JimEaco

Nikon ~ Canon | Potato ~ Patata
Both make very good cameras and lenses.
I always leaned in the direction of Canon, she always favored Nikon.
We have both been away from Photography (in any serious manner) since around 1999/2000 when shooting 35mm.
I have more experience she has more raw talent and is awesome with post processing.
She has made the first move: Nikon D7100 & D5000 : 55-200mm VR & 50mm 1.8
I could be a knucklehead and go buy a Canon 5D M-3 and a few "L" series lenses, but this is not a competition it is a collaboration.
So I'm now committed to Nikon.
I know darn well crop sensors will not satisfy her or my ultimate demands as we hone our skills.
But DX has its place and will serve well in some conditions.
My plan is to progressively build a set of FX lenses and then add 2 full frame bodies. (D810 & D810E)
first... a 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 VR
At minimum two more FX zoom lenses before any FX body...
1 wide (14-24 f/2.8)
1 mid-range (the big mystery) may not need mid range?
1 Telephoto (70-200 f/2.8 VR)

Then a few fast primes. (35-50-85) f/1.4 or better.

I am curious if this seems to be a logical progression for us to practice and improve our skills.

Not looking for opinion on which manufacturer is better than the other, more interested in the focal lengths and f/stops to have a well rounded system. No real interest in Macro.
I do a fair amount of aerial work, real property (commercial), and landscape, she does people & events. I become her second shooter on events, she enjoys tagging along when I do interesting real estate work... (not fond of small aircraft so I'm on my own there)

I see another $10,000 -$11,000 in gear before our gadget bag is near our expectations, need to be prudent in the process.

What would you add, what would you delete?

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Here is my view. The D810 is a fantastic camera. I have 4 lenses. 70-200 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 14-24 f/2.8 and a 105G f/2.8. I am a happy camper. I have all I need unless I want to become a bird-in-flight freak. That could happen and if it did I would probably get the Tamron 150-600 which is about $1,000. I use all my lenses. The 70-200 and 105G are great for portraits. The 70-200 is a great sports action lens and the 105G is a very good macro lens. The 24-70 is a wonderful mid-range wide angle lens and covers things that you would normally use a 35mm or 50mm. The 14-24 is a wow for landscape shots and especially good for interior and exterior architecture. I do have a TC20EIII and I honestly cannot recommend it. It's a waste of over $500.00. I have in addition a D800 which I still enjoy and use as a backup. I also have a Sony RX100 which shoots full manual and captures raw and I can stick it in my pocket. For fun, I have a Sony DSCHX400v which will zoom to 1200mm and will allow me to shoot manual. The only downside is that it only shoots Jpeg. I hope this helps you an your wife. Good luck.

JimEaco

Thank you David,

Thanks for the reply and your insights.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Since you're going to get an FX camera later, I see no rationale for buying DX lenses now.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

David's suggestions and comment work for me. Except I have the Nokon 16-35 as it accepts filters (ND & CP) the same size as most of my other lenses. ;)

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Seems you've decided on the cameras.

I would go for:

- a good wide angle, either 14-24 or 16-35, depending on a) how you feel about the exposed front element on the 14-24, and b) how often you use filters.

- the 70-200 f2.8 VRII

- 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 to fill the gap. While it's nice to 'cover it all' with the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, I don't think it's really necessary. The 50mm is not so expensive that you couldn't add the 24-70 later on.

Have you considered flash(es) and tripod(s)? Or are they already covered?

mdsiamese Loc: Maryland

I would get a fast prime (a 1.4) sooner rather than later, "she" will be happier with that I think. By saying she has more raw talent, I'm assuming that means she is more artistic while you are more technical. That wide aperture is an artistic necessity. I have the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4, I bought the 50 four years before the 85 came out, otherwise I would probably have bought just the 85. I love having such wide apertures available. f1.4 allows for a lot more creativity than some of the other lenses you mentioned. Move one of those f1.4 lenses up in line.

JimEaco

Thanks and good advice,
yes the 16-35 will likely be a better option for us.
In that I've always liked to have a real good 50 (or 85) I agree the mid range will be covered with the 1.4 prime which opens more options on low light and depth of field...
I have tripods and filters from my Canon FD days galore; some studio lighting, and other accessories will fall into place upon demand.

Thoughtful replies much appreciated, I will be (as mentioned) picking up a single piece of glass at a time for use with the existing D5000 & D7100... but always with an eye toward the D810 & probably an 800E.
The 28-300 may be next/first new purchase, only for the versatility it affords with both existing bodies and the aerial application. 1.4 85 (or 50) prime probably second and the 70-200 always in sight (the one we really want first)
But opportunity and need may shift the order (not to mention impulse and credit! LOL)

JimEaco

You interpreted me correctly she is artistic and I am technical. With 2 bodies and complementary lenses, we come home with two sets of completely different photos from the same location. Rarely a duplicated shot, or vantage point.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Without mentioning specific lenses, I would suggest covering a large focal length with several lenses. Buy the fastest FX lenses you can afford. Autofocus, if available.

It's always easy giving recommendations when you're not the one spending the money.

Phantom53 Loc: Australia

For your wife I would suggest 70-200 VR11 2.8, It is a beautiful lense fas and most pro's us this for portrait work.. I have also used it a few times in 2 seater planes but very difficult because of weight restrictions and its size, you would be better with the 70-300 as smaller and lighter. The other must have lens would have to be the 24-70 2.8

Phantom53 Loc: Australia

depending on the budget I also think the 105 2.8 macro takes such beautiful sharp pictures with good compression and I also love my 50mm 1.4 as it is quick, small and unbelievable in low light

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I would delete the 14-24. I have it and it sits at home, replaced by the 16-35 f/4. Why? Because it is a 77 mm lens and works with the same 77 mm filters (polarizers and ND's) as my 24-70, 70-200, 80-400 and 105. I can throw a Lee 10-stopper on all of them. You will not a find a good polarizer for the 14-24 and an ND is huge. At mid range - 24-70 f/2.8 is exceptional. Incredibly sharp.

You did not mention a tripod and this is where I would put time and research in selecting a good one.

Here is a shot I took last night of the Golden Gate Bridge at sunset, Nikon D810, 24-70 f/2.8 and a Lee 10-stopper. long exposure. Yes, I am in the Pacific Ocean to get the shot. Why last night - minus tide at sunset in October which is San Francisco's summer. Mark twain said the coldest winter he experienced was a summer in San Francisco ... sooo true. Oh, this area is unreachable during any other time/tide. Image is a bit over saturated as a jpg.

Phantom53 Loc: Australia

Hey Mark, I agree with you about scrapping the 14-24 I also have it and it just sits at home and have only used it 4-5 times and sick of lugging that monster around. Nice shot by the way.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Beautiful shot. I have a much less expensive Tokina 16-28mm, which I use quite often.