george19

I retired 6 weeks ago, and about a week’s pay showed up the other day, completely unexpected. I called and it’s legit.

Nikon D810, with 24-85 macro zoom (my go to lens) and 70-300 zoom (both D series full frame lenses, no VR or other fun features, at least 10 years old). I also own a 105 f4 Micro and 28 (both old school, manual focus).

I do mostly landscape, flowers, birds in flight, on water, nesting, occasional portrait, cool scenes on the street.

What to get? The choices are 14-24 f2.8, 200-500 f5.6, or some good recommendation.

I rarely see the need to go wider than 24, but might be convinced to try something new. Also don’t see much need to go very long, but I’m also a bit disappointed with the reach of the 70-300 sometimes (most recently on a whale watch trying to capture eagles, just last week).

I’m not disappointed with my current glass, and am against getting teleconverters or really wide range zooms (3 to 1 or so gives me comfort). If there’s a macro that would be noticeably sharper than the 24-85, I’m open to it.

Like I said, real bummer of a problem. I’ve been shooting for over 50 years, first SLR in the early 70s.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

George, Congrats on your retirement and bonus check.

I would go with the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 for Birds. I have it and love it. Super sharp whole range. I would also go with a Nikon 105 MM Micro Nikkor for flowers and things in nature.
And to round it out the 14-24 f2.8, will have you covered for Happy Shooting.

ELNikkor

Don't know how big that check is, but if you still have the strength, that 200-500 is a great deal and will have your long end covered forever!. A 20mm 1.8 would give added wide, plus fast for night sky photos.

george19

Thanks. I hadn’t thought about the wide prime, but the speed makes it intriguing.

I posted a shot of the Milky Way late last week and got great suggestions on post processing...the intermediate results are stunning.

Short of walking around with that lens, opportunities for astrophotography are limited because of all the light pollution near home, and I’m usually reluctant to travel with a tripod, although I do love getting to remote wilderness areas.

The Milky Way shot was a rare case of being in a great spot.

Bill_de Loc: US

There are better lenses than the Nikkor 200 - 500mm
There are cheaper lenses than the Nikkor 200 - 500mm
There are lighter lenses than the Nikkor 200 - 500mm

Taking these things into account, when I was the market for a long zoom, this lense hit the sweet spot. I have no regrets about this purchase.

--

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

You really don't need an ultra wide angle or even a wide angle lens for landscapes. Also in most cases a fast lens is not needed for landscapes either. Your 24-85mm will do you well.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I use the Nikon 200-500 for wildlife but I'm considering the PF 500mm lens, which is hard to get right now. It makes hand-holding a lot easier.

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

I looked at the 200-500 (having the 600mm F4) and found it lacking. I also looked at all of the 150-600 lenses available in the summer of 2016, and only found happiness with the Sigma Sport 150-600, which is just as sharp as the 600mmF4 and built like a tank. The 200-500 was ok, but the build quality and it's best efforts fell short of what I was getting with the 600mmF4. The Sigma Sport gave nothing away to the Nikon prime and it was only 6.5 lbs compared to 11 lbs. I just sold the prime, since I never use it anymore.

Of all of the lenses I own, the 14-24 is my least used lens. But there are some situations were there just is no substitute for it. So I keep it around. I use it for about 100 pictures a year. I shoot about 12,000 images a year.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

I borrowed a friend's 200/500 comparing it to my Tamron 150/600.The IQs were equal as far as I could tell. I'll stick with my Tamron it's lighter, weather sealed and 100mm more reach.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It sounds like you're just looking to spend money without a serious need - and that's something unusual for me to say. I usually encourage people to buy gear. Spending $1,300 to go from 300mm to 500mm doesn't seem like a good investment. At 500mm, that lens would be an f/5.6, and on a whale watching boat, there would be quite a bit of movement. The Tamron suggested above might be a better choice.

You could put the money aside and think about what you actually need. Maybe a new camera - Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. Once the money is spent, it's gone. Move slowly.

khorinek

Instead of buying more equipment, use the $$$ for a trip somewhere and photograph something you haven't seen before.

george19

Yup. This is a shameless GAS attack. I also haven’t purchased glass in over 10 years.

I’m thinking of it more as a present to myself, and like I said, this was completely unexpected.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

There is a real price difference between those two lenses.
Here is my choice and why. I use the Nikon 16-35 f4 for all of my landscapes because screw in filters fit it and not the 14-24. Besides 16mm does all I need on the wide end.
For birds in flight there is no better lens than the Nikon 200-500 5.6. It is a great lens and will give you great results.
Get um both and be happy in retirement.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I am content with quality older lenses. For wide angle on FX, I use a Nikon af 17-35 2.8. Its fast relatively light weight, and sharp. If you find one, make sure the motor doesn't squeak.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

You mention a really good macro - look at Nikons 105 and its 60mm. Both are very good. I have both - I use the 105 when I want distance, and the 60 when I want a wider angle of view