imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

- But, as long as we are into DX, the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is a great lens !
.

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

I presume more compact and lighter for family photography means it's being used for family outings where size and weight are considerations but also used in-doors where lens speed and wider angle versitility would also be desirable. I have a 35-70 AF D f/2.8 at about 2/3 the size and weight of the current 24-79 AF-S E ED Nikon offering which is much easier to carry although the push-pull zoom is a bit clumsy. Another alternative particulary for indoors use is the 17-35 AF-S D f/2.8. The other options mentioned in prior posts are also excellent choices (24-120, 28-300 etc.) although a bit slow for indoor use. I wish you luck finding a solution to your quest.

oakvillebob

I have the sigma 17-70 i'm willing to sell pm if interested

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

That changes things.

Grab a clean NIKKOR 28-105 AFD 3.5-4.5 MICRO.

Very sharp, very light, pretty small, close focus capability of 1:2 and cheap enough that if somebody does something silly and damages it you won’t be homicidal nor suicidal.

One of NIKON’s sleeper lenses.

Mine is about 20 years old and is my favorite film lens when I use the F4s.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

At what focal length is it 1:2 ??? - Thanks !

User ID

The opening post is easily misunderstood as just another question about a do it all lens as possibly the only one you’ll own.

Given your clarification here, sure why not go DX ? The UHH “collective wisdom” will be upset but they’re mostly just mindless parrots anywho.

FWIW I use a 10-24 DX on FF and there’s no FX version you could swap me for that compact gem.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I like the fast prime idea (such as 50mm f1.4 or f1.8). Fast (for low light), inexpensive, light, and with the 850, in FX mode, you’ll have plenty of pixels for cropping if necessary. If you need something wider for large groups, put a 35mm f2 in your pocket, but not that flattering for individuals.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Don’t put a DX lens on an 850. Just don’t.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Ok, maybe I should rephrase that. If you have that lens, use it if you want. But it sounds like you’re looking to BUY that lens for your D850. Don’t, there are plenty of FX options that are inexpensive and will give you better results. And seriously, if you don’t care about throwing away 60% of your resolution, just use a cellphone. Any modern cellphone is more than capable of what you’re trying to achieve.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have both the D850 and D500. About a year ago, I was looking for am alternative to the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX to use sometimes when the 17-55 is either overkill or a little bit too heavy and awkward to drag around all day. My intent was the 16-80, but in my judgement it is too mediocre and too expensive for a lens that is f/4 over almost its entire zoom range. I bought a very nice used 24-120 f/4 at my local camera store for $425 and have grown to love it.

I tried it out on the 850, and it is great on that camera as well. Not a match for the 24-70, but completely serviceable. I do bump saturation up one notch when using it on either camera to get a better starting point for post processing. A lot of folks here don't like that lens because of its distortion. There is some, but for what I use it for, it does not matter. At all.

Note that the "new" prices of these two lenses are fairly close to the same. Used, the 24-120 usually sells for about half the price of a used 16-80. Lots of folks here love the DX lens. I do not. For between $500 and $600, it might have some interest.

As far as using a DX lens on your D850...if that is what you end up deciding to do, do it without shame. It ends up being about the same as shooting a D500. You could do a lot worse. And you always have square format and maybe even some other workable formats available on the D850.

User ID

Too huge

User ID

YES !!!!!! DO IT !!!
••••••••••••••••••

The Parrot Chorus is such a wild exotic background effect. Real Rainforest Jazz. Although they are waaay short on their improvisational chops, it will be a really frenzied jam :-)

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

DX lenses are not a good choice for FX cameras.
Look at the AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED lens.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

The entire question proposed by the OP is odd. Apparently he can hold an 850 but not a 24-70. Strange. If weight is the problem, I'd suggest a lighter camera like the D7500 to start with. My daughter just took some great family photos with her 7500 and a 50mm f1.8, sans flash. The great thing about 1.8 is that it just sucks up the light. Much, much better than 2.8.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Nothing wrong with a 24-70mm f/2.8. I have it and two dozen other Nikon lenses. My go to is a 28-300 knock around lens. The 24-70 is about the best you will find in its class and zoom range. I love mine and the 70-200mm f/2.8

A 50mm 1.4 is a good low light lens and use you legs as the zoom.