My last camera was a F100 can't decide either FX or DX !!!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by marcello dasilva, Apr 28, 2015.

  1. Long story short,my last camera was a F100 back in film days,have not had a camera in over 10 years,but now I want to get back to photography,mainly family,kids,little landscape,street photography,also interested in bokeh,no studio.
    I'm between the D610 and D7200 with the following lens:
    [​IMG] Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Lens
    [​IMG] Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Zoom Lens for Nikon
    [​IMG] Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G Lens
    [​IMG] Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens
    Yeah seems easy but I can't decide.
    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. FX.<br>But what is it that keeps you from deciding? What attracts you in 'the other choice' that keeps you from deciding for 'the easy choice'?
     
  3. Not sure,but what would be the "easy choice" ?
     
  4. None of the lenses shown will go very wide in DX format.
     
  5. Yeah I know,I had those in the cart with the D610.I keep going back and forth with those 2 cameras.
     
  6. A D610 is only $1500 now. Not bad. Really, if it's over a $300 difference between the cost of that or a D7200, and you're set on that selection of lenses, go with FX.
    I used to have an F100. I miss it. To me, it was the perfect modern SLR. A perfect fit in my hand and solidly made. Now I have a D750, and of the DSLRs I've used it feels the best, but even so it's not quite as good as the F100.
     
  7. Marcello, you said the choice seemed easy. What did you have in mind then? And what is it that makes it difficult anyway?
     
  8. I'm leaning towards the FX,because the bokeh is superior on a FX body.
     
  9. D750. Far better autofocus system for starters.
     
  10. The easy choice is a D7100, sell 24-70mm and get a 17-55mm, and then with all the money saved get a specialty lens liek 58mm 14 for "bokeh" (whatever that is.) The problem with digital cameras is they lose value so very fast. Doesn't make a lot of sense to buy a new one any more. I was using D7100 for everything and now a D800E, and honestly I don't see much of a difference at all for general shooting.
    I will add that I'm now looking for a camera again, and have settled on adding another Nikon--an F3/T!
    Kent in SD
     
  11. Nikon D7200 is a very fine camera, but seeing your lenses I would go for D610 to get the most out of it. Cheers!
     
  12. Kent--good for you! Back into the "fold!"
    Paul
    PS--The F3/T is pretty much FX, yes? :)
     
  13. To me that set of lenses makes much more sense on FX. Incidentally, a secondhand D800 isn't much more expensive than a D610 if you shop around, and is closer to the feel of the F100.
     
  14. Get one of the FX cameras, trying to work with the "crop factor" is just too annoying
     
  15. FYI, B&H still has the D610 at it's discount price but are including the Nikon MB-D14 battery grip at that price. If the idea of a grip added to your camera appeals to you, it's a swinging deal right now. I just bought a D7200 and it is an amazing camera but if I had your selection of lenses and wasn't interested in sports or wildlife photography, I'd jump on the D610. The D750 has better features, especially the auto focus module, but you may not necessarily need the differences it offers. That's for you to decide. But you have a nice selection of FX lenses and I would buy a camera that takes full advantage of them... based on your indicated photography interests.
    Tom
     
  16. guys, i dont think the OP has any of those lenses yet. so we're looking a considerable cash outlay with an FX camera.
    is $$ a concern? if so, it's possible to save quite a bit with essentially the same optical performance--minus the bokeh-- with DX. for instance, the 24-70 is currently about $1900 new; a sigma 17-50/2.8 is $500. that's almost a 75% premium, and you don't get stabilization. now if money is no object, then maybe that doesn't matter, but i think the choice comes down to what you shoot--for certain applications, such as wildlife, the 1.5x crop is in your favor. and you do get better AF with d7200 than with d610, which will matter more if you shoot things that move.
    if you don't shoot things that move, i would advise against getting a 24-70/2.8; it's big, and heavy, and the bokeh is average at best, also the range is a bit short. you'd probably be better off with a 24-120/4 for casual (non-event) shooting, with dedicated primes (or the 70-200) for bokeh. the tamron 28-75/2.8 is also a very good, inexpensive FX lens for what it costs; the bokeh is at least as good as the nikon, although the nikon is a weency bit sharper wide open, goes 4mm wider, and has faster AF.
    if you do get an FX body, i would strongly recommend the sigma 35/1.4 which is optically superior to the 24-70 (i have both, and the sigma is just crisper and sharper at f/2 than the nikon is at 2.8). $1500 for a FX body is approaching affordable, and if this is your first DSLR, then FX could make some sense as a format, if you're coming from the Analog Age.
    as i think about it, i guess im leaning toward FX in my recommendations here, just because i dont think Nikon's DX lens lineup is that strong, especially when you compare it to, say, Fuji (who have a full set of primes, including a 24/1.4 equivalent, as well as 2.8 zooms now). if you're willing to consider 3rd party offerings, then the sigma 18-35/1.8 gives you back the bokeh you lose from APS-C, with sharper performance than a longer zoom. but that's a tricky bit of hodgepodge to cobble together a winning DX lens lineup for Nikon nowadays.
    OTOH, i agree with all of the OP's lens choices for FX, with the exception of the 24-70 for reasons mentioned above. if budget isnt a primary concern, which it usually is, otherwise you'd be considering a d750/d810, in addition to the 35/1.4--which is simply a must-have lens for FX users who care about optical quality--i would also consider getting the new Sigma 50/1.4 ART for use on an FX body, instead of spending wasted money on an overpriced sports/action zoom (unless you are shooting paid events, in which case you want the 24-70). i would also want to have a wide angle option, that is, wider than 24mm, but YMMV. one good thing about FX is if you are scouring the used market, you can usually find some good deals if you are trying to be thrifty.
     
  17. 610 + 50mm would be best starter set. Especially since you're coming from an F100. Cartier-Bresson seemed to get along without a zoom lens so you should, too. :)
     
  18. so, to summarize, an FX lineup for casual/landscape/family/travel/street might look like this:
    • 24-120/VR
    • 70-200
    • 35/1.4 ART
    • 50/1.4 ART
    • 85/1.8 G
    optional wide angle: *18-35 or 14/2.8 Samyang (assuming MF would be ok for landscape): if you never use filters, i'd consider tokina 16-28 or nikon 14-24.
    **depending on how much you prioritize street, you might want to switch out the 24-120 for a 28-75. shorter, but also smaller.
     
  19. Looking at the set of lenses you're considering and your list of interests it makes sense to go for the FX camera, and if the price difference is no problem D750 instead of D610 would give you some advantages that can justify it.
     
  20. I have the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 and certainly don't consider it a "family outing" or travel lens. It's more of a specialty lens, I think. I mostly use it for weddings and events. I haven't taken it on any of our family travels for a number of years now. If I wasn't still shooting a few weddings I would quickly sell it. For travel where I'm likely to see wildlife, the Nikon 80-400mm AFS is much more versatile and useful.
    Kent in SD
     
  21. You just need to make the existential choice and live with it. This is an occasion on which pure "action" will trump "Enlightenment reason". Go with your gut or ask the magic eight-ball. However, when I asked for you, it replied "Better not tell you now" - so there you go. :)
    As for "bokeh is better" on one or the other format?
    I don't see it; sounds like one of those things "everybody knows" like flying saucers are alien spacecraft, clouds are really sylphs, etc. In any case, it is not something so overwhelming that it should be a major concern in deciding on one format or another, IMHO.
     
  22. so, to summarize, an FX lineup for casual/landscape/family/travel/street might look like this:
    • 24-120/VR
    • 70-200
    • 35/1.4 ART
    • 50/1.4 ART
    • 85/1.8 G
    optional wide angle: *18-35 or 14/2.8 Samyang (assuming MF would be ok for landscape): if you never use filters, i'd consider tokina 16-28 or nikon 14-24.
    **depending on how much you prioritize street, you might want to switch out the 24-120 for a 28-75. shorter, but also smaller.​
    I know I'm digressing now, but this set of lenses and Marcello's list of lenses don't say "amateur, thinking about getting back into the hobby" to me. Unless money doesn't matter, in which case, go for it and get the D750 instead of the D610 while you're at it.
    Marcello, how much do you want to put into this right now?
     
  23. Around $6500.
     
  24. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Around $6500.​
    That is quite a high budget. I would start with a D750 and maybe get the D750 + 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR kit, and maybe add another lens such as a 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. Unless you need to shoot indoors a lot, I prefer the lighter f4 zooms. Use maybe two lenses first and add more lenses as you see fit.
    At least I don't see any need to spend all $6500 at once.
     
  25. FX - for the brighter and easier-on-the-eye viewfinder alone. Plus you're obviously into a full-frame mindset from the lens selection you've made.
    Edit: JDM, by "bokeh" I think Marcello means ease of getting a shallow depth-of-field for a given subject size in frame, and there's no disputing that full-frame will do that over DX. There's about a stop difference in D-o-F between the formats, and no f/1 lenses available for DX. No disputing that fact, and it's certainly not in the fantasy realm of sylph clouds.
     
  26. The most 'obvious' difference between FX and DX are the size/brightness of the viewfinder and high ISO performance. If either or both are important to you, FX is probably your best path to follow. You will be very happy with either format as both are excellent.
     
  27. fx
    d610 - "cheap" and good
    d750 - "cheap" and good
    d810 - expensive and excellent
    for your photography i'd pick up a d610.
    if money is no issue i'd pick up a d810 or maybe wait half a year or so
    if they throw something new at us with the d5.
     
  28. If you`re used to full format, I`d simply get a full format camera. After several DX cameras I never got relaxed until the arrival of FX. So no question here, FX. There is always a price/performance interesting model.
    Which lenses? I`d start with one of them. If you don`t shoot too often, I`d get a "lightweight" all round versatile lens, 24-85 or 24-120 type.
    If you really want what you call "bokeh", I`d start with a 50/1.4.
    Only after that, I`d think on other lenses or whatever.
     
  29. If I was starting from scratch and wanted FX, I'd go Nikon D610 myself, unless I could afford those lenses and the D750.
    If I was shooting crop-frame, I'd do the Canon 7D mk II, though... (runs and hides...)
     
  30. I like Shun's suggestion. Maybe add the 50/1.8G for low light.
     
  31. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    As a lot of us know, at least in the US, the D750 has recently dropped to $1996.95, but the kit with the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR is especially a good deal at $2696.95: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082604-REG/nikon_d750_dslr_camera_with.html
    If you don't need the D750's AF, the D610 with the 24-85mm AF-S VR is also a very good kit: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008287-REG/nikon_d610_dslr_camera_with.html
    Either one would be a good starting point and will cost less than 50% of the OP's budget. There will be plenty of opportunities to add more lenses.
    If I was shooting crop-frame, I'd do the Canon 7D mk II, though... (runs and hides...)​
    I recently added a D7200, but I use a lot of long telephoto lenses. With the OP's budget and photo subjects, I would get FX.
    Canon's 7D Mark II is great for those who use long teles. It is not a camera for the OP. A few years ago, I would recommend Canon with no reservation. Sadly, as far as I see, Canon is no longer the market leader it once was from roughly year 1990 to a few years ago. Today, they are lagging behind. It is one thing if you already have some Canon lenses. Otherwise, it wouldn't be my first choice for a new system.
     
  32. Shun, I agree, I was just throwing it out there. Sometimes people's needs and capacities are different than they seem at first.

    If I were birding or shooting sports primarily, I think the 7D mk II would be freakin' perfect. The OP isn't really shooting that.

    But... one more thought, OP.
    If you're new to all this, don't buy it all at once. You might end up buying stuff you don't need. Start with one body and one mid-range zoom lens (That D750/24-120 kit would be awesome) and MAYBE add one low-light large-aperture lens like the 50 f1.4G or f1.8G).
    Shoot with nothing but for a little while (maybe add a flash if you're into that) and then see how it goes. Add lenses as you go. That's what I'd do (and what I have, in fact done, the 3 times in my life I've built a system).
     
  33. To add to the vast amounts of advice already given:
    family,kids,little landscape,street photography​
    None of that to me has a direct advantage of the superior AF of the D7100, D7200 or D750 - I think the D610 makes an awful lot of sense here, if money is no objection. If money is in any way tight, I would go with DX (a D5200 would then already work, realistally, though it does handle different), and choice the lenses for that (no 24-70, but a 17-50, for starters).
    I also think the 24-70 and 70-200 are not really convenient 'walkaround items'; they're heavy and large and once you start adding fast primes for the shallow depth of field shots, the need to have f/2.8 zooms for casual use quickly becomes less (if you have plans for professional work, this changes). I'd probably, as Shun suggests above, go for the 24-85VR, or 24-120VR (which tends to be a bit overpriced, but it's a good allrounder), with a 70-200 f/4VR or if the budget is running low, the 70-300VR. Add the two primes that were listed in the OP, and you've got a pretty great kit at very reasonable prices.
     
  34. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    If I were birding or shooting sports primarily, I think the 7D mk II would be freakin' perfect. The OP isn't really shooting that.​
    The 7D Mark II maybe perfect for that in the first half in 2015. My guess is that mirrorless will take over that area in another year or two. Again, if you already have lots of Canon lens, a 7D Mark II makes perfect sense. If you start a new Canon system now, there is fairly high risk that it will become a bad decision a year or two down the road, because Canon is clearly behind in mirrorless and is also behind in general.
    Of course, I have no crystal ball to precisely predict the future.
     
  35. I was looking at the same problem a few weeks ago, I had an F5 and a number of "pro" Nikon lens from the AF-D days.

    I ended up with a new D610 on special for approx US$1100 in Oz Nikon was given a cash back discount. I didn't think the step up to a D750 was worth the extra $500 for the only feature that mattered to me, that being the better autofocus system. The other option was a used D4 or D3X, but in OZ most are professionally used with high shutter counts albeit with plenty of life in them yet.
    Personally the D610 so far has been great, the old Nikon glass as clear as ever, though the autofocus takes about twice as long as the 18 year old F5 with much more hunting. Now I just need to wish for some photographic talent, all pictures so far have not done the camera justice. Maybe I will over time get some AFS VR glass.

    The D610 is light weight so if you lets say buy a 28-300 then when you travel light you can just take that lens and a monopod without turning your family holiday into a photographic equipment expedition. With the rest of the budget just get stuck in with the prime lenses, they will retain value long term so even if you find after a year you are not using one you can resell on the used market without suffering a big loss, dont forget a on/off camera flash pair a carbon tripod and an arca swiss monoball.

    00dGS2-556530384.jpg
     
  36. Get FX unless you shoot wildlife. I have both and love my FX.
     
  37. A clean used D200 (DX) would probably be the closest analog to your F100 film experience, resolution and ISO performance. Plus, with the extra 'reach' of the DX sensor, you could get some nice pictures of birds and stuff.
     
  38. If you'll excuse my contrary opinion but that seems like a lot of money to spend on a casual shooting hobby. Of course it's your money to spend. A nice all-in-one bridge camera would fill the bill I think and make nice pictures and leave thousands in the pocket (or in interest earning instruments)
     
  39. Nothing in the OP's lens list suggests DX to me - and - as Wouter already pointed out - the two f/2.8 zooms are rather inconvenient for walking around.
    While the D7200 is an excellent camera - for the applications the OP has in mind, the lenses are lacking. While the recommended 17-50 f/2.8 lenses have their place - I personally find the range too limiting on either end of the focal length range The one lens that has a decent range - 16-85 is hampered by the f/5.6 aperture towards the long end. By now, there are some primes available to fill previous gaps (Nikon 20/1.8, 28/1.8, and Sigma 24/1.4) - but at least in terms of price, I would opt for the Sigma 18-35/1.8 instead. Not an option I recommend to the OP though - because of the rather limited range (though it is rather adequate for street). Aside from the 35/1.8DX, the Sigma is IMHO the only higher-end DX lens worth buying.
    Hence I add my support to the suggestion made above - go FX. Cheapest option new is the D610 with the 24-85 VR. For $700 more, you can get the D750 with 24-120/4 VR - if that upgrade is worth the money spend on it is for the OP to decide. Handling the two bodies might sway him one way or the other - I quite like the feel of the D750 but not that of the D610; the deeper grip of the D750 makes quite a difference. And there is the flip-out screen. If the choice falls on the 24-120, then I would hold-off on the purchase of a 70-200 as the added focal length range might not really be needed (either right away or at all). The 28-300 seems to be quite popular - but with the extended range come a lot of compromises.
    It appears that my perception of what "street" means is different from the OP's - or there would be a 35mm or even 28mm prime showing up in his lens list.
    Lastly, as an option that would appeal to me a great deal though certainly not as flexible as zooms: 20/1.8, 35/1.8, 85/1.8 as a compact, lightweight prime lens kit. I can make do without a 50/1.8 - but the OP might want to include that in his kit.
     
  40. my last camera was a F100...now I want to get back to photography,mainly family,kids,little landscape,street photography,also interested in bokeh,no studio.​
    I hear F100 look-and-feel for close-to-casual photography.
    So my suggestion is to get a good used D300 and a 18-300mm super zoom - and get the agony of decision over with!
    The D300 feels solid like the F100. The 18-300mm is a very good lens for what it does (please don't listen to people who have never used it). Save yourself a bundle to spoil the kids with. And you won't need to be a slave to multiple heavy metals while enjoying quality time with your family.
     
  41. by "bokeh" I think Marcello means ease of getting a shallow depth-of-field for a given subject size in frame​
    Well, that ain't bokeh in my book, but I'd still say
    In any case, it is not something so overwhelming that it should be a major concern in deciding on one format or another, IMHO.
     
  42. FX. If I had to start from scratch now, prices being what they are it would be FX without a doubt. Wish I'd had that option when I first took the plunge in '03.
    Rick H.
     
  43. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    FX. If I had to start from scratch now, prices being what they are it would be FX without a doubt. Wish I'd had that option when I first took the plunge in '03.
    Rick H.​
    And a lot of us just wish we had $6500 sitting around for more cameras and lenses, either in 2003 or 2015. :)
    As far as I can tell, the D610 should do a fine job for the OP, but with that budget, IMO it is a good idea to go for a slightly higher-end body, especially with considerably better AF. The D750 body is still less than 1/3 of the overall budget, so he should be fine. It isn't like he is spending $6000 on a D4S with nothing left for lenses.
     
  44. I was run over by a car in 2013,this is part of the settlement I received.Technically isn't my money.:)
     
  45. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Well, you can always make that my money. Just don't run me over with a car. :)

    Life is short. Have some fun while we can.
     
  46. honestly, i think the lenses matter a bit more from a long-term perspective than the body (which depreciates in value the instant you buy it) for what the OP wants to shoot. but there's no denying the D750+24-120 kit is a pretty decent deal, and probably worth $300 over a d610+24-85 VR at current prices, but it will take up almost 1/2 of his total budget.
    as far as his latest lens list, unless he shoots a lot of handheld macro, it might be a mistake to get both an 85 and the 105 VR. they are pretty close in focal length, and there are less-expensive dedicated macro lenses without stabilization which are just as good or better optically (tamron 90, tokina 100). if he doesn't shoot macro that much, i would just get a used lens or forgo the macro option altogether at this time. we also see the long telephoto option (i.e. 70-200/4) missing, which doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me, unless the OP has decided he will never need to go longer than 120mm.
    no matter how good a lens lineup looks on paper, in real-world practice, you may find what you actually need (as opposed to what you thought you needed) substantially different. IMO, probably 80% of the OP's shooting needs can be handled with the 24-120 and a 70-200. the 50/1.8 G is a pretty good deal as far as price-performance ratio, but if its bokeh you're after, either of the sigma 50/1.4's will be creamier and more bokehlicious. personally, i would choose the Sigma 35/1.4 ART over every lens on that list for IQ. it's just that good, and has a very useful focal length, and with that kind of budget, it should be included. i might also try to find room for the nikon 20/1.8 as a wider option if you dont shoot wide that much, and one of the aforementioned wide zooms if you do.
    as far as casual (non-pro) FX kits go, there's a certain logic in having an all-purpose zoom, i.e. 24-120, with a complete set of dedicated--and fast--fixed-focal lenses: 20/35/50/85. (notice im purposely omitting the 24/1.4 for its cost.) i speak from some experience with this: i have the 24-70+70-200 VRII for events, but miss a longer, slower zoom for walkaround sometimes. i only need the 20/1.8 to complete my prime kit, which is fun to mix and match when i want to go lighter, i.e. just a 50 or a 35/85 combo.
     
  47. Thanks Arnold,you got me confuse now.LOL
     
  48. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Marcello, I'll say it again: just start with an FX body and a kit lens. Use that for a while and see what other lenses can enhance your photography. There is no need to spend all of your budget at once. If the money is burning a hole in your pocket, I'll be happy to take it away from your hands. :)
     
  49. Shun is right; it will take a few months to really bond with a new D750, especially coming from a 10 year layoff and film. but when you do get ready to take a plunge into lensworld, a set of fast primes from wide to tele is a good long-term choice.
     
  50. Too many lenses to start. A working pro or advanced amateur would be fine. You're going to have your hands full with digital. Just get the kit lens and be done with it. If you insist on getting a bag full lenses then skip the 85 for now. It's really just a long 50mm. Plus you have the 105. You're getting bogged down in a bunch of lenses that are just going to weigh you down. Good luck with your photography.
     
  51. I'd get the D750 with three primes, the 20mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8.
    Then you have a wide, "normal" and tele and really excellent image quality as well.
    BTW, was thinking about AF performance on the F100.
    Doesn't all current FX bodies have better autofocus than the F100, including the D610?
     
  52. Go full frame... get another F100!
     
  53. We are all assuming that you have an adequate computer with substantial memory to support your new habit? 24mp files are no joke and memory fills up fast. This wasn't an issue before with film but your computer will be an extension of your photography process now.
    Tom
     
  54. You're going to have your hands full with digital. Just get the kit lens and be done with it.​
    I agree with John. The D750 with 24-120mm is a good choice (though I would much rather have the 28-300mm for full frame). If you are into macro photography, the 105mm micro (or 200mm micro) makes sense too. However, the 85mm and 50mm are so optional. I hardly ever had the need or desire to use them because their focal length overlap with the zoom and they are not that much better. It's too much trouble to carry them around for the minute and negligible observable advantage - if any.
     
  55. We are all assuming that you have an adequate computer with substantial memory to support your new habit? 24mp files are no joke and memory fills up fast. This wasn't an issue before with film but your computer will be an extension of your photography process now.​
    Only true if you were developing optically. I shot film and scanned and those files were a lot bigger than the raw files of the D750. Nikon's Coolscan 5000ED (introduced 2003) scans 35mm film to about 24 megapixels (4000 dpi). Those files were around 135 MB, to be compared to the raw files from the D750 that are less than 30 MB.

    Looking around on my scanned 35mm files I see a lot of files that are over 700 MB in size. A couple of retouching layers in photoshop will easily add up. And those that worked with scanned 120 film had a lot bigger files than that.

    Anyway the fastest PC in 2003 is still a dog compared to the slowest PC today so working with software like photoshop doesn't require that much from a modern PC. As long as you avoid laptops, any computer (preferably with two harddrives) should be fine.
     
  56. I agree with John. The D750 with 24-120mm is a good choice (though I would much rather have the 28-300mm for full frame).​

    The 24-120mm is an exceptionally bad lens if you want "bokeh" as the OP said. Large aperture primes is what you want for that.
     
  57. The 24-120mm is an exceptionally bad lens if you want "bokeh"​
    "Exceptionally bad"? Really? Badder than any other lens? Any examples?
    No question shallow depth of field would provide "better" bokeh, but it's not the only consideration here, otherwise everyone should get an f/1.4 or f/2.8 lens. Good bokeh can be made with most any lens if the photographer tries not to catch a lot of distraction at the immediate background - sometimes just moving the perspective an inch or two would do it; or have the subject far enough from the background with a large but adequate aperture.
     
  58. It has been almost a year since I simply shelved my Nkon F100 and one remaing lens. Mentioned my situation in Casual Photo Conversations last June I believe
    Thought i would miss taking photographs, haven't in the slightest.
    Took the F00 out of its original box this evenng, and felt it in my hands. Nice feel but no purpose for the use of the device, so back in the box, and close the lid.
    So as to your question, full frame for sure, whatever it is. Nikon and others seem to be releasing so many devices so quickly these days. most people would be overwhelmed, or in my case, simply can't be bothered.
     
  59. It has been almost a year since I simply shelved my Nkon F100 and one remaing lens.​
    Finally admitting that I would never use it, I sold my last F100 (mint condition) last month. Still have an F6 (to sell) but can't find it at the moment. How did I know? I took the F6 with me on two overseas photo trips and it never got out of the bag.
     
  60. The 24-120mm is an exceptionally bad lens if you want "bokeh"​
    I've got a fair share of primes, including the very large aperture ones; I've got primes that have really smooth bokeh (and they are not the fastest of them at all - large aperture does not equal 'bokeh'). The times I use my 24-120VR, though, I do not feel particularly held back by either its out of focus rendering, nor the f/4 aperture.
    The 24-120VR may not be particularly smooth in the out of focus areas (I'd call it average as most zooms are), but f/4 at 120mm leaves a shallow enough depth of field to give the effect the OP is probably after. Calling it 'exceptionally bad' is very overdone. The zoom is a good place to start, adding a prime or 2 is always possible later if it's not fast enough.
     
  61. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    This thread is a prime example that there are too many cooks. Each one of us has our individual preferences and favorite lenses, but most of that is irrelevant to the OP. When you photograph children, street and to some degree family, a convenient zoom is important to get the shot in the first place. If the OP starts to shoot some careful portraits with time to compose and considers bokeh, he can always add something like a 85mm/f1.8 AF-S later on. I don't think it is a good idea to start with a bag full of fixed 35mm/f1.4, 85mm/f1.8 and 105mm/f2.8 to photograph kids; you'll be so busy changing lenses that you'll miss a lot of opportunities.
    I captured the image below with the D700 with 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR @ 75mm, f4, 1/50 sec and ISO 800. Ryan was a few days away from his 4th birthday at that time. We were inside a restaurant for lunch, and what bothers me most are some of the chairs in the background. Some of the chairs are very bright because that restaurant has huge windows so that the outside sunlight was coming through. In particular, the metal frames of the chairs have specular highlights that are annoying. Otherwise, I am not too concerned about the general bokeh.
    Of course the outside sunlight also brightened up Ryan's face. He was sucking on a honey stick, and I like his expression.
    00dGgb-556560184.jpg
     
  62. And that's a good example of why light is more important than gear.

    Really, these kit lenses Nikon is making now are quite capable. I've been getting back in to Nikon lately because I've
    inherited a large bag of gear, and the lenses I've been getting the most mileage out of on 24mp full frame are the 24-85
    VR and the Tokina 100mm macro (which is super sharp, by the way). I'd written off kit lenses last time around when I had
    a D800 and was being a bit of a snob, but this 24-85 is a really versatile option and handles well in anything but very low
    light. I don't have a 24-120 but from everything I've seen it should be at least as good.
     
  63. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I am the opposite of Andy L. I own the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR but not the 24-85mm AF-S VR. However, I have used two samples of the 24-85 and reviewed that for photo.net: http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/review/24-85mm-f3.5-4.5-af-s-vr/
    And this is a child image captured with the 24-85: http://www.photo.net/photo/16164353
    Both of those are very decent lenses. I got the 24-120 mainly for its wider 5x zoom range, which approaches super zoom category. Neither lens is great on the 24mm end as you'll see chromatic aberration and distortion. For serious landscape photography, I would add a fixed 20mm, 24mm, or 28mm later on.
     
  64. When I said the bokeh was exceptionally bad, I'm not trying to say it is worse than any other f4 or slower lens. I'm just comparing it to large aperture primes. When someone like the OP explicitly says that he likes "bokeh" and talks about shooting people (family, kids etc) then in my book f4 goes straight out the window.
    To me a f4 lens in the 200mm or less range is a speciality item. It's not general purpose because there are a lot of photographic situations where f4 will not cut it. If you know for sure you will not get into those situations, for instance being a landscape photographer with a tripod, you can pick a f4 or even slower lens. Otherwise constant f2.8 for zooms and f2 or larger for primes will give you the most capability to handle anything that is thrown at you.
    The fewer lenses you have at your disposal the more general they should be IMHO. If he only wanted one do it all lens, I would never suggest anything f4. I'd suggest a 24-70 f2.8 (FX). That's the typical midrange zoom that will do 90% of what you need in focal range for shooting people and can do it in everything but the most low light situations. Add a 85mm prime for nice OOF backgrounds.
    Primes or zooms is a question of personal preference and to some degree skill when you are shooting people that are not standing still. Since the OP was asking about FX or DX while having himself picked two f2.8 zooms and two primes I think it is safe to say that he is not a beginner. So primes is obviously an option for him. It is just a myth that you need a zoom to capture fast paced event like weddings or shooting kids for instance. There are a lot of wedding shooters that shoot primes almost 100%. I know from personal experience.
    But everything is a compromise and only the OP can decide what will suit him the best. There are not too many cooks at all. IMHO it's good when everybody voices their opinion and the OP can then read it and pick out the parts that apply to him.
     
  65. Quick, and no cheating - what f/stop did I use on this shot I took outside my house today?
    00dGqY-556584784.jpg
     
  66. This thread is a prime example that there are too many cooks.​
    That is why I always said that nobody can answer the question what should I buy except the one that asks the question.
     
  67. I think the point is that it depends on the purpose of the gear. If you will be going somewhere the express purpose of photography, to capture that 1 special image for your wall, then you can take a bag of gear or even a trolley bag along makes sense. "If it is more than 500 feet from the car, it is not photogenic".
    If you are on a OS trip and photography is just part of the experience, then you have to be selective in what kit you bring, lightness and flexibility really comes into account. I had a F5 and the big 80-200 f2.8 zooms and even the 300mm F2.8 and they are just too big to travel with, particularly if you are with your family. From what I have seen of pro wedding photographers, yes prime 1.4 lenses are very much in use but they are attached to a number camera bodies as are the F2.8 zooms and a 70-200 F2.8 is great for indoor use. As a guest of a wedding I just not going to attend with 3 cameras around my neck, but if I had the talent, and my job was photography that would be different. I am sure the pro would feel he/she has done a physically hard days work photographing an event.
    I guess the Andy's cherry blossoms are done at F5.6, but I would like to know the length of the lens to make sense of it
     
  68. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    That is why I always said that nobody can answer the question what should I buy except the one that asks the question.​
    That is indeed the case sometimes, but I don't think this thread falls into that category.
    This thread is unusual because while the OP had an F100 once upon a time, he is essentially starting all over after a 10+ year absence with fairly basic questions. We are talking about mostly casual photography here, and most people would buy a point and shoot, perhaps a D3000/D5000 series DSLR with a kit lens, or some mirrorless kit below $1000. Not many people would have a budget nearly as high as $6500 for such purposes.
    In any case, I think there are more than enough answers on this thread for the OP to make an informed decision.
     
  69. If he only wanted one do it all lens, I would never suggest anything f4. I'd suggest a 24-70 f2.8 (FX).​

    ...Annnnnd, we've now come full circle. if we recall, the OP started out with this on his wish list. it was pointed out that the 24-70/2.8 lens, while optically very good to excellent, is rather heavy and possibly overpriced for what the OP wants to do. as an owner of this lens, i am well-acquainted with its pros and cons: it's great for events, and any situation where you need fast and reliable autofocus, but not ideal for walkaround. its zoom range is a little short for portraits. it can separate backgrounds, but the bokeh is average. and its $1900 new. if you're not a photojournalist or a paid event shooter, its overkill, as there are many less expensive and/or lighter lenses, some with a more potentially useful zoom range, stabilization, etc. moreover, while f/4 may seem slow, an FX camera like the d750 allows for more latitude in ISO, so that shouldnt be a dealbreaker. the reality is there is no single do it all lens, but for FX, the 24-120 VR probably comes the closest. and there's a good deal on it right now when bought with the d750. also, the OP never said he only wanted one lens; from the beginning his idea was to get a mix of zooms and primes. later in the thread it was suggested that he just start with the d750 and kit zoom and not spend his entire budget at once while he's learning the camera.

    i suspect there would be less sense of 'too many cooks' if folks actually read what other people have posted and avoided having circular conversations.
     
  70. With your lenses I would lean towards the 610. The 24-70 will give you great range and should be wide enough on a FF camera.
    -O
     

Share This Page