JohnKTX Loc: Dallas

A few thoughts. Based on what you said you like to photograph, I’d suggest the 14-24 f/2.8 lens. It’s an amazing piece of glass with impressive sharpness and quality. For landscapes, the Milky Way and similar subjects, I think you’ll get a lot from this.

To me, my most commonly used lens is my 70-200 f/2.8. It’s the same amazing quality and just a versatile workhorse. I think both are essential pieces. Hope that helps some.

gainesn Loc: Chickamauga, GA

Thank you.

ronichas Loc: Long Island

[quote=Boone]

I loved this lens. I am currently selling it along with a Rokinon 14mm f2.8. I am now using Sony cameras.
PM me if interested.

gainesn Loc: Chickamauga, GA

Ok. Thanks.

ksmmike

For landscapes, the Nikon 20mm F1.8 is hard to beat. The Nikon 16-35 F4 is a good choice too but I prefer the 20mm. Another good lens on a budget is the older Nikon 80-200 F2.8. It's heavy and built like a tank but a used copy will cost far less than the current 70-200's and the older lens will take wonderful images. The AF is slower than the newer lenses but for most things it wont matter. I even shot sports with it for years.

Since you don't mind manual focus, the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 lens will last you a lifetime. The Voigtlander 40mm pancake is a nice lens too. The manual focus older Nikon 135mm or 105 can be found for less than $150 each and are both incredible lenses. There is also a 200mm F4 manual focus which is a nice lens too, but I think the 135mm is the best of the lot of the older manual focus Nikons. I have used and owned all the lenses mentioned above. I rarely leave my house without the Voigtlander 58mm.

Mike

gainesn Loc: Chickamauga, GA

Ok. Thanks.

neillaubenthal

Personally...I see no need for most amateurs or advanced amateurs to go FF for a couple of reasons weight and cost are higher with FF. Image quality...there are a couple of things to really consider...pixels on target, ISO performance, and noise performance. For pixels on target...once you take out the DX factor from the D750p...you need at least 38 MP sensor in FF to get the same number of pixels on the bird, bear, or whatever. Anything less than that you get fewer pixels on the subject which lowers the image quality. Ouse is lower with FF, and perhaps ISO performance as well...although both of those are also affected by the age of the tech in the camera... but generally speaking larger pixel size is better. You also need to consider where the images are going...anything on a screen or web then you lose a lot of the FF advantages...and they only really shine with large prints. For most of us, the cost and weight penalty and fewer pixels on target (unless you get the really expensive body) outweighs the ISO and noise performance. Besides...switching to FF means you need all new glass...more bucks by a lot to replace what you used to have.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

About five years ago, my friend bought a Nikon D7100. It came with a kit lens. He decided to buy the Nikon 28-300mm, because he dreamed of owning a D750. Better yet, a D810. He said, if I ever go full frame, I already have my first FF lens. Since then, he has had some financial obligations, that has prevented him from purchasing any one of those two cameras. I told him to get the D810, because it has 36 megapixels. I'm hoping his dream will come true. He said the 28-300mm lens, never gets exchanged for his kit lens.

tshift Loc: Overland Park, KS.

I have a D810 and D800. I love the D810, a super camera. It is a little slow for shooting sports photography which I am but I make it work and it does well very well. I know you will enjoy this camera for any years to come. When you get it please post some photos for us to look at. Thanks

Tom

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Yeah the D810 will get everything a the top of the line lens can deliver- which means any lens less will reduce the final product according to the quality of the lens... . Thing is, you have a premium camera who's life is relatively limited when compared to that of a good lens- which will bridge over to newer cameras and hold their value much better.

So bite the bullet and look at pairing a top of the line FF lens that will take advantage of your cameras capabilities. If you like landscapes, I'd go with a wide angle prime, a good tripod and lock the mirror up and use a cable, don't move around... then be amazed.

FYI- I made the same upgrade as you, D800e when it first came out, then began to build my lens collection. Milvus 21 & 85, Nikkor 105 & 50 - but I could get by with just the 21... If I had to do a second lens, the 105- those two do most everything i want to do. The 85 is an amazing portrait lens- i don't really like portraits, but they pay. In a pinch the 105 is an excellent portrait lens- and can do Micro work when needed- you need room though.

Now here its the thing. When I buy my next Nikon body... I will not need to buy any new lenses.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Whoops -
Duplicated the above somehow

CWGordon

A lot of great advice given above. I will only add that the 2 best pieces of advice are the ones that suggest comparable fuul-frame lenses to what you used with your crop lenses. Also, the higher megapixel cameras will definitely show the shortcomings of the less expensive lenses. I have had most of the Nikon line, at one time or another, from the D80, 200,300, 700,800,D5, D850’s. I may shoot differently than you, but find the 24-120 is a great all-around lens. The 24-70 is a bit more sharp, but heavier and more expensive. If I could only have one lens, I would likely take my trusty 80-400. It will do almost anything you could want a lens to do. Reasonable cost, as well.
Others will shoot different subject matter and will recommend different lenses. Some will just plain disagree with my choices. That is why the advice given above is so good. Get lenses comparable to those you liked and used most often with your crop frame camera.

Flash Falasca Loc: Beverly Hills, Florida

I have the D800 and I have the 28-300 lens and it rarely leaves my camera.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

After hearing about this lens here I found one for under $90 to do close-ups with a longer focal length. Very nice even with a DX body with no motor. Should be even better with FF and motor.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

You need two lenses: wide angle and telephoto lens. For wide angle lens I can recommend Nikon 17-35mm f2.8. It's older pro grade lens, it's a little heavy, but very well made, almost all metal. I replaced all my primes with this lens and I like it. It's very expensive if you buy new which I don't recommend. You can find a good copy for under $500. You can read about it here:
https://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/672-nikkorafs173528ff

For tele 80-200 2.8 is very good but very heavy. I would go with 70-300 VR, it's not heavy and very sharp, VR works very well. Auto focus fast and almost silent.