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

[eric_arnold]

<p>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. </p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>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.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I'd get the D750 with three primes, the 20mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8.<br /> Then you have a wide, "normal" and tele and really excellent image quality as well.</p>

<p>BTW, was thinking about AF performance on the F100.<br>

<strong>Doesn't all current FX bodies have better autofocus than the F100, including the D610?</strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Go full frame... get another F100!</p>

[tombest]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>You're going to have your hands full with digital. Just get the kit lens and be done with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <strong>around 135 MB</strong>, to be compared to the raw files from the D750 that are less than 30 MB. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>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).</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-120mm is an exceptionally bad lens if you want "bokeh"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Exceptionally bad"? Really? Badder than any other lens? Any examples?</p>

<p>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.</p>

[bryce_l.]

<p>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<br />Thought i would miss taking photographs, haven't in the slightest.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

 

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>It has been almost a year since I simply shelved my Nkon F100 and one remaing lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-120mm is an exceptionally bad lens if you want "bokeh"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br />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.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<P>

Of course the outside sunlight also brightened up Ryan's face. He was sucking on a honey stick, and I like his expression.

</P><div></div>

[andylynn]

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.

[ShunCheung]

<p>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/<br>

And this is a child image captured with the 24-85: http://www.photo.net/photo/16164353</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

[pete_s.]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Quick, and no cheating - what f/stop did I use on this shot I took outside my house today?</p><div></div>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>This thread is a prime example that there are too many cooks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is why I always said that nobody can answer the question what should I buy except the one that asks the question. </p>

[glenncadman]

<p>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. "<strong>If</strong> it is more than 500 feet from the <strong>car, it is not photogenic</strong>". <br>

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.<br>

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</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>That is why I always said that nobody can answer the question what should I buy except the one that asks the question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is indeed the case sometimes, but I don't think this thread falls into that category.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In any case, I think there are more than enough answers on this thread for the OP to make an informed decision.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> If he only wanted one do it all lens, I would never suggest anything f4. I'd suggest a 24-70 f2.8 (FX).</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

...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 <em>only</em> 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.<br>

<br>

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.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>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.</p>

<p>-O</p>