DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I have found the 24-120 to be a really good lens and my favorite walking around lens. For the future, I would suggest the 105 Macro for your model trains. I would suggest the 200-500 for birding and when you need extreme distance. My favorite lens for portrait and just all-around and the best glass I own is the 70-200 f/2.8 FL. When all that is done the 14-24 is and awesome lens as is the 24-70.

photon56 Loc: North America

I like the 28-300mm lens as an all purpose lens.

AmyJ Loc: Maryland

IMHO the ultimate trifecta for a full frame is 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8's. Then add the 200-500 for your wildlife photography and, boom, you have everything you need. Still hang on to the 24-120 for travel multi-purpose.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

VisualMusing Loc: Carrollton, TX

Bingo!!!!

Vladimir200 Loc: Beaumont, Ca.

David, I see that you've been raving about the new Nikon 70-200 2.8 FL for quite awhile now and bec of you, I've done a lot of research. I finally pulled the trigger today and B&H said I'll receive this puppy on Thursday. Thanks for your comments. Question: Is the foot on the lens Arca Swiss compatible or will I need to replace the foot to place this lens on an Arca Swiss tripod? Thanks, again.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

how about the 10-24mm on the low end and i'll let the others pick their high end, but the one who said 80-400 I agree. that's my 2 cents, lol. good luck with your decision.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

<David> you and amyj ? I think and others, say the 14-24. what about the 10-24 going just a little ? wider/closer ? ???

DAMcCoy

I have these three with my d750. 14-24 f2.8, 24-120 f4, and 200-500 f5.6. I shoot mostly nature street and some landscapes. Right now there is nothing more that I want.

sholland98 Loc: Benbrook, Texas

28-200G f3.5-5.6 stays on my750 most always.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

I just returned from a trip to Spain, Morocco and Gibraltar. Although I bought the Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 ED VRII, etc. lens last year, I also took along four other lenses on the trip by habit based on past experience doing travel photography. It was a heavy and burdensome load that detracted from my enjoyment of the trip with little benefit. During my entire trip I only used another lens for a few shots on one occasion. Other than that, I used the 24-70mm for EVERYTHING (2250 exposures). In the future, I am dispensing with all the other lenses when I travel. I will not only save weight, but it will allow me to dispense with my rollalong camera luggage; which will save additional weight and space.

The lens is of superb quality and, since the D800 is a 36Mp camera, I can use a very small section of the frame at 70mm and maintain quality at the equivalent of an estimated 200mm lens when necessary. Although this lens is in the $2,500 price range, it will do the job on your D750 and will save you the expense of adding lense after lens to your collection. Also, when it comes time to upgrade your camera, it will continue to do the job.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

My advice, for what it's worth, would be to wait until you actually NEED another lens. For travel and general use on my APSC cameras I used a 16 - 85 lens and found it to be versatile and convenient. When I switched to full frame (D700, D750 and D800) I used the 24 - 120mm f4 and again found that range to be perfect for travel and general use. Its great to have a semi-permanently attached lens on your camera for the convenience and simplicity. I suggest you don't buy another lens until you have a need for it, and by then you will know exactly which lens to buy for the purpose - or you can query the hogs again and we will all tell you what we would buy rather than what you should buy. Keep your money, or buy a really good tripod. If you are serious about improving your photography a good tripod will do you more good than another lens that you haven't yet found a need for.

therwol Loc: USA

$$$ How much do you want to spend? Without criticizing any of these lenses (because there is nothing in performance to criticize), they're pricey and also heavy for travel. The 70-200 f4 VR costs much less than the 2.8's, is much lighter, and gives essentially the same performance unless you absolutely need f2.8. I don't, and that's the 70-200 I bought.

But before you buy anything, determine that there is a real need before sinking a lot of money into lenses that might come in handy someday.

GEEJAY Loc: witness protection

28-300

TJBNovember Loc: Long Island, New York

I like to thank everyone for the input. You all have given me quite a bit to think about, and much research to do, and with some of the suggestions a bit of saving up also.

Thanks much, TJ.