Lens bucket list

So as some of you might know from reading my post yesterday pretty much my standard lens collection got obliterated by myself while

hiking though the Grand Canyon. I am now in the market for all new lenses (all I have is a Nikkor 60mm micro and an el cheapo 50mm

lens). Right now I have a D300 that I am hoping to upgrade later this year to a used D700. So, even though I don't have a full frame

camera right now I would like to invest in regular/full frame lenses instead of Dxs. I am not a Nikon purist I am open to all brands and

input. I will say I am a little on the broke side so although I would like to invest in top of the line lenses, and I am willing to make a dream

sheet, I also need to be realistic about financial means. So advise away please!

<p>Well, the 28-300 VR is a full-frame equivalent to your 18-200. I like mine as a vacation/walking around lens... If you're going to be doing any 'Pro' type shooting then faster lenses might be in order. The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 would be good choices.</p>

<p>Off brand lens <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00Z9Ce">list </a></p>

I was thinking of breaking to something more like the latter option Bob suggested. Since I do a lot of backpacking I tend to

use wide and macro a lot and could lose a lot of weight by not carrying a long lens ( although I have often wished I had

300mm) I'd like to get something really wide like a 10 or 12mm. I know the wider lenses get a fringe on the images and

didnt know what Others' experiences were (maybe a question for a more specified post). I was looking at the Tokina 12-

24 but could only find for DXs and not full frame. So I don't know.

<p>Since you are on a budget and need light weight then that means primes.</p>

<p>The 24mm/F2.8 is a good, cheap and light lens perfect of carrying around. Nothing wrong with the Nikon 50mm lenses either.</p>

<p>I learned along time ago when I was a student trying to fund my photography addiction, that it was better to buy a good lens than buy a cheap lens and later buy the good lens. Good lenses last decades. Camera bodies not so much especially with digital cameras. There will always be a new camera that one wants/needs but I am still using lenses I bought back in the 90's. Frankly I would still be using lenses I bought in the 80's but I bought Canon and they changed the lens mounts for AF which required me to buy a new camera system. I did. I bought Nikon. </p>

<p>Create your lens list and buy the ones you can afford when you have the money which is what I did. I wanted an 80-200/F2.8 lens for over a decade but I could never justify the money. Eventually I bought the 70-200F2.8 VRII and that lens is worth every painful penny but I made do for years with 24mm/F2.8, 105mm/F2.8, 35-70mm/2.8 and a 180mm/F2.8. Eventually I bought a 50mm/F1.4 but that was only five or so years ago. I sold that 180mm/F2.8 because it was not being used because of the 70-200 but there was nothing wrong with that 180mm lens. Hated to sell it because it was small and light compared to the 70-200 and I go some great low light photos with it over the years.</p>

<p>The 24mm, 105mm, and 35-70mm I still use all of the time even though I bought them for use on a N70 and a F100. Those lenses have worked find on a D200, D700 and now a D800. The only new lenses I have bought have been the 50mm/F1.4, the 70200/F2.8 and a TC1.4. If Nikon ever releases an updated 300mm/F4.0 my REASONABLE lens list will be filled. I have been wanted/needing the 300mm/F4 for decades. A PC lens wouldbe nice to have as would the 500mm/F4 but I don't think I will be getting either. :)</p>

<p>I sometimes wish the 35-70 was a 24-70. MOST of the time 35 is wide enough but there are times when a 24-70 would be more useful. This happens just enough to be annoying but not often enough for me to trade in the 35-70 and buy a different lens. :)</p>

<p>Spend money on glass then worry about the body.</p>

<p>Later,<br>

Dan</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My suggestion is to start with the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. It's heavy ( and expensive) but I seem to use it for a high percentage of my landscapes. For the telephoto I opted for the Nikon 70-200 mm f/4, which is about half the weight of the f/2.8 lens. As a lower priced alternative consider the 70-300 mm f/4.5-6.3 VR lens The ultra wide zoom is a real question in my mind; I have the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens, while it is a beautiful lens, weight becomes a significant factor carrying all three lenses; you might want to consider one of the Zeiss wide angle fixed focus lens as an alternative.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd like to get something really wide like a 10 or 12mm. I know the wider lenses get a fringe on the images and didnt know what Others' experiences were (maybe a question for a more specified post). I was looking at the Tokina 12- 24 but could only find for DXs and not full frame. So I don't know.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sorry but if you're shooting DX now and hoping to upgrade to FX later, there are very few wide-angle options which work well on both. and <strong>zero</strong> w/a options which start at 10mm which are FF compatible.tokina offers two FX UWAs: the 16-28/2.8 and 17-35/4. if i was in your shoes, i'd consider a used tokina 12-24 or sigma 10-20. since someone else has already taken the depreciation hit, you can sell them later for what you paid for them.</p>

<p>IMO you're better off getting lenses for what you're actually shooting with, not what you might one day be shooting with, in most cases. that said, there are a few lenses which could work on DX now and FX later: tamron 28-75, for instance, is great on DX because it covers the portrait range (up to 112.5mm FLE). if you pair it with an UWA, you have pretty good coverage. nikon 24-70 obviously, will do the same thing but at much higher cost. and, with a 70-200 on DX, you get extended range thanks to the 1.5x crop, which is great for shooting outdoors. a standard zoom and a telezoom, preferably 2.8, are good foundation lenses for either DX or FX systems, so it's hard to go wrong there. if you're going to invest in any FX lens now while using DX, it should probably be one of those two.</p>

<p>105mm f2.8 af-s is one of my favourites.</p>

<p>Pre-Ai lenses are getting to be quite rare actually, and some now command a (much) higher price than more recent Nikkors - thanks to collectors. In short, I don't think it's worth seeking out non Ai lenses and then having the hassle of converting them. That's if you can still find the conversion rings, or don't mind using a file or milling machine on the back of the lens.</p>

<p>You might as well get Ai or Ai-S lenses straight off. In fact I'd tend to steer clear of Ai lenses too. The Ai-S lenses have a linear aperture actuator and can be fitted with a chip quite readily that allows camera body control of the aperture. While Ai lenses can also be chipped, the accuracy of the aperture isn't guaranteed throughout its range.</p>

<p>Some good ol' MF lenses that work well with modern FF DSLRs are: 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S Nikkor; 105mm f/1.8 Ai-S Nikkor; Series E 75-150mm f/3.5 Zoom Nikkor; 20mm f/2.8; 24mm f/2.8; 28mm f/2; 35mm f/2; and possibly the 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S Zoom Nikkor - if you don't look too hard at the corners of the frame. If you shop around you could probably pick up all of the above lenses for less than the price of one of Nikon's pro series AF zooms.</p>

<p>When you say lightweight and backpacking, for me the D5200 immediately comes to mind. It has twice the resolution of the D700 too. As for lenses, f2.8 zooms get very heavy, and I doubt you would need them for landscapes. I would go Nikon 16-85mm VR and 70-200mm f4 VR, maybe even lighter stuff if hiking at higher altitudes.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Thanks all. I have a couple non-AI... One still unused in the box because I've never gotten around to remounting it. I've

been reading through the thread on third party gems and dogs and gotten some good insight there as well.

 

As to D5200 vs D700. The D5200 isn't weather or dust sealed and I can't guarantee the equipment isn't going to get dust

or rained on backpacking. My wonderful boyfriend used to carry my 8-10 lb kit for me when we would go backpacking so I

am trying to be considerate for his sake.

 

I think immediately I am going to go for the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 because I am going to the smokies in 3 weeks

for the azaleas and I think I can get by with a wide angle and telephoto. But I still am interested in people's opinions.

Thanks!

<p>I just got done buying my kit that has gotten me back into photography after 7 years without an SLR. I literally had less than $700 to do it and so this is what I got for that:<br>

A Vivitar Series 1 Manual focus AI mount 28-90 f2.8-3.5 in MINT condition for $62.50 shipped for taking portraits. I LOVE THIS LENS. Its beautiful to look at and gives me stunning results. This weekend the sun will cme out here in Oregon and I plan on uploading a lot of photos to my workspace. But I also got an AF Nikkor 70-210mm F4 for $156 shipped. again, stunning photos and this one focuses perfectly on my $256 D200 that only has 18,976 firings on it. I also got an 18-70 3.5-4.5 as a walk around lens, and an old AI 55mm f3.5 micro lens in perfect condition for $119 shipped. I did pretty good for what I had to spend. I still want a Tokina 12-24 f4 and would love an 80-200 f2.8 AFD lens, but for now will focus on a Vivitar ring flash, a focusing rail and mini tripod and life size adapter for my micro lens as I intend on using that one to shoot craft products for various local craftsmen/women for posting on various websites. I bought these lenses knowing that each would do what I needed to in order to supplement my income so I could eventually get more gear. In some cases I don't mind third party lenses, but for the most part I do like Nikon's...and Canon's glass...I came from Canon originally... </p>

<p>If you are really absolutely sure you're going to go FX, then the strategy of getting only FX lenses makes good sense.</p>

<p>If you're not completely sure, or think it might be a few years, then there are some very nice DX lenses like the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/635-nikkor16853556vr">16-85mm VR</a> that would continue to serve you if you keep a DX body (a strategy I recommend highly), even if you go FX. That range is nearly ideal for an all in one shooter</p>

So you would recommend staying with DX instead of upgrading to FX? I always thought bigger sensor meant more

resolution and better image quality and you can make BIG prints.

<p>Another vote for the Tokina 12-24/4. Good IQ, wonderful build and handles nicely on the D300. I was going to swoop in and breezily announce that KEH has one for $2XX, but they seem to be all out right now. However I've seen them in very nice shape for under $250 and you could probably sell one for about the same in the near future if you're even a little patient.</p>

<p>It's certainly fun (and sometimes useful) to make list of ideal lenses, but what are you willing to spend / want to be able to cover right now? Sounds like Daniel Sandlin has done a very nice job putting together a capable kit at a modest price, for example. I imagine the "cheapo 50" and the 60mm Micro-Nikkor will serve as pretty decent short telephotos with the DX crop, and if you want a macro with longer reach as well as working distance the most recent Tokina 100/2.8 AF is pretty nice. (Apart from the nice optics I am a big fan of the as-usual great Tokina build.) If you're willing to dip into manual focus the Kiron 105/2.8 alluded to by someone already is legendary, but IMO overpriced as a cult lens. Its alias as the "Lester A. Dine" is well known (in fact that's the version I have) so same problem, but the same lens was also sold as a Vivitar 100/2.8 (without even a Series 1 label). The clues are the serial number beginning with "22" and the same stout metal build and markings (albeit in different colored paint) as the Kiron. I got mine at a camera show for $40, for example.</p>

<p>For a relatively cheap and decent-quality telezoom the AF Nikkor 70-210/f4 Daniel has is a good budget choice. (This is one of the earliest AF lenses, with the optical guts of the Series E 70-210/4 and a miserly, narrow, hard-plastic, nonergonomic focusing ring way at the end of the lens. In compensation the zoom part is very generous.) It also focuses quite close for a zoom (maybe 1:4?). The only caveat is that it has the old screw-drive AF, so won't work with cheaper digital bodies. But it works, and balances, fine on a D300 and ought to work on a D700. For more reach, weight and expense (but in-lens AF) the Sigma 100-300/f4 HSM is pretty decent, if you want a moderately long telephoto (but still too frustratingly short for most birding). I've seen them at KEH for around $600-700 dollars (depending on what bits come with), but again, they seem to be out of stock right now.</p>

<p>Hmm, JDM's comment appeared in the time I was blathering away at the keyboard. DX or FX depends on a bunch of stuff. Cost is clearly a major factor. That said, in addition to being cheap I'm staying DX because I like the extra telephoto reach with the DX crop. As to printing big, I imagine that good technique and using lenses at their optimal apertures, etc goes a long way toward compensating for smaller sensor sizes. And there is some very fine work being done with smaller-sensor cameras such as the Olympus OM-D (E-M5). Whoever is naming cameras at Olympus needs to be picked up and shaken hard.</p>

So you have a good D300 which is a great machine, and you add the wide that you want and later aim for a D7100 which

has the same weather sealing as your D300 and then you can stay with the lighter and smaller DX lenses and up your

sensor a few notches. I had D200s and added D5100s because I just want to stay DX and will eventually add a D7100 or

maybe a D5200, but If you like those smaller ultra wides they are going to be bigger and heavier which is a definite

consideration when backpacking etc. Just my 2 cents.

<blockquote>

<p>So you would recommend staying with DX instead of upgrading to FX?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I mean that it is really handy to have two (2) bodies, one DX and one FX, especially if the controls on both are essentially the same. :)<br>

Although there's nothing wrong about staying with DX these days either. </p>

Are there other good resources besides KEH? I've had success in the passed on eBay and a local shop for buying used

gear and that is it. My big pressure is smokies in 3 weeks. This will be my only chance to go in the next 4 years because I

will be moving out west this fall. I hate the idea of renting and not putting that money into a new lens...

<p>This, now discontinued, AF lens would work on both DX and FX. That's why I got one, used, from KEH.</p>

<p>http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product-Archive/Camera-Lenses/1998/AF-Zoom-NIKKOR-18-35mm-f%252F3.5-4.5D-IF-ED.html</p>

<p>They have some in EX+ condition for about $350. It weighs about 13oz ( 370g ) according to Nikon USA. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lightweight for landscape, go with a 20 or 24/2.8 AFd which is FX ready. And these are easy to source from Adorama, KEH or B&H.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I always thought bigger sensor meant more resolution and better image quality and you can make BIG prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bigger sensor means it's bigger.... The D700 has pretty much the exact same resolution as your D300, so the prints you can do with it are about as big. There are advantages and disadvantages to going FX... but given your description, one to consider is that FX tends to end up being a bit heavier (larger, heavier lenses).<br /> I second the idea of a second-hand Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24. Good, solid performers and used they do not cost too much. For tele, if you're on a very tight budget the 55-200VR really isn't a bad lens, but maybe not as rugged as you like. The 70-300VR is a good step up, but the price also.<br>

Personally, I'd sure add a 35 f/1.8DX too - it's very affordable, very good, small and light; if you later move to FX, selling it won't be too hard. It would perfectly fill the gap between wide and tele.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wouter: Tokina 12-24. Good, solid performers and used they do not cost too much.</p>

<p>Are there other good resources besides KEH?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20561390.html</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Logan, The June issue of Outdoor Photography has an article by Dewitt Jones that you may enjoy reading: "Sufficiency". Outdoor Photographer will consistently have feature articles on "going full-frame", or the perfect landscape lens. Here Dewitt Jones provides a perspective on working with what you have.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So you would recommend staying with DX instead of upgrading to FX? I always thought bigger sensor meant more resolution and better image quality and you can make BIG prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>we're now in an age of 24mp APS-C, which is 2x the resolution of 12mp FX. but there's no reason you cant make big prints from a d300; i have, up to 20x30, so there you go. i think the "advantages" of FX really depend on the intended use. At this point, you definitely get better hi-ISO, but FX lenses can be costlier and heavier. <br>

<br>

+1 on the tokina 12-24. it's a super lens with a useful range. excellent contrast rendition at 5.6-f/8. not all that heavy, either, despite the solid build. you could manage with that and a 70-210, although i'd also want a tripod for long exposures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...24mp APS-C, which is 2x the resolution of 12mp FX."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it's not! A camera with 24 Mp has 1.4 times the resolution of one with 12 Mp - at most.<br>

Remember that those megapixels are spread across the entire <em>area</em> of the sensor, not just along one linear dimension. To get twice the linear resolution, the number of pixels in the same area would have to be multiplied by 4, not 2.</p>

<p>Also you can't directly compare a DX sensor with an FX sensor by its pixel count alone. There's the greater effect of diffraction on the smaller format to consider, as well as the fact that the standard Nikon F register makes the design of super-wideangle lenses for DX a lot more difficult. In general the quality of 20 to 24mm lenses available for FX is a lot higher than that of 14 to 16mm lenses for DX, even though they cover the same angle of view.</p>