200 f2.8. Cant comment on the Tamron's as all I have are my primes and f2.8's now (save a couple DX lenses for my D200)

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. people dismiss old gear like its the worst thing created ever. thank god the new model came because this one was just garbage and we were just suffering ;) elitism plays hard with people, but many people are about the gear and not the photography. if that person wasnt a great photographer before, the new gear wont change a thing about that. most people dont even use the proper technique to extract the best from their gear anyway.
 
Top