Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Going full frame - need suggestions...
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
Nov 16, 2017 09:33:40   #
mas24 Loc: Southern CA
 
gunflint wrote:
Hello, this is my first post, have been tuning in for a couple of weeks and there is sure a lot of good information from many knowledgeable people! First of all, I am not a professional photographer, just a serious wannabe. I have had a Nikon D7100 for 3 years or so and want to upgrade to the new D850. Of course that means new full frame lenses and that is where I would appreciate some help. I mainly shoot landscapes so I would appreciate knowing what the "ideal" wide angle lenses would be for me to consider. I really do not want to compromise on the quality of the lens but Nikon is obviously big bucks compared to Sigma or Tamron. What would you recommend and what have you been using?

Thanks much!
Hello, this is my first post, have been tuning in ... (show quote)


The D850 is an excellent full frame camera with 46 megapixels. Cost $3299. FX lenses aren't cheap. Say you want the best of the Nikon's portrait lenses, which is the 105mm f1.4. That lens costs $2200. That's $5500 total. I read two posts on this forum, that say they use full frame format Sigma lenses on their new D850. Without hesitation too, they claim. You can get very good quality in wide angle lenses from third party sellers. Good luck.

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 09:42:02   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Considering the drooling that has gone on over it in this site, I'd recommend the D850.
--Bob
gunflint wrote:
Hello, this is my first post, have been tuning in for a couple of weeks and there is sure a lot of good information from many knowledgeable people! First of all, I am not a professional photographer, just a serious wannabe. I have had a Nikon D7100 for 3 years or so and want to upgrade to the new D850. Of course that means new full frame lenses and that is where I would appreciate some help. I mainly shoot landscapes so I would appreciate knowing what the "ideal" wide angle lenses would be for me to consider. I really do not want to compromise on the quality of the lens but Nikon is obviously big bucks compared to Sigma or Tamron. What would you recommend and what have you been using?

Thanks much!
Hello, this is my first post, have been tuning in ... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 09:51:38   #
cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA
 
mas24 wrote:
The D850 is an excellent full frame camera with 46 megapixels. Cost $3299. FX lenses aren't cheap. Say you want the best of the Nikon's portrait lenses, which is the 105mm f1.4. That lens costs $2200. That's $5500 total. I read two posts on this forum, that say they use full frame format Sigma lenses on their new D850. Without hesitation too, they claim. You can get very good quality in wide angle lenses from third party sellers. Good luck.


The Nikon 105/1.4 is a fantastic portrait lens as is the 85/1.4G. When speaking about Sigma, their ART line of lenses are impressive. The ones I can personally speak for are the 50/1.4 ART, the 24-105/4 ART and the 135/1.8 ART. All three are sensational, along with the Nikon D850. Best of luck

Reply
 
 
Nov 16, 2017 10:04:54   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
If you are looking for ultrawide the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 is a good bet. Tests show it performs as well or slightly better than the Nikon 14-24, and it has stabilization, for about $1500 I believe.

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 10:06:24   #
Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains
 
billnikon wrote:
Sorry Charlie, they are NOT comparable to Zeiss Manual focus lenses. PERIOD. END OF STORY. BOOK UM DANO.


The comment was based on posts on another photography website by two individuals that owned both a Zeiss and Samyang or clone in similar focal lengths. I don't recall all the specifics but one of the Zeiss's was an older version, not a modern Milvus or Otus model. So the comment was not based on sophisticated testing by experts and it wasn't my intent to claim the entire Samyang line was equivalent to Zeiss', only that the Samyang's give excellent IQ (and there are lots of expert reviews on that), especially when price is considered. Zeiss lenses are legendary and if I could buy any lenses I wanted for landscape work that's what I would get, but they are way beyond my retirees budget. It was my impression that cost was of importance to the OP which is why I mentioned the Korean lenses. Of course, if he is unwilling to use manual lenses it's moot.

So I apologize if my meaning was unclear. But it doesn't seem to me like such a big deal that what could be interpreted as a derisive response and shouting is necessary.

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 10:19:21   #
DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
My suggestion is the Nikkor 16-80 2.8-4; it's a great lens for landscape and general photography, it's the kit lens to the D500 so you know it's not a piece of junk, and it's not outrageously expensive at around $1000.


I believe this is a crop lens and the question was about moving to FF.

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 10:52:18   #
rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania
 
gunflint wrote:
Thank you, I was looking at the 16-35, seems to be a great lens. I am also wondering if a 20mm prime would serve my purpose well also and it is the highest rated Nikon lens in the super wide angle category on DXOMARK. I realize I would be giving up a few degrees of coverage but...
I’d be careful about that 20mm prime. I’m sure it’s a superlative lens, but a super wide is best suited to a bag full of more normal lenses. The 16-35 would be a very flexible, super utilitarian, cost effective purchase. You might also check out Nikon’s 28-300. I love mine and find it covers a large number of situations. I’ve been in your shoes and am glad I’m now settled in my full-frame needs, but you’ll have fun filling yours. Good luck.

Reply
 
 
Nov 16, 2017 10:54:22   #
gunflint Loc: Rocky Mountain High, Colorado
 
Yes, but my question was mainly for wide angle landscape photos...thanks.

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 11:57:05   #
RonM12 Loc: Washington State
 
I’m trying to decide on the same for my D850. I’m torn between the Nikkor 10-35 f/4, and the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. Nikon is offering $100 discount on the 16-35, putting aside the use of filters, which can be adapted to the Tamron, I’m favoring the 15-30 tamron, the reviews are very good it out performs nikons 14-24.

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 12:20:42   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
RonM12 wrote:
I’m trying to decide on the same for my D850. I’m torn between the Nikkor 10-35 f/4, and the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. Nikon is offering $100 discount on the 16-35, putting aside the use of filters, which can be adapted to the Tamron, I’m favoring the 15-30 tamron, the reviews are very good it out performs nikons 14-24.

Maybe in your world the Tamron 15-30 out preforms the Nikon 14-24, but not in the real world.
Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 12:21:59   #
dyximan
 
Teton Viewer wrote:
The comment was based on posts on another photography website by two individuals that owned both a Zeiss and Samyang or clone in similar focal lengths. I don't recall all the specifics but one of the Zeiss's was an older version, not a modern Milvus or Otus model. So the comment was not based on sophisticated testing by experts and it wasn't my intent to claim the entire Samyang line was equivalent to Zeiss', only that the Samyang's give excellent IQ (and there are lots of expert reviews on that), especially when price is considered. Zeiss lenses are legendary and if I could buy any lenses I wanted for landscape work that's what I would get, but they are way beyond my retirees budget. It was my impression that cost was of importance to the OP which is why I mentioned the Korean lenses. Of course, if he is unwilling to use manual lenses it's moot.

So I apologize if my meaning was unclear. But it doesn't seem to me like such a big deal that what could be interpreted as a derisive response and shouting is necessary.
The comment was based on posts on another photogra... (show quote)

Apparently you haven't been on the hog long LOL. As I find it is the exception not the rule that the people here are civil. I find a great deal of arrogance ignorance and I know it all responses. Myself included at times unfortunately. And God for bid they should actually answer your question. And if they do I can assure you you're wrong there right and they'll tell you what's the only way to do it. It's not really that bad but sometimes it seems like it.

Reply
 
 
Nov 16, 2017 12:36:57   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
RonM12 wrote:
I’m trying to decide on the same for my D850. I’m torn between the Nikkor 10-35 f/4, and the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. Nikon is offering $100 discount on the 16-35, putting aside the use of filters, which can be adapted to the Tamron, I’m favoring the 15-30 tamron, the reviews are very good it out performs nikons 14-24.


For me this would be a no-brainer. The 15-30 is optically superior to the 16-35, one stop faster, and has stabilization to boot. And also the one millimeter at the short end DOES make a difference.

I have the 14-24 and it is on my camera for the majority of the time when I am not shooting with vintage lenses for bokeh. I bought it before the Tamron was introduced. At this point if I had neither I would opt for the Tamron, price being no object, because of its optical qualities and stabilization.

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 12:50:19   #
gunflint Loc: Rocky Mountain High, Colorado
 
One thing to consider for the 15-30 or the 14-24 is the expense in using filters.

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 13:14:44   #
rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania
 
gunflint wrote:
One thing to consider for the 15-30 or the 14-24 is the expense in using filters.
Excellent point! I turned away from the 14-24 because filters become a dicey question. Some people don't like Ken Rockwell, but you should read his review of the 16-35. There's lots of advice on UHH, but there can be lots of space between "advice" and "good advice."

Reply
Nov 16, 2017 13:17:53   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
gunflint wrote:
Hello, this is my first post, have been tuning in for a couple of weeks and there is sure a lot of good information from many knowledgeable people! First of all, I am not a professional photographer, just a serious wannabe. I have had a Nikon D7100 for 3 years or so and want to upgrade to the new D850. Of course that means new full frame lenses and that is where I would appreciate some help. I mainly shoot landscapes so I would appreciate knowing what the "ideal" wide angle lenses would be for me to consider. I really do not want to compromise on the quality of the lens but Nikon is obviously big bucks compared to Sigma or Tamron. What would you recommend and what have you been using?

Thanks much!
Hello, this is my first post, have been tuning in ... (show quote)


I think I would be looking at the Sigma 24 1.4 ....budget or not. The Sigma 24-35 f2 would also be tempting for me - but less resolution/more compromise compared to the prime.

If you get the 850, you are basically saying - money is no object - and Zeiss is fair game.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 5 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.