Just took the dive into FX...opinions on lens selection

So I just placed the order for a new D610. I'm happy with my decision because I was initially torn between the D610 and D7100. Coming from DX with a D5100, this will be a dramatic jump for me in terms of camera performance.

I have no FX lens currently, and that decision was also vert difficult for me because of budget and evaluating what type of shots I normally take. After reviewing a lot of my images, I mostly do a lot of landscape and portraiture of family and friends. I also like macro photography (i own a 40mm 2.8 micro DX), and also do use telephoto when shooting candid portraits and sporting events like car races.

After a lot of research, I decided to go with a 16-35mm f4 UW and a 50mm 1.4 instead of a kit lens. I figured the 16-35 will get me great landscape sharpness, and the 50mm will be my walk around portrait lens. I currently have my 35mm 1.8G on the d5100 and find myself using that lens more than anything. I also figured owning a telephoto zoom on the FX body wasn't as important to me as getting the sharpest pictures possible and/or the best bokeh on portraiture.

I also like to do long exposures...like nightscapes...so I was wondering if the 16-35mm would be a good lens for that. (I know the 14-24 trumps it in low light but I cant afford that glass at this point). I want to try night sky photography of the milky way. Anyone use the 16-35 for that?

What do you all think of these lens choices I made?

I would start with the Nikon 24mm-70mm 2.8G... That would cover landscape and alittle better for portraiture..50mm on fx is not a suitable portrait lens..(Not enough compression)

By nature wide lenses will distort lines so I'm still not sure why they're good for landscapes... (or is that only for objects closer than infinity/reasonably far distance?)

Also, 1.4 and 1.8 aren't really miles apart and the optical quality isn't too far from one another either, but 35 1.8 DX actually hardly vignettes on FX, so you could've saved yourself ~400 on getting that 50. Also, the 50 is no longer a portraiture lens on FX as it can be on DX, but 85 or 105 are and they are much, much better. 105 2.8 Micro would be a much better investment IMO.

Else enjoy miles and miles of wonderful difference between the 2 bodies like I am.

SkvLTD said:

By nature wide lenses will distort lines so I'm still not sure why they're good for landscapes... (or is that only for objects closer than infinity/reasonably far distance?)

Also, 1.4 and 1.8 aren't really miles apart and the optical quality isn't too far from one another either, but 35 1.8 DX actually hardly vignettes on FX, so you could've saved yourself ~400 on getting that 50. Also, the 50 is no longer a portraiture lens on FX as it can be on DX, but 85 or 105 are and they are much, much better. 105 2.8 Micro would be a much better investment IMO.

Else enjoy miles and miles of wonderful difference between the 2 bodies like I am.

Click to expand...

So, what IS the 50mm 1.4G good for? I see a lot od sample images on nikonites from users on the 50 1.4 with portraits and they look great.

Since im keeping the d5100, I can use the 50 1.4 there as well. No problem having more primes available in my stable.

For cropped sensors, 50mm is doable

ShootRaw said:

For cropped sensors, 50mm is doable

Click to expand...

When you say, "not enough compression"...what does that mean?

Porkibear said:

I also like to do long exposures...like nightscapes...so I was wondering if the 16-35mm would be a good lens for that. (I know the 14-24 trumps it in low light but I cant afford that glass at this point). I want to try night sky photography of the milky way. Anyone use the 16-35 for that?

What do you all think of these lens choices I made?

Click to expand...

I would go with Shootraw's suggestion about the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G. Try that first then evaluate if you need to go wider. Most likely, you won't since 24mm is wide enough for most landscapes. Do a panorama shot if you want a wider lens. The picture below is my "dream team" which handles just about everything that I need to shoot. Good luck and congrats with your new camera.
My Dream Team by gqtuazon, on Flickr

Thanks for the tips, guys. I will be receiving the camera and new lens next week, so I'll have some time to learn the new camera. Shootraw, I guess I understood the "concept" of compression, but didn't know the term you were referring to. I'm actually thinking about picking up the 85mm some time down the line, but these two lens should hold me over for a bit.

I read a lot about the kit lens and it just seemed like I would be sacrificing a bit on glass quality for telephoto range, so I decided to pick a wide angle and a prime lens first.

I recently completed a move to full frame too. Exciting times - congrats. I bought a used D800, ultra-cheap Nikon 28-105, Sigma 12-24 and Tamron 24-70. So far I'm pleased with my lens decisions.

It all depends, but I find that 35-50 being close enough not no make a huge difference with 35 being more useful in tighter spaces. To go wide, you'd want a wide lens. To go where 50 can't reach, you might as well get a tele/zoom. I'm only saying- don't spend your money twice to get the same thing unless that floats your boat.

In my opinion as you have a 35mm and propose to get a 50mm, I see no reason for getting 16-35. Get a 24 or 28 for landscapes, and at a later stage you can think of 14. For portraits get an 85 which is extremely sharp or the 105 macro which is good enough for both macros and portraits. At the longer end a prime will normally get you there. Zooms are versatile but cannot beat primes in sharpness and price. For a wedding photographer a zoom is essential as the action is fast paced and there is no time to change lenses, but for normal photographers a bit of patience and foot work will get you the framing you are looking for.

aroy said:

In my opinion as you have a 35mm and propose to get a 50mm, I see no reason for getting 16-35. Get a 24 or 28 for landscapes, and at a later stage you can think of 14. For portraits get an 85 which is extremely sharp or the 105 macro which is good enough for both macros and portraits. At the longer end a prime will normally get you there. Zooms are versatile but cannot beat primes in sharpness and price. For a wedding photographer a zoom is essential as the action is fast paced and there is no time to change lenses, but for normal photographers a bit of patience and foot work will get you the framing you are looking for.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I was thinking about how I take portrait shots before choosing which prime lens, and I'm the type of person who likes to get closer to the subject when shooting. Unless I'm shooting candid, I found it easier to have the shorter focal length, especially in tight areas. I have to hit myself on the side of the head every time I'm making these purchase decisions because I am only a photo hobbyist. Never going to step into wedding photography...especially here in Southern California where wedding photographers saturate the market. I have to remember that I'm getting these accessories, lens, FX...simply to take pictures for a hobby. Like all hobbies I've been engrossed in-- things can get expensive. As they say, "you gotta pay to play"...

So yes...all good suggestions here. 85mm and 105mm were also both in my bucket list.

Porkibear said:

Thanks for the advice. I was thinking about how I take portrait shots before choosing which prime lens, and I'm the type of person who likes to get closer to the subject when shooting. Unless I'm shooting candid, I found it easier to have the shorter focal length, especially in tight areas. I have to hit myself on the side of the head every time I'm making these purchase decisions because I am only a photo hobbyist. Never going to step into wedding photography...especially here in Southern California where wedding photographers saturate the market. I have to remember that I'm getting these accessories, lens, FX...simply to take pictures for a hobby. Like all hobbies I've been engrossed in-- things can get expensive. As they say, "you gotta pay to play"...

So yes...all good suggestions here. 85mm and 105mm were also both in my bucket list.

Click to expand...

Then honestly just follow [Standard zoom - fast prime - tele zoom] formula and focus more on shooting than acquiring gear you're not likely to squeeze to the very last drop.

24-85 and 70-300 VRs, and a 35 or a 50 1.8 or 1.4 and you'll be set for life. Your wallet will thank you too.

SkvLTD said:

24-85 and 70-300 VRs, and a 35 or a 50 1.8 or 1.4 and you'll be set for life.

Click to expand...

Until you need a macro lens and 2.8 zooms. But, what you want and what you need are two different things. Back in my film days, I managed to get by with a 50 and a 200. Good luck with FX. I made the switch last year and like having both formats.

Don't forget about the 24-85 or, if you want more reach the 24-120. I have the latter one and think it's a great lens. For the 85, the old D 1.8 is sharp and cheap.

I started with a Nikkor 24-70 2.8 and 70-300 4.5 and a tokina 100 macro 2.8. I do a lot of urban exploring so I needed low light capabilities in tight areas so I went with a tokina 16-28 2.8. It all depends what kind of shooting you like to do.

JHM: do you like the tokina 16-28 f/2.8? does it suffer from barrel distortion or flare? i am searching for a wide angle lens for a trip
to France to go along with a Nikon D610 (if i buy it!)

eal1 said:

JHM: do you like the tokina 16-28 f/2.8? does it suffer from barrel distortion or flare? i am searching for a wide angle lens for a trip
to France to go along with a Nikon D610 (if i buy it!)

Click to expand...

Amazing lens! There is a bit of annoying lens flare if you're shooting in the direction of the sun. Barrel distortion is barely noticeable. I would compare this lens to the 14-24 2.8. This is my favorite lens so far. Definite bang for the buck!

I also have one coming in on Wednesday,I have a Nikon 24-85,180 2.8 and 300 4 should be good to go........................