Hi everyone, I recently decided that I should make the jump to a full frame camera, the Nikon D750 in fact. Whilst I've loved using a D3200, I'm pretty fed up with other bits like the rubbish low light performance, noise creeping in at ISO200+ and the awful video. Skipping up a few branches on the tree should help in all of these areas plus more, so I'm happy to make the transition now that I've learned my way around the camera. Naturally, moving up means I'll be without the trusty (and rubbish) 18-55mm kit lens that the D3200 comes with. Luckily I've been careful thus far and purposefully only bought decent lenses that would be good for full frame usage. I have a 50mm F1.4 Samyang (fully manual mind) and a 105mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor Macro currently. The thing is, I don't really have a go to style yet, I tend to just take photos with what I have. So if you gave me a telephoto, I might start photographing wildlife at a distance, or landscapes more if you gave me a wider angle option. So basically I'm asking what would be a good lens type to complement the two I have now? Not asking for specific models as such (although that would help), more for a recommendation on where to continue my own research. Heck, I may not even benefit much from another lens for all I know. I quite like the idea of the 28-300mm zoom that Nikon has going on, but part of me is just thinking that there must be a lot of compromises in order to keep the cost down. Reviews say that it's a very soft lens with errors when fully extended, but then how would that compare with what I have now? Mostly likely an error laden D750 at 300mm is still better than a D3200 with some great glass at 105mm? Again, I just don't know. Basically I don't want to be in the position where I'm at a location going "Damn I wish I had a *Insert lens here* with me, would make this so much easier". That could be snapping a beach, skyline or friends at a meetup. Or should I be waiting for that exact moment where I wish I had it with me so that I know what I need?
Budget? I'm running Cannon(6D). My goto lens is the 70-200 2.8 It was expensive(2,000 cdn). But it rarely leaves my camera. If I want something wider, I have my 24-105(800$). There is a newer 24-70(1900$) that I would rather have. But the 24-105 works just fine without spending the extra 1900$. If I want to go wide, I have a 14mm 2.8 samyang(300$). With these three lens's, I'm set. i have been looking at the new canon 100-400 to replace the 70-200 as many people who own the 100-400, say they no longer need the 70-200. And the extra length would be nice. For myself, I bought extension tubes to get my macro need filled. they aren't as good as a stand alone lens. but they take up less room, weight less, and cost less. I can live them just fine. And that's it. for the quality of the "L" series lens, I don't feel that I need to buy anything else. It would be nice if my 24-105 was faster, but the F4 works fine for what I need. and if I go inside, I have a flash to help out. Hope that helps. Really it all comes down to how much you are willing to spend...
That's actually quite handy info. Funnily enough I accidentally edited out my budget range, I'm looking to keep to or under the £650 range, but if I wait a bit I can stretch to probably £1.1k. I'm okay with doing that if it puts me into a better tier of glass, given they should last a long time. I do understand that I can't reach the gold standard lenses with my budget, but I'm okay with that as long as the compromises aren't too great. I know that a lot of zooms improve greatly when you balloon their budget a bit as they perform more evenly across their whole focal range. I'm mostly thinking about which types of lenses are most useful for me given the ones I already have. You've definitely pushed me towards looking at larger focal range zooms simply so I can use one as a one lens solution for things like holidays where I don't want to lug around a full kit bag.
It's not a one-lens-does-it-all solution but for the money (it's vastly cheaper than the Nikon equivalent) the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 always does pretty well in reviews. I know DxO ratings can be taken with a pinch of salt sometimes but they compare it to the Nikon here : http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-f-2.8-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-review-An-affordable-fast-standard-zoom-that-comes-out-on-top
Thanks Veato, that looks like quite an interesting lens. My local camera shop appears to have one in stock so I may pop round to have a hands-on look. The focal range fits quite nicely too as it's basically a direct replacement for the 18-55 kit. As with all zooms at this price bracket it does appear to have a few vignetting issues when fully open at both its max and min, but I doubt those will be a problem as I process all images from RAW anyway, correcting wouldn't be a big deal. Since I've got this thread up, may as well ask about ND grads and filters/stoppers too. I'm hoping to grab a couple for long exposure stuff (mostly on holiday I guess) as I've wanted to try it out for yonks. I was wondering if anybody had any suggestions as to brand preferences? Reviews aren't always so good for this sort of thing as they only have a short time to quantify things, rather than having to experience living with the kit for months/years.
When I wanted to experiment with some filters I looked for a cheaper option and came across Kood. They're not going to compete with Lee, B+W, etc but for the money and the amateur using them they were good enough for me. It turns out I never used them enough to warrant upgrading to something better and pricier so I probably made the right choice. I also bought a cheap 10-stop filter to play with which is fun. Again, much cheaper than the branded stuff so has a blue cast to correct but other than that is suitable for my needs. I think it was likely around this type/money but bought from eBay (http://srb-photographic.co.uk/77mm-nd1000-filter-6572-p.asp). I'm guessing this is just a generic filter in some SRB packaging. Have a look at the Tiffen ND 3.0 though as that's not too expensive and is supposed to be rather good.
Just wanted to add one last thing to my post from before. One mistake that people often get into their head is that better glass makes for a better picture. And to the trained eye, that is true. But if you put pictures with flaws in front of people, they won't see the flaws. they will see the picture. So if you can't afford top quality lens's. Don't worry about it. Just learn what makes a good picture and you will be fine.
@Veato: Thanks for the tips! Aye that's very true and something I'm definitely aware of. It's an issue present in most hobbies where there's a tool involved, where do you draw the line where it's the user who at fault more than the tool they're using? There's definitely a point where the diminishing returns of going higher end are quite evident. There's always this discussion around reviews of top end Zeiss optics where people point out how almost all of the most influential photos of all time were shot on vastly inferior gear. My angle is that I want avoid something that I may regret later on. I currently feel this way about a couple lenses in my possession already that my sister originally picked up. She got herself a D40 back in 07 along with the Nikon xx-105mm zoom and a Sigma wide angle (can't remember specifics sorry), well both of those lenses are rubbish, the Sigma wasn't cheap either. Neither were high end lenses to begin with, but I did expect more. The Sigma was hardly used yet the focus ring has become overly loose and the picture quality is awful. I tried taking photos with it recently under lots of different conditions (to see if it was my usage) and the photos just came out grainy and lacking in contrast. This is in comparison to the kit lens, the Samyang and the Micro Nikkor, they were all better. The 105mm zoom was used a fair bit, but never abused, yet now it extends even just by pointing it downwards. Those are fairly extreme examples I know, but it's certainly enough to make me careful and willing to grab a higher tier product to begin with.
