tristan_russell

<p>Matthew: I thought that as I wrote it; I guess it lacks the extremes of a wide end or long zoom, both of which I've never had the chance to play with before. Therefore 'fantastic' for a lot but 'boring' because I felt like there was a lot I couldn't achieve. My current DX set-up is lacking everything, as my camera and lens were stolen on a recent backpacking trip through Mexico. So I'm starting fresh with everything. I had definitely gotten to a point with my D7000 where the ISO capabilities were a bit limiting, and I feel that I'm ready to move to FX. I also don't see the point of not getting the best I can afford, which is a D810.<br> Leslie: I've heard bad things about the 17-35, especially with distortion wide open. Do you have any experience with it? I definitely want a 105 2.8 for macro work at some point.<br> Erik: Yeah, my head says 24-70 but my heart says 14-24! I may just get the new 105 1.4 and deal with this issue later!<br> Thanks for the responses; it's greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Hi there,<br> I am just about to purchase a Nikon D810, having been using a D7000 for the past four years or so. I have been primarily using the Nikon 17-55 2.8. Obviously none of my existing DX specific lenses are going to be particularly suitable for an FX sensor, so I'm contemplating which lens to buy first. I've always wanted a 14-24, but am unsure if I should go for a more versatile lens first off, such as a 24-70 or a 70-200. While I've always found my 17-55 to be a fantastic focal range, I have to admit that I often found it a bit boring, which leads me to think I'd feel the same way with a 24-70. I think I'll end up with all three eventually, but would welcome ideas as to which one to start with. <br> I like to shoot most things, but am quite into landscapes and larger scenes. Although I love taking photos of insects and animals too haha<br> Cheers</p>