NEED ADVICE JUST BOUGHT NIKON DF WHAT FIRST FX LENSES?
May 16, 2017 03:17:59 #
SteveR wrote:
A 24-70mm is too heavy? How is it any heavier than the 24-120? Doesn't make sense. I don't think anybody else who shoots full frame Nikons would agree with you either.
Well guess again , I have a 70-300mm vr nikon and it hasent been off in four years and that child in the avatar the one in blue ecould beat me in arm wrestling ,
May 16, 2017 03:22:05 #
IBM wrote:
Well guess again , I have a 70-300mm vr nikon and it hasent been off in four years and that child in the avatar the one in blue ecould beat me in arm wrestling ,
I was addressing Dina quest Steve
May 16, 2017 05:06:37 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
DaveyDitzer wrote:
No longer sitting on the sidelines. I clicked on a Nikon Df. Need advice on what first lens to add. I currently have D5300 with 16-80 f2.8-f4 and 55-300 f3.5 - f5.6 both DX lenses. Interests include: people, family, wildlife, scenery, travel. I hope to be able to get better images in low light and when cropping is called for, hence the FF. I appreciate you all and look forward to your help. Thank you.
Since you know the effective FX focal lengths you’ve been using with your DX camera, why not just buy those focal lengths? You will enjoy better images in low-light with the Df.
May 16, 2017 07:38:09 #
SteveR wrote:
A 24-70mm is too heavy? How is it any heavier than the 24-120? Doesn't make sense. I don't think anybody else who shoots full frame Nikons would agree with you either.
Anyone who checked the specs would see that the newest 24-70 is 50% heavier.
The older, non VR version is 25% heavier.
I have the newer one and it is heavy, but worth the weight.
---
May 16, 2017 09:27:55 #
DaveyDitzer
Loc: Western PA
Mac, thank you. But, I am recovering from eye surgery and so auto focus will be very important for several months, maybe forever (which at my age isn't as long as it sounds!)
May 16, 2017 09:32:24 #
Bill_de wrote:
Anyone who checked the specs would see that the newest 24-70 is 50% heavier.
The older, non VR version is 25% heavier.
I have the newer one and it is heavy, but worth the weight.
---
The older, non VR version is 25% heavier.
I have the newer one and it is heavy, but worth the weight.
---
I just checked the specs, and actually the newer one is only 2% heavier. It is not that big a jump in weight! So no matter which one someone owns, it is still worth the weight!
It is interesting to note how people are always saying one camera or lens is SO much heavier than another, when actually the differences are not that great. [Unless, of course, you are going to one of those very long and very expensive lenses. Or from a point and shoot to a full frame DSLR.]
May 16, 2017 09:36:26 #
SusanFromVermont wrote:
I just checked the specs, and actually the newer one is only 2% heavier. It is not that big a jump in weight! So no matter which one someone owns, it is still worth the weight!
It is interesting to note how people are always saying one camera or lens is SO much heavier than another, when actually the differences are not that great. [Unless, of course, you are going to one of those very long and very expensive lenses. Or from a point and shoot to a full frame DSLR.]
It is interesting to note how people are always saying one camera or lens is SO much heavier than another, when actually the differences are not that great. [Unless, of course, you are going to one of those very long and very expensive lenses. Or from a point and shoot to a full frame DSLR.]
On the Nikon site it looked to me like 25, 31, and 38 ounces. If I misread it I apologize.
--
May 16, 2017 11:36:21 #
Bill_de wrote:
On the Nikon site it looked to me like 25, 31, and 38 ounces. If I misread it I apologize.
--
--
What lens was 25oz? The 24-70mm f/2.8 non-VR model is 31.7oz and the VR model is 38.4oz. That is what I was going by. If gauging a comparison with a 25oz lens, then your math is correct!
May 16, 2017 12:29:10 #
SusanFromVermont wrote:
What lens was 25oz? The 24-70mm f/2.8 non-VR model is 31.7oz and the VR model is 38.4oz. That is what I was going by. If gauging a comparison with a 25oz lens, then your math is correct!
I quoted, and was responding to Steve.
SteveR wrote:
A 24-70mm is too heavy? How is it any heavier than the 24-120? Doesn't make sense. I don't think anybody else who shoots full frame Nikons would agree with you either.
--
May 16, 2017 12:50:14 #
Bill_de wrote:
--
All clear now! I had read the postings, but did not connect the dots. My turn to apologize!
May 16, 2017 12:53:15 #
SusanFromVermont wrote:
All clear now! I had read the postings, but did not connect the dots. My turn to apologize!
No problem Susan.
--
May 16, 2017 13:25:05 #
May 16, 2017 20:47:23 #
SusanFromVermont wrote:
Looking at what you have been using in DX lenses, ... (show quote)
You have a camera that has a very good sensor ,to get the best out of it you will have to buy the best and most costly lens you can affor it
Makes a difference , I have read lots of write ups on this subject , there is lenses that the quality full frames like the D800 and and others
Of the same price range , you buy the best and that usually means you are buying close to $2000 and over , a lot buy the Swiss and other
Exotics made in European countries. And that's just a start there's upgrading computers, bigger printers , most know this , but there is a lot
Who are fixed on full frame and that's all they have looked into so you buy it . Then gradually discover all the other costly stuff if you
Want to do it right , you might not been a pixel peeper , but if your not then what is the point , if I was going that route I would buy the camera a couple of primes , then look at photos in your computer, pick what you want to print , then get it done . Put all other keeper's
In or on what you usually do . I put them o . Disk or or jump drive ,
May 16, 2017 21:20:04 #
IBM wrote:
You have a camera that has a very good sensor ,to ... (show quote)
IBM, You are right about getting the best lenses you can afford! This is why I suggested the "trinity" of lenses. To me, that is a great place to start, buying other lenses when what you have will not do as good a job for a certain task. I have the 24-70mm f/2.8 and it is a great lens. Still working on acquiring the other two!
Photography is fun, but it can be a "money pit". As you point out, a lot of people do not plan ahead for all they will need for their photography. Of course, it can be done on a budget, as a good photographer can take good pictures with just about any level of camera made these days. Accepting the limitations of your income is often the hardest part about assembling gear that will allow you to continue improving your photography! [It took me 5 years with my first DSLR - crop sensor - to work my way along to a full frame camera. During that time I got a good computer, large monitor, and FX lenses.] Planning and patience are important!
May 16, 2017 22:31:36 #
William Royer wrote:
I just rented (from Lens Rental) the Df for a mini... (show quote)
I wholly agree about putting a large zoom on the Df. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 and it is a bit unwieldy on mine. I usually have a 50mm or smaller zoom like the 28-105 or 35-135mm on it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.