New Nikon Glass Advice

Helvegr · January 16, 2012

Long story short, I will be purchasing my first Nikkor lens soon and wanted a little feedback. My goal is to get the 14-24,24-70, and 70-200, as my foundation. Unfortunately it just can't happen all at once.

For most of what I need, I'd start with the 70-200mm, however this leads me to my question. I'm a little concerned about only have the 70-200 in my bag. Part of me is thinking maybe I should start with the 28-300mm, simple for the versatility.

That line of thinking then leads me back to after I purchase a few more lenses, I'll be less and less likely to go back to the 28-300 and should have just put the money towards the 70-200 to start.

Anyway. Thoughts?

a) buy the 70-200 and just deal with not having anything wide until i purchase 14-24
b) buy the 28-300 because what it lacks in speed it makes up for in versatility
c) other

P.S. This is for a full frame Nikon body.

ziggy53 · January 16, 2012

Is any of your signature still current?:

"Canon 5D MkII | 24-105 f/4.0L | 85mm f/1.2L | 100mm f/2.8L"

Please describe how you will use the new system.

catspaw · January 16, 2012

are you near Borrowlenses or one of their pick up locations (since your location says California) that you could rent a wider lens when you need it? What you shoot will definitely affect what lens might work best for you. I do find the 24-70 being the one I grab the most unless I'm shooting sports, then it's the 70-200. (full frame nikon here too)

Helvegr · January 16, 2012

catspaw wrote: »

are you near Borrowlenses or one of their pick up locations (since your location says California) that you could rent a wider lens when you need it? What you shoot will definitely affect what lens might work best for you. I do find the 24-70 being the one I grab the most unless I'm shooting sports, then it's the 70-200. (full frame nikon here too)

Well, i'm not against renting, I've done it before, but my wife really dislikes me spending money renting something that I'm going to buy anyway. But your right, that is always an option for a must have.

ziggy53 wrote: »

Is any of your signature still current?:

"Canon 5D MkII | 24-105 f/4.0L | 85mm f/1.2L | 100mm f/2.8L"

Please describe how you will use the new system.

Nope, the signature is outdated. I'll have to remove that thanks. My shooting list for at least the first half of this year will "hopefully" focus on some portrait work, a bit of fun wildlife stuff at the zoo, maybe the African Safari stuff at the San Diego zoo. Also looking to maybe shoot some friendly dog agility stuff later this summer, and I'm working on trying to shoot a couple low profile small concert venues.

The above list is what was drawing me towards the the 70-200mm.

ziggy53 · January 16, 2012

Helvegr wrote: »

... My shooting list for at least the first half of this year will "hopefully" focus on some portrait work, a bit of fun wildlife stuff at the zoo, maybe the African Safari stuff at the San Diego zoo. Also looking to maybe shoot some friendly dog agility stuff later this summer, and I'm working on trying to shoot a couple low profile small concert venues.

The above list is what was drawing me towards the the 70-200mm.

I agree.

Perhaps also look for an older used wide-angle prime to give you some visual diversity, until you can afford what you really want to have.

Zerodog · January 17, 2012

fx or dx?

ziggy53 · January 17, 2012

Zerodog wrote: »

fx or dx?

From the very bottom of the first post, "P.S. This is for a full frame Nikon body."

time2smile · January 17, 2012

My 2¢

if you dont plan on using the 28-300 in the future, dont get it, but it would be a lite alternative for casual walking around.
get the 70-200 and look for a used midrange zoom by Tamron or Sigma to hold you over.

zoomer · January 17, 2012

70-200 2.8 Nikon. You could probably pick up the older version used, great lens.
28-75 or 17-50 Tamron, good lenses for appx. $400. fine until you can afford the 24-70. And if you aren't going to be shooting wide open they are just as good from 4-11.
or pick up a 50 1.8 for $100.

Zerodog · January 17, 2012

If it is FX the one I go for most often is the 24-70. But depending on what you shoot, the 70-200 is a great choice too. I like the advice on the primes. I love the 50mm 1.8. It is soooo cheap and really pretty amazing for the price. I paid $125 for mine new. The new version is a bit more but still really cheap.
Another killer wide angle is the nikon 20mm. An older lens that can be picked up for 300-400. I have used both of these a lot on both of my bodies.

For people I grab the 24-70. For most sports that I shoot 70-200. For walking around, it is usually one of the primes.

kitkos · January 17, 2012

The three lenses you mention, in my opinion, are the triumvirate. With this trio you cover everything from 14-200mm.
Follow it up with a 2.0 teleconverter and your reach is even further.
They are all fast zooms and very highly rated by professionals.
I love mine and although I have added to this trio with some speciality glass, these are my workforce.

Matthew Saville · January 17, 2012

Helvegr wrote: »

Well, i'm not against renting, I've done it before, but my wife really dislikes me spending money renting something that I'm going to buy anyway. But your right, that is always an option for a must have.

Your wife will REALLY dislike you spending money BUYING something that ends up being the wrong choice for your needs. RENT FIRST!!!!

There are a handful of rental places (Samy's?) that will allow you to put the rental money towards the purchase, if you truly must save that $35 rental fee.

=Matt=

Helvegr · January 17, 2012

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Your wife will REALLY dislike you spending money BUYING something that ends up being the wrong choice for your needs. RENT FIRST!!!!

There are a handful of rental places (Samy's?) that will allow you to put the rental money towards the purchase, if you truly must save that $35 rental fee.

=Matt=

I guess to be fair to her, I'll clarify by saying if I KNOW something is on the list, like the 14-24mm, but I just don't want to drop the money on it right now, she doesn't like me putting money into the rental. However when I'm undecided on something, then the rental is very much worth the cost and the piece of mind. Totally agree!

I'm leaning towards what many of you seem to be suggesting. Get that 70-200, then back it up with a less expensive prime option.

Thanks for all the great advice.

ThatCanonGuy · January 17, 2012

Yes, I got along with just my 1DII and 70-200 for a long time. 70-200's great for your uses. I'd add a prime (for my style, I'd get the 35mm f/1.8. It's cheap too, I hear. You might want the 50mm f/1.8 instead, depending on your subjects). You want a fast prime anyway, even when you get the three 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 lenses.

I eventually added a 28-105 lens (it's like $150). I got along fine with my 70-200 only, though

Icebear · January 17, 2012

I use both the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 28-300 on my D700 and D300. There is no comparison in IQ, but I guess you knew that. The 28-300 is my walk-around lens, but if you want to do portraits, the 70-200 is the one you'll come to love. And yeah, with a TC on the 70-200 IMO you still have better IQ than the 28-300, but the 28-300 is so versatile as a walk-around. But that's all.

Art Scott · January 17, 2012

yes start off with the 70-200...I had a 70-210 / 200 for the 1st 20yrs of my shooting and nothing else...I got =used to it and never worried about not having other lenses...I was contracting weddings, portraits, family reunions and some commercial as well as all the concerts I did on my own...but I was shooting Sigma and those lenses allowed me to get really close for near macro shooting if need be and still focused at concerts when a performer in my face for close ups...Nikons 70-200 (at least my copy) has a close focus distance of ~~ 6 feet... ... I still have not gotten really use to this limitation and have been flamed from hell and back for saying I will probably ditch all my Nikon glass and go back to Sigma...but it depends on ones needs in a lens...

babowc · January 18, 2012

Surprisingly, no one mentioned the 24-120 F4 VR zoom..
I have this lens and I use it with my D700 even with poor lighting.. VR helps a bunch, too.

I also own a 70-200, but I rarely see myself carrying it unless I'm at a friend's wedding or a special event. It's just really big (for my primary uses). Same goes for the 14-24.. maybe I'm a minimalist?

Ever since I got the 24-120 F4, I haven't been carrying my 24-70 either.
I do resort to primes when I want to go simple. 50 1.4 or 35 1.4 on a FX works nicely when lighting gets crappy.

cab.in.boston · January 18, 2012

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I'd add a prime (for my style, I'd get the 35mm f/1.8. It's cheap too, I hear. You might want the 50mm f/1.8 instead, depending on your subjects).

This is for full frame, and the Nikkor 35 f/1.8G is a DX lens. I have it for my DX bodies and I really love it, but it's not for FX. Thom Hogan says you can use it if you set 5:4 crop mode, but it doesn't cover the whole frame.

The Nikkor 35 primes (f/1.4G - $1800, f/1.4 - $1100, and f/2D - $390) for FX quite a bit more pricey...

Matthew Saville · January 18, 2012

Icebear wrote: »

I use both the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 28-300 on my D700 and D300. There is no comparison in IQ, but I guess you knew that. The 28-300 is my walk-around lens, but if you want to do portraits, the 70-200 is the one you'll come to love. And yeah, with a TC on the 70-200 IMO you still have better IQ than the 28-300, but the 28-300 is so versatile as a walk-around. But that's all.

Yeah honestly if you want a range in the 28-300 range, you're better off with a camera like the D7000 and a lens like an 18-200 or 16-85. Much more practical for that "all-around" type of shooting.

=Matt=

New Nikon Glass Advice

Comments