Going full frame - need suggestions.. (Page 4): It is on his "initial" list but if you read down further he notes it's serious compromises and likelyhood of dropping off the "list"...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

PixelStan77 wrote:

Welcome to UHH. I use and would suggest a Nikon 24-120mm f/4G. I like the consisten F4. Super sharp across the range and Thom Hogan has it on his list. lol

It is on his "initial" list but if you read down further he notes it's serious compromises and likelyhood of dropping off the "list" ....and I agree ....I have seen the Imatest numbers - and it is after all, a high ratio ZOOM.

ecurb1105

I've been shooting a full frame D600 since 2013. My favorite wide angle is my 20mm f2.8. While I have several lenses, my grab and go bag has the camera body, 20mm, 24-120mm and a 70-300mm.
Suggestions for your moving to full frame, a 20mm and a 50mm to start with plus a good tripod.

Haydon

rdgreenwood wrote:

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."

I'm not sure filters are as much of a concern as you think if you're willing to spend $1900 on a lens and $3200 on a body. Agreed a rectilinear lens is more cost effective in filter expense but some people aren't willing to compromise if it means the loss of the extra FOV.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

dyximan wrote:

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.

I've been a UHH member for almost 5 years and lurked for a couple of years before that. I agree with you there is often a lack of civility here, and I wish it were otherwise. We're off topic here and I'm not going any further with this except to comment that the quote "A soft answer turns away wrath,
But a harsh word stirs up anger." is well worth observing.

RonM12 Loc: Washington State

billnikon wrote:

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?

Well, for one I read the reviews, maybe you should give it a try so that you have a clue as to what your talking about. I’ve also owned the Nikon 14-24 so have real hands experience with it. Sounds as if you’re real World is fantasy.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Reviews & people's opinions are subjective. As the old saying goes, "One person's trash is another's treasure". One needs to use the item in question themselves in order to properly form an opinion on it. To follow others advice is speculative at best.

RonM12 wrote:

Well, for one I read the reviews, maybe you should give it a try so that you have a clue as to what your talking about. I’ve also owned the Nikon 14-24 so have real hands experience with it. Sounds as if you’re real World is fantasy.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

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.

As an owner of Nikon's 14-24, I find it very hard to believe that the Tamron 15-30 is better! I won't be running out to get the Tamron for myself to test it, but the 14-24 is one of Nikon's best! I have used the Tamron lens and do not find it superior in any way to the Nikon 14-24. YMMV. Best of luck.

RonM12 Loc: Washington State

Personally, I have avoided third party lens, and in the case of the Nikon 14-24, it’s been the king since it’s introduction. I’m not knocking it in the least, as I mentioned, I owned one for quite a while, and honestly the decision to part with it wasn’t easy. That being said, don’t take my word, read the reviews comparing the 15-30. vs the 14-24 it is what it is.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Wonderful landscapes, Gene, esp. the first. You answered a question I've been considering about landscape lenses for some upcoming trips.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

RonM12 wrote:

Personally, I have avoided third party lens, and in the case of the Nikon 14-24, it’s been the king since it’s introduction. I’m not knocking it in the least, as I mentioned, I owned one for quite a while, and honestly the decision to part with it wasn’t easy. That being said, don’t take my word, read the reviews comparing the 15-30. vs the 14-24 it is what it is.

The ONLY review I'm concerned with is my own, of that of a personal friend(s). Many reviews available on the web are nothing more than paid advertising. My main concern is how well the lens will perform for me, under my style, and for what I shoot. Generic reviews assist me with culling the junk. As I said, YMMV. Best of luck.

Furbugsy Loc: NJ

rgrenader
I see you have the 28-300 fx lens for FF camera. I was interested in that lens for my Nikon D7200 which is as you know a Dx camera. Should I get this lens or should I get the DX lens .

b2bjacks Loc: Sequim, Washington

I moved to a D-810 and a 18-35 about two years ago. Never doubted my purchase. At the time some folks on here were slamming the 18 -35 as cheap and just not built as solid as a 16-35. Maybe, it's not as heavy. But it's not a cheap lens. I have got some great shots with the 18-35!! I thought of the 20 prime too. It's choice. I finally decided since I couldn't afford a lot of lenses, that I'd feel to trapped with a prime. A good choice for me!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

gunflint wrote:

....do not want to compromise on the quality of the lens but Nikon is obviously big bucks compared to Sigma or Tamron...

So, let me make sure I understand....

You're ready to drop over $3000 on a camera... but unwilling to spend "big bucks" on lenses to use on it?

A 46MP D850 demands the best possible glass. It has so much resolution that any shortcomings of "cheap glass" will be obvious.

Frankly, before you "cheapen" your lenses, if your budget is limited I'd suggest you buy a cheaper, lower resolution FX camera... or just keep using your DX camera.... and upgrade to better lenses instead.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

My D300 (DX) and D810 (FX) still shoot great photos, so it is hard to justify the cost of the D850. I have a good selection of lenses and gravitate to the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II for the D300, and the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR for the D810.

I recently bought the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR, Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR, and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 E FL ED VR. I have had initial good results with these lenses. But, the basics of photography capture the moment: composition and lighting (+ patience).

The photos below were taken with D300 w/ 18-200 Dx (Haleakala Crater) and D810 28-300 (Denali Mountains). The two bees on "final approach" were taken with the D810 and the 70-200 f/2.8. The moon shot was taken hand held with the 200-500.

(Download)

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Wow, very nice images what were tge settings when you took the moon shot with the 200-500?