Nikon D600 - advice on walkaround zoom lens please

chrisjohnson

My quest for a FF camera has brought me to Nikon D600. It seems to have the edge on image quality that I am looking for.

I'll be needing a zoom for day-to-day walking around and would appreciate some advice from Nikon shooters. As a Canon guy for the last 15 years this is going to be a brave new world.

My current walkaround zoom is the Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8. It takes a great picture but spends too much time off the camera. It is too short and/or too heavy for toting around.

I am seriously tempted by the Nikon AF-S 28-300 f3.5/5.6 ED VR. This could replace two of my zooms and give a lot of flexibility.

For top image quality I'll be needing a prime too - almost certainly 85mm. Nikon seems to have a f1.8 which is well thought of and reasonably priced.

Ferguson

I have the D600's older brother the D800, and made the transition to full frame as well. Previously I had a 18-200 lens (which with crop mode was more like that 28-300). I loved it, used it all the time. Gave it to my wife when I moved to full frame.

I mention this because as I started in full frame I initially tried the longer zooms (specifically the 24-120). What happened is a bit hard to explain -- what was just fine in terms of IQ on my D300, I found less acceptable now. The images were just as good (better really) than before, but the big difference is I moved to the D800 to be a big improvement, and I really needed better glass. So I ended up without a good walk-around lens - I have the 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8. These cover the "walk around" range for most people, but no one of them does so fully (on the other hand, the 24-70 comes close in many circumstances). And they are all superb lenses, great contrast and color, very sharp. But collectively they are both expensive and also awkward, definitely not collectively what one would call "walk around".

I mention this because the 28-300 is a great lens in terms of range of zoom, but is known to be even less in sharpness than the 24-120. Many people rave about it, and from sample shots I've seen when stopped down a step or two it's extremely sharp. Even wide open it's a very good lens.

But with the D600 it will be the limiting factor on quality. If you are something of a perfectionist, that might be a problem. If you are more into the art and content, and not pixel peeping, it's a great choice.

The next step up in quality is probably the 24-120, and if you need more length personally I'd then go for the 80-400 (the new version is terrific -- the older version mediocre, so if you read about them be sure which one).

The next step from there is the 24-70, 70-200 pair, though the 70-200 comes in both a F2.8 and F4 version, both very highly regarded, just depends if you need the extra stop.

All that said, a good approach is what you appear to be taking -- use the prime for the best quality, and the zoom for convenience. In recent couple years I've gotten more primes, and am delighted. I got the 85/1.4. It's quite a bit more expensive, but the 1.4 has terrifically shallow DOF for isolating subject and brokeh. I haven't used the F1.8 version but as you have, I have read very good things about it. I also got the 50/1.8 which is cheap and a very good lens to have around (or the 1.4, also not expensive and perhaps a good alternative ot the 85/1.4 in terms of value; I skipped it as I use that length for basketball and the 50/1.8 focuses faster than the 50/1.4).

The other consideration I would give on the walk-around lens is that if you have used the F2.8 wide open with some regularity for low light, you'll be amazed at how limiting you feel at 5.6. The D600 is really good at low light and high ISO so it's not as important as it might be. But just wanted to mention that aspect. The 24-120 is a constant F4 by the way.

Ferguson

Seymore wrote: »

I can vouch for the 85/1.8 on a crop body. The IQ is superb, in all light that I've used it under & I don't use flash. Please also note that I have an early AFD copy, so can't speak to the newer AFS copies.

RE: your walkaround lens... if you don't have the need for speed (2.8), I (personally) have found the AFS 18-70/3.5-4.5G kit lens to fall into my needed zoom range, performs quite well in most conditions and it quite light. Please note this is a DX lens and falls flat when indoors or low-light.

Bear in mind he's getting an FX camera, adding a DX lens certainly can work, but is rather a waste.

chrisjohnson

Seymore wrote: »

I (personally) have found the AFS 18-70/3.5-4.5G kit lens to fall into my needed zoom range, performs quite well in most conditions and it quite light. Please note this is a DX lens and falls flat when indoors or low-light.

The lens promoted here as the entry level with D600 is AFS 24-85mm 3.5/4.5 G ED VR (FX). I played with it in the store and did not fall in love with the feel. It seemed a bit flimsy, although I am confident it is not going to fall apart. I fear this lens is going to disappoint me quickly after using the f2.8 17-55 from Canon for five years. I doubt the image quality is better than the EF-S 17-55, although I might be tempted by the low price if it were. Anyway, I prefer something longer: EF-S 17-55 and AFS 24-85 on D600 have more or less the same Field of View.

I did enjoy the 24-120 f4 which seems to be a solid piece of glass and maybe comparable with the Canon 24-105 which is kitted here with the 6D. It is all a bit confusing which is why I ask here for some advice - not even sure I am understanding the Nikon alphabet soup properly.

A pro with a decent business is likely to go for the classic 24-70/70-200 combo - I would if I was shooting for a living. Ferguson is not a pro but taking some great pictures with these lenses too.

Not sure about f2.8 on the zoom with the new generation bodies. I am hoping the ISO reach means the low-light issue will go away. I want to try and live without f2.8 zooms because they are so big and heavy. Bokeh is definitely a factor with the 85mm but less so for me on the zoom.

Thanks for helping. I am very much in listening mode. I don't know FF or the Nikon world.

Zerodog

My vote is the 24-120 f4. Rent one and give it a try.

Qarik

Zerodog wrote: »

My vote is the 24-120 f4. Rent one and give it a try.

this or the nikkor 24-70mm.

babowc

24-120 is decent sharp and the VR works good.
It's on the heavier side, IMO. (I'm a sissy when it comes to weight)

I put the 24-120 on the D800 on my trip to Cancun & NY and I hated myself. I found myself sticking to primes most of the time.
I put a 24-70 on a D7000 on another trip, and it was more bearable.

IIRC, D600 was a bit lighter than the D800, so I don't think the 24-120 f4 would be too bad.
Keep in mind that it's a "sorta mid-range zoom".

chrisjohnson

Yesss, there is a bit of a contradiction here. I want to move to FF and Nikon for image quality, and the first thing I plan to do is trade image quality for convenience.

Nobody seems enthusiastic about the 28-300...

Ferguson

chrisjohnson wrote: »

Yesss, there is a bit of a contradiction here. I want to move to FF and Nikon for image quality, and the first thing I plan to do is trade image quality for convenience.

Nobody seems enthusiastic about the 28-300...

Nikon builds a lot of kit and entry level lenses to hit a price point and still provide decent quality. I don't see the contradiction -- the D600 + 28-300 will give you great pictures. The D600 plus the 24-120 (in that range) will probably give you better images if you look really closely. The 24-70 will give you better images still, if you look really closely.

I have 5 different lenses that overlap at 200mm. I've got images I love from each. But if I'm pixel peeping the worst to best are:

- 18-200 (DX) - it's a lot like the 28-300 in FX
- 200/F4 - 40 years old, not very usable on digital
- 70-200/2.8
- 200-400/F4
- 200/F2

I don't use the first two now for technology reasons, but the latter 3 all still get a lot of use, each has different strengths. But in terms of pure sharpness, contrast, color and overall image quality there is a definite hierarchy.

But if I went and took a shot with each of the 5 with a D600 at F8 of (say) a building and printed then full frame 8x12 (ok, the DX would be an issue), I think I would have a hard time telling them apart.

Shoot them wide open, or heavily crop before printing, or print really large -- yeah, it starts to become obvious.

Nikon doesn't really make any BAD lenses. But they give you a lot of head room for how "good" of a lens you want. Only you can decide whether the better ones are really worth the increased cost and decreased flexibility (weight, zoom range, etc.)

chrisjohnson

Wise words. There is also something aesthetically pleasing about a top quality lens that gives me a buzz just putting it in the bag before a trip. When I like the D600 as I expect I will, my next step will probably be to drop some serious cash on a top quality prime, likely 85mm. Perhaps I should just skip the zoom for now - I can still use my 40D+17-55 f2.8 after all.

I wonder what you think about all these dust stories around D600?

Ferguson

chrisjohnson wrote: »

I wonder what you think about all these dust stories around D600?

I have a D800, so with me it was a left focus issue. Each new camera seems to come with some internet hype of a problem. But the left focus problem was real, and for me it took a trip to the shop. However "real" doesn't mean overblown.

I don't know about the oil. It "feels" like it is also a real problem, a bit overblown in the same way.

If you are up for cleaning your own sensor, it's an easier problem to deal with than (say) the left focus issue.

Zerodog

I rented a 28-300 once for a yellowstone trip and used it on my D3s. I brought quite a few lenses, that one never came off that camera. It worked really well. It also gets lots of great reviews.