CO

I have the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR AF-S (2013 version - not the 2000 version) for wildlife shots. It's sharp and has very fast autofocus. I really think the nano crystal coating on the glass gives it slightly higher contrast than lenses with standard multi-coatings.

For street photography, I would recommend one of Tamron's new SP series prime lenses. The reason is that they all have vibration compensation. That really helps when it's not practical to use a tripod. They also have a metal lens barrel and are fully weather sealed. I purchased the 45mm f/1.8 for my Nikons. I use it sometimes for outdoor model photo shoots. The vibration compensation gives me rock steady shots. The new lenses are the 35mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, and 90mm f/2.8 macro.

RoadRunner65

For Astrophotography, look @ the Rokinon 14mm f/28, this is a manual focus, available from B&H or Amazon for $379.00. Go to LonelySpeck.com and read Ian Norman's article on "How to shoot the Milkyway", and what equipment to use! Great info for someone starting out in Astrophotography! Enjoy your new Camera!

chemdoc Loc: West Coast

I use the Nikon 14-24 F/2.8 for both landscape and star/milky way photography. It is an excellent lens. The main downside is that it doesn't accept filters. The lack of vibration reduction is occasionally an issue in low light but I normally use a tripod anyway.

My first lens for the 750 was a Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 which has VR. It's a good quality lens and produces excellent images at less than half the price of the Nikon version.

I can provide sample images if you want.

ChackbayGuy Loc: South Louisiana

You can always count on jerryc41 for some great links. Thanks, Jerry, will check those out also. good Luck zoey1212. Welcome to the forum... John

Valsmere Loc: New Jersey

Same as I have plus the 200-500mm (awesomeness by the way) I got some great moon shots the other night. And a 16-35 ultra wide angle to mess around with. The 24-120 is a great all arounder!

Idaho

First of all what is in your budget for all if this very expensive glass? Second, do you plan to accumulate this over time? If so, what to start out with would be an important decision.

wolfman

1) Nikkor 16-35 f/4
2) Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VRII
3) Sigma Sport 150-600 f/5.0-6.3

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I suggest a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 FL and a Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. If you can budget it. the holy trinity is teriffic. 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Those are both nice lenses, but intended for a DX camera. While they could be used, the D750 would crop them down. Better to find an FX lens for the D750. No criticism intended, just an observation.

mrfisher77 Loc: Mayfield Heights, Ohio

Excellent advice Jerry!

The 28-300 is a razor sharp all-purpose lens. In addition, I would add the 50mm 1.4, and the 70-200 2.8 (which can be found used and in great condition for reasonable $$). You could stop with those 3 and click off a ton of great pics. A couple of older lenses that I have on my D750 (and love!!) are the 35-70 2.8 and the 28-105 3.5-5.6

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I just moved to FF and decided to build slowly. 50mmf1.4, 18-35 f3.5-4 and a 70-300 which will need replacing for better IQ. I deliberately do not have 24-70 f2.8 because I felt that for all the weight, it didn't offer much on the high end and only "some" on the low end

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

1. I'd suggest you get a wide angle zoom for the landscape/seascape and astrophotography. A 16-35mm or 17-35mm would work well. Normally I'd suggest an f/4 lens to keep price, size and weight reasonable, plus because "slower" lenses can be sharper corner to corner and have less vignetting or distortions. However, since you also want to be able to shoot at night, you will probably want an f/2.8 in order to have a brighter viewfinder.

2. For wildlife you will want a telephoto lens and will need to decide just how big and heavy a lens you're willing to haul around. The Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6 VR is a really good value and a zoom such as this will be versatile. The Tamron 150-600mm "G2" VC might be a good choice if you need more than 500mm (which you might, using an FX camera for telephoto work). More expensive, as well as significantly bigger and heavier, the Sigma 150-600mm "Sport" is a top choice. All these lenses are relatively large and heavy... so you are likely to want a good, stable, sturdy tripod or at least a monopod any time you shoot for more than a few minutes handheld.

The Nikkor 80-400mm is another top choice, faster focusing than the 200-500mm, though also more expensive and 100mm to 200mm "shorter" than some of the alternatives. To be more mobile and do mostly handheld work, I often use a 300mm f/4 lens, which is a lot smaller and lighter option. I pair it up with a quality 1.4X teleconverter to have two useful focal lengths, though it's still not as versatile as a zoom.

Sigma has just recently introduced a smaller 100-400mm lens, too. Seems like a good choice at a nice price, except that there's no tripod mounting ring provided and personally that would make me cross it off my list. There's soon going to be a Tamron 100-400mm VC, too... it's been announced but isn't in stores yet (last time I checked). Unlike the Sigma, Tamron will offer an optional tripod mounting ring for it, sold separately. (A tripod ring is included with all the previously mentioned telephotos.)

I know you just got the FX camera, but if you find yourself doing a lot of wildlife photography you might want to consider complementing it with one of the DX cameras, such as the D7200. For powerful telephoto work, a DX camera is ideal. It gives you the effect of a "free 1.5X teleconverter", more "reach" with minimal trade-offs. By "free", I mean that there's no loss of a stop of light, the way there would be with an actual 1.5X teleconverter. Of course, you will probably not need this right away, but it's something to consider for the future. FX cameras are ideal for wide angle work... while DX cameras are ideal for telephoto work.

3. For portraiture and street photography I'd recommend several small, fast prime lenses. Those are much less intrusive than big, fast zooms and much less costly primes often offer one to two stops larger apertures. Classic street photography commonly uses 28mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses on an FX camera such as the D750. Portraiture on FX cameras traditionally uses 85mm, 100mm and 135mm lenses. These are not strict rules by any means... But there are a lot of reasons why street and portrait photographers often choose a few primes, instead of zooms. But I think one of the most important is that the smaller primes are less likely to attract attention or intimidate a subject, than some big, impressive looking zoom. The portrait focal lengths are optimal for how they render perspective. Wider lenses used up close will tend to exaggerate peoples' features... making their noses look big and their ears look small. It's more subtle, but longer focal lengths do the opposite and "compress" perspective... But more importantly they often require a lot more working space, which might not be available when shooting portraits. Most mid-range zooms are f/2.8 at best....and those tend to be big, heavy and expensive. In comparison, relatively inexpensive 28mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses are available with f/2, f/1.8 and f/1.4 maximum apertures... twice to four times as much light, at lower price, with a much smaller, lighter lens! They won't be as versatile as a zoom. You'll have to "zoom with your feet". But those primes will be less "scary" to candid subjects... and possibly less attractive to thieves.

There are any number of photo equipment review websites out there.... search for any specific lens and you'll find far more than you want to read, I'm sure. But many of those websites appear to simply repeat the manufacturers' specifications and may not even get the gear in hand and run their own comparisons. Others do significant testing, but I always remain somewhat skeptical. For example, DXO Optics tests gear and posts all kinds of "scienterrific" info about virtually any lens made the past 25 years.... except I find a lot of discrepancy between their "ratings & rankings" and real world use of gear itself. Ken Rockwell uses and reviews Nikon gear extensively (and somewhat less Canon stuff), but is extremely opinionated and sometimes just seems incorrect in what he reports. To me, dpreview.com is among the most objective and thorough. Another site unfortunately doesn't review a whole lot of Nikon gear, but I think the-digital-picture.com website does a really good job putting gear through it's paces and like that they post thorough test shot examples that allow visitors to compare ,any of the qualities of select lenses side-by-side. He does some limited Nikon testing, so it's worth checking. Finally, the guys at Lensrentals.com handle and work extensively with multiple copies of most gear (unlike most reviewers, who probably base all their comments on a single copy), plus are basing their judgments on real world use and get to see how stuff holds up over time. In addition to brief comments in their website's rental "store" area, also look for more in-depth posts on their blog. Sometimes you'll ind more complete insights about specific items there, which you might find helpful.

EDIT: Personally I dislike and won't use "do it all" zooms like 28-300mm. To me, those always seem to compromise in a number of ways. They're not wide enough for much landscape work, IMO. And they all have relatively small, variable apertures that make them less useful in low light or especially at night. They're too big and intrusive to use for street photography and don't have large enough aperture to be able to blur down backgrounds nicely for candid portraits. And 300mm on an FX camera really is nowhere near long enough for a lot of wildlife photography. Plus that type of lens typically can't be used with a teleconverter... Or, even if it can, the combo won't give acceptable image quality.

"Do-it-all" zooms are all about convenience... about not having to change lenses. "One lens to do everything", even if it doesn't do any of it particularly well! Okay.... It might make sense to use one for aerial photography from a cramped airplane cockpit, on a safari with a half dozen other photographers in the back of a truck jostling for a shot, or shooting from a canoe or kayak, or in travel situations where what you're permitted to take is extremely limited. But in general, if never changing lenses was your goal, it was a mistake to buy a DSLR. Might as well have gotten a bridge or point-n-shoot with non-interchangeable lenses! One of the main points of a DSLR is the ability to change lenses to adapt the camera for use in a wide variety of situations. There are reasons Nikon makes upwards of 90 different lenses for use on their DSLRs!

zoey1212

I can’t express how much time u took to thoughtfully respond I full appreciate

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

"The Angry Photographer", Ken Wright IIRC, on YouTube does a number of videos on best nikon lenses and values....
So, people like his info, some don't...but it is there to be part of your decision process...

Best,
Todd Ferguson

mannypr

I would go for the holly trinity of Nikon . 14-24mm , 24-70mm , 70-200mm . They are all great lens . If you buy new you.might go overboard on price a bit over 5k . Buy 2 new and one used . Or buy them all used and save about 1 grand . Of course their are other good options from Tamron and Sigma.but personally I would stick with Nikon .