home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

If I were to buy a d850 what nikkor, sigma or tamron lense would you suggest and why? I think I want fast lenses and at least one zoom. Does the nikkor 28 to 300 mm make the cut? Keep the total cost under $10,000. Please consider sharpness and edge falloff.
I have decided that I am not interested in wildlife photos so long telephotos are not required. Also suggest a backpack camera bag to carry all this.

pquiggle Loc: Monterey Bay California

I don't shot Nikon so I can't recommend specific lenses but my favorite focal lengths would be 24, 35 and 85 mm. When I shot film I used these three lenses the most. For city and people I would want fast primes in those focal lengths. To that I might want to add a wide zoom for landscapes that won't fit in the angle of view of the 24 and maybe a 70-200/2.8 for those times when I want a little more reach.

PeterBergh

The lenses you will want are entirely dependent on how you see pictures. In my case, I have a 16-35, a 24-105, and a 70-200. I find I only very seldom use the 16-35. The other two account for 99+ percent of my images.

I would suggest not buying the 28-300 because the large focal-length range makes for compromises in image quality. Of course, the 28-300 covers practically all situations.

I believe you would be better off with a couple of high-quality zooms (24-105 and 70-200) and, if you really need it, one or two fast primes. The battery I have (16-35F4, 24-105F4, and 70-200F2.8) is well under your budget; total around $4000 to $5000.

I use a vest rather than a backpack, so I can't give advice on a backpack.

Like the previous poster, I don't use Nikons, so I can only give you glittering generalities.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

You cannot go wrong with the Holy Trinity

Nikkor 14-35 f/4.0
Tamron 24-70 G2 f/2.8
Tamron 70-200 G2 f/2.8

Peak Design Everyday Backpack for more fashion forward or Mindshift 25L for a more rugged solution.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Just curious, when did the 14-35 F4 get blessed??

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Start with a 50mm prime, after you use it for a while you will have a good idea as to what other lens(es) you will need for the style of photography you wish to pursue.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

It did not.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

What have you been shooting since joining the forum in 2011? That knowledge might assist in getting some recommendations.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Nikon 24-70 2.8; 70-200 2.8 Fl if you can afford it. (Both Holy Trinity)
16-35 f4 is a good alternative for the pricey and more specialized 14-24 2.8 (Holy Trinity).
The 28-300 is versatile, but only adequate for most, less than adequate for some.
The 35mm 1.4; 85mm 1.4; and 105mm 1.4 are all very good, and expensive.
The 850 needs expensive glass.

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

I currently have a d500 with 18-300mm and a 10-24mm. On the last trip I fought low light and i know the faster lenses will help. I found that the 18-300mm did not do well at the short focal lengths so i bought the 10-24mm early this year. Just dreaming at this time.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

I'd be tempted to sit tight and try adding a 24-70 F2.8 to your current arsenal and maybe a 70-200 2.8. Unless you have a strong desire to go FF, the D850 benefits may not be a big help to you.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

My go to lenses are a 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. You won't find 2 more versatile high quality fast zoom lenses and you will take the vast majority of your shots with these two. If you want a bit more reach add a 1.4x teleconverter. For landscape I recommend a something like a 14-24mm f2.8. After that its time for primes. Go for a 50mm f1.4 nifty fifty, 85mm f1.8 portrait lens and a 105mm f2.8 macro. Don't think you have to stay with all Nikkor glass as Tamron and Sigma make very, very good versions of these lenses. Some 3rd party glass is actually rated higher than Nikkor glass. If you are careful with your purchases, especially searching for used and 3rd party glass, you can stay within your budget.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

If you have your heart set on a zoom lens, the AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 would be a good choice. It's not as fast as the 24-70mm f/2.8, but it's lighter, smaller and less expensive and gives you more range.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The 28-300 does not make the cut. The 105 F1.4 Nikkor is one of their sharpest lenses, as is the 70-200 F2.8 FL. Another outstandingly sharp lens is the 200mm F2. For landscape and city(?) I like the 45mm PC-E and the 85mm PC-E. I rarely use lenses shorter than 30mm, even though I have a 14-24 and a 24-70. I would get the Sigma 14-24 before getting the Nikkor. and just for a hoot, the Rokinon/Bower/Samyang 14mm F2.8 is quite sharp, free from coma and other aberrations, and perfectly sharp wide open - which makes it a natural choice for night sky photography. At $400 or less, it's hard not to include one of these specialized lenses in your bag. It does have some pretty nasty complex distortion, but there are some pretty good lens profiles out there that address this pretty well.

The "why" of these suggestions is in direct response to your stated criteria.

LowePro makes lots of backpacks worth considering.

User ID

My most useful Nikon lens is the 24-120/4.0. My most
versatile is the 28-300/3.5-5.6. Results are excellent,
which is a pretty meaningless word around here. OTOH
results are also imperfect at all FL and apertures. But
you can't expect perfection from 5X and 10X zooms at
only about $1000 each. The AF and VR are very helpful
in most situations.

So much for zooms. If experiencing a near-perfect lens
will cause you to toss your zooms in the dumpster, then
DO NOT acquire the Tamron 45/1.8 IF-VR. But, if such
experience is normal to you, get one. It's only $400 cuz
it's 5 to 10mm shorter and 2/3 stop slower than all the
"Super Normal" lenses in the $1000 to 2500 range, and
is also not as huge, Tho compare to "traditional" 45mm
lenses it IS "moderately huge" ;-) However, it's really a
near perfect normal, so if you don't need the extra 2/3
stop max aperture, it's no less Super than the others.
This is not shocking. Extra speed past about f/2.0 is a
losing game cost-wise and size-wise.

You might notice I have three "normal lenses" ! So, I'm
never needing a backpack cuz I wouldn't carry all three
on the same day. Actually, I have another normal lens,
a 60/2.8 macro. Everyone else here will tell you macro
lenses MUST be at least 90mm. That depends. Doesn't
hurt to own a 90 or 105 macro, but those are far more
specialized than the 60, which is just a great all-around
lens, as is my FIFTH normal: a 50/1.4 AFD, my lightest
and most compact !

Welllllll ..... maaaaybe I've helped you to choose your
normal lens. If you want four lenses to fill out your kit,
to tote all together in your backpack, I'm sure there's
plenty of advice around here ... and rotsa ruck widdat !


`