Going FF(?)

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Elti87
Regular MemberPosts: 113
Like?
Going FF(?)
4 months ago

Hey!
I currently use Nikon D7000 with Sigma 10-20 f4.5, 18-105 kit lens, nikkor 35mm f1.8, 55-200mm and manual kiron 105mm f2.8 macro lens and some other extra stuff (Lee filter system etc).
I mainly shoot Landscapes and Portraits and want to go FF (travel photography).
I know that I will have to buy a whole new set of lenses to fit the FX sensor.
I was thinking of either the D610 or D800. Since I mostly do travel photography I guess the D610 will suit my needs better.
As for lenses to go with it - Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 and as for wide-angle for the landscape photography I am not sure which I should get:
1. Nikkor 14-24 - stunning quality but the front element will force me to buy a very expensive adapter to fit my lee filter holder in front of it.
2. Nikkor 16-35mm - Great quality, but not as good as the 14-24.
Another issue will be a telephoto lens.. any recommendations?
Just wondering what you guys think.
Thanks!

KSV
KSV
Senior MemberPosts: 2,820Gear list
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Elti87, 4 months ago

For travel you should think weight and size - believe me it is not fun to hang on your neck heavy camera coupled with heavy lens. You should think D610 or Df

 KSV's gear list:KSV's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D700 Nikon Df Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robert Palmqvist
Regular MemberPosts: 447
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Elti87, 4 months ago

I made the switch from DX (D7000) to FX (D700) as my traveling kit this summer. You can read about it in this post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54062178

24mm is usually wide enough for me (24-70, 24-85 or 24-120 are all good alternatives bringing different things to the table, I guess 24-120 would have been the best replacement for my 16-85 on DX but I went with the 24-85).

I have been considering a prime as a complement if I want to go wider (20mm). Other alternatives if you want a wide zoom, 16-35 (pros VR; cons build quality), 18-35 (pros lightweight, price; cons speed, distortion, build quality), 17-35 (pros build quality, speed; cons weight). It all depends on what you prioritize (I usually prioritize weight when I travel).

For long reach, if you don't care for VR, a used 80-200 f/2.8 (AF-D ED New) maybe (great bang for the buck)? If speed and lack of distortion is not that important maybe a 28-300 coupled with an ultra wide (prime or zoom) could be a "cover everything" with only two lenses combo?

This is all good with my D700 but maybe not with a high resolution body like the D810?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dgc4rter
Contributing MemberPosts: 523Gear list
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Elti87, 4 months ago

I recently purchased a D610 for my travel solution (traded in an Olympus EM-5). Being the smallest and lightest of Nikon's FF offerings (roughly the same size as a D7100) it was the logical choice as I already have a D800E and a set of Nikkor lenses.

Once you see and experience full frame, it's difficult to accept or be satisfied with anything else in terms of IQ which is why the EM-5 had to go (I found the controls too small and fiddly also). The D610 fits nicely in the hands, even better with the MB-D14 grip, and is a joy to use. However, coming from a D7000, I'm sure you are well acquainted with the ergonomics.

As for lenses, I will use my 50mm f1.8 G and 24-85mm VR on trips. Both are (relatively) light and compact lenses and give excellent results. Not as good as the 24-70 but that's just too big and heavy (and expensive) for me as a travel lens. However, I've toyed with the idea of getting the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VR which is half the price and gets very good reviews. Maybe sometime in the not too distant future.

The D610 is a superb camera and certainly gives the most bang for your buck of any FF DSLR to date. You will not look back.

 dgc4rter's gear list:dgc4rter's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D800E Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
romfordbluenose
Contributing MemberPosts: 895Gear list
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Elti87, 4 months ago

Elti87 wrote:

Hey!
I currently use Nikon D7000 with Sigma 10-20 f4.5, 18-105 kit lens, nikkor 35mm f1.8, 55-200mm and manual kiron 105mm f2.8 macro lens and some other extra stuff (Lee filter system etc).
I mainly shoot Landscapes and Portraits and want to go FF (travel photography).
I know that I will have to buy a whole new set of lenses to fit the FX sensor.
I was thinking of either the D610 or D800. Since I mostly do travel photography I guess the D610 will suit my needs better.
As for lenses to go with it - Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 and as for wide-angle for the landscape photography I am not sure which I should get:
1. Nikkor 14-24 - stunning quality but the front element will force me to buy a very expensive adapter to fit my lee filter holder in front of it.
2. Nikkor 16-35mm - Great quality, but not as good as the 14-24.
Another issue will be a telephoto lens.. any recommendations?
Just wondering what you guys think.
Thanks!

You're planning on moving from a fairly inexpensive set of gear to a very expensive set of gear. before we can really answer this do you have a budget in mind?

 romfordbluenose's gear list:romfordbluenose's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Elti87
Regular MemberPosts: 113
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to romfordbluenose, 4 months ago

romfordbluenose wrote:

Elti87 wrote:

Hey!
I currently use Nikon D7000 with Sigma 10-20 f4.5, 18-105 kit lens, nikkor 35mm f1.8, 55-200mm and manual kiron 105mm f2.8 macro lens and some other extra stuff (Lee filter system etc).
I mainly shoot Landscapes and Portraits and want to go FF (travel photography).
I know that I will have to buy a whole new set of lenses to fit the FX sensor.
I was thinking of either the D610 or D800. Since I mostly do travel photography I guess the D610 will suit my needs better.
As for lenses to go with it - Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 and as for wide-angle for the landscape photography I am not sure which I should get:
1. Nikkor 14-24 - stunning quality but the front element will force me to buy a very expensive adapter to fit my lee filter holder in front of it.
2. Nikkor 16-35mm - Great quality, but not as good as the 14-24.
Another issue will be a telephoto lens.. any recommendations?
Just wondering what you guys think.
Thanks!

You're planning on moving from a fairly inexpensive set of gear to a very expensive set of gear. before we can really answer this do you have a budget in mind?

I do. I have calculated exactly how much I will spend for each option (including wonderpana adapter etc.)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Elti87
Regular MemberPosts: 113
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to dgc4rter, 4 months ago

dgc4rter wrote:

I recently purchased a D610 for my travel solution (traded in an Olympus EM-5). Being the smallest and lightest of Nikon's FF offerings (roughly the same size as a D7100) it was the logical choice as I already have a D800E and a set of Nikkor lenses.

Once you see and experience full frame, it's difficult to accept or be satisfied with anything else in terms of IQ which is why the EM-5 had to go (I found the controls too small and fiddly also). The D610 fits nicely in the hands, even better with the MB-D14 grip, and is a joy to use. However, coming from a D7000, I'm sure you are well acquainted with the ergonomics.

As for lenses, I will use my 50mm f1.8 G and 24-85mm VR on trips. Both are (relatively) light and compact lenses and give excellent results. Not as good as the 24-70 but that's just too big and heavy (and expensive) for me as a travel lens. However, I've toyed with the idea of getting the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VR which is half the price and gets very good reviews. Maybe sometime in the not too distant future.

The D610 is a superb camera and certainly gives the most bang for your buck of any FF DSLR to date. You will not look back.

Don't you feel that your "range" got hurt once you moved to FF? I mean, what was 105*1.6 before is now just 105mm. (But I guess you just crop more often?)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Elti87
Regular MemberPosts: 113
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Robert Palmqvist, 4 months ago

Robert Palmqvist wrote:

I made the switch from DX (D7000) to FX (D700) as my traveling kit this summer. You can read about it in this post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54062178

24mm is usually wide enough for me (24-70, 24-85 or 24-120 are all good alternatives bringing different things to the table, I guess 24-120 would have been the best replacement for my 16-85 on DX but I went with the 24-85).

I have been considering a prime as a complement if I want to go wider (20mm). Other alternatives if you want a wide zoom, 16-35 (pros VR; cons build quality), 18-35 (pros lightweight, price; cons speed, distortion, build quality), 17-35 (pros build quality, speed; cons weight). It all depends on what you prioritize (I usually prioritize weight when I travel).

For long reach, if you don't care for VR, a used 80-200 f/2.8 (AF-D ED New) maybe (great bang for the buck)? If speed and lack of distortion is not that important maybe a 28-300 coupled with an ultra wide (prime or zoom) could be a "cover everything" with only two lenses combo?

This is all good with my D700 but maybe not with a high resolution body like the D810?

Getting a prime wide angle is actually a good option. I will think about it. Thanks for bringing it up

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Elti87
Regular MemberPosts: 113
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to KSV, 4 months ago

KSV wrote:

For travel you should think weight and size - believe me it is not fun to hang on your neck heavy camera coupled with heavy lens. You should think D610 or Df

I've been traveling for year now. I don't mind carrying and extra kg or so

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rexgig0
Senior MemberPosts: 1,948Gear list
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Elti87, 4 months ago

Elti87 wrote:

dgc4rter wrote:

I recently purchased a D610 for my travel solution (traded in an Olympus EM-5). Being the smallest and lightest of Nikon's FF offerings (roughly the same size as a D7100) it was the logical choice as I already have a D800E and a set of Nikkor lenses.

Once you see and experience full frame, it's difficult to accept or be satisfied with anything else in terms of IQ which is why the EM-5 had to go (I found the controls too small and fiddly also). The D610 fits nicely in the hands, even better with the MB-D14 grip, and is a joy to use. However, coming from a D7000, I'm sure you are well acquainted with the ergonomics.

As for lenses, I will use my 50mm f1.8 G and 24-85mm VR on trips. Both are (relatively) light and compact lenses and give excellent results. Not as good as the 24-70 but that's just too big and heavy (and expensive) for me as a travel lens. However, I've toyed with the idea of getting the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VR which is half the price and gets very good reviews. Maybe sometime in the not too distant future.

The D610 is a superb camera and certainly gives the most bang for your buck of any FF DSLR to date. You will not look back.

Don't you feel that your "range" got hurt once you moved to FF? I mean, what was 105*1.6 before is now just 105mm. (But I guess you just crop more often?)

Focal length is focal length. Using FX, (or 35mm film) as compared to DX, simply means the crop factor is not there. It does not affect "range." The apparent magnification occurs when one enlarges the resulting cropped image to fill one's computer monitor, or enlarges to a specific print size. One gets better "range" by using a higher-resolution sensor, so that when the cropped image is enlarged to the desired size, resolution does not "fall apart."

Where are you getting a 1.6x crop factor? This is not the Canon forum. Nikon DX camera have a 1.5x crop factor. Though both are generally termed as being APS-C, the Nikon sensor is just a bit larger in area. (This is not a jab at Canon; I enjoy using Canons, too, including the in-between 1.3x-crop APS-H 1D-series sports/wildlife cameras.)

I like FX because my lenses, at least the ones with focal lengths shorter than telephoto, behave as they do on 35mm film, and FX cameras have nice, large viewfinders for better manual focusing. FX is Nikon's term for a digital sensor the same size as a "full" 35mm film negative. DX is the smaller digital sensor with a 1.5x crop factor.

-- hide signature --

I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

 Rexgig0's gear list:Rexgig0's gear list
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED +26 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rexgig0
Senior MemberPosts: 1,948Gear list
Like?
Consider the balance and ergonomics.
In reply to Elti87, 4 months ago

I own neither lens at this point in time, but I know I would not want to use the heavier 14-24mm 2.8G on the lighter D610 body, unless I planned to use a tripod for most of the shots. For walking about, or any shooting to mostly be done on my hind legs, I want a heavier body to help balance a heavier lens. The depth of the grip is also an issue, as is the shape of gripping area for the thumb. (I am spoiled by the heft and gripping area of the Nikon F6!)

All of this is a matter of personal fit and taste, so what works for me may not be the best for anyone else; my point is to try to experience the handling of a camera, with a heavy lens, before making a buying decision.

I would like to point out that 14-24/2.8G and 16-35/4G has been much-discussed here recently, with some excellent discussion from members who own and use both. PHXAZCRAIG comes to mind, as a member who has posted excellent commentary and images. AnotherMike has also posted excellent comments and images in these discussions, though I am not certain he has a 16-35/4G.

-- hide signature --

I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

 Rexgig0's gear list:Rexgig0's gear list
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED +26 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RightLight
Regular MemberPosts: 167Gear list
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Elti87, 4 months ago

Elti87 wrote:

KSV wrote:

For travel you should think weight and size - believe me it is not fun to hang on your neck heavy camera coupled with heavy lens. You should think D610 or Df

I've been traveling for year now. I don't mind carrying and extra kg or so

If you use 24-70/2.8, camera weights (D610 vs 800) do not seem to make much difference to me (size does a little bit though in terms of carrying bag). I am not talking about number of pounds here, just the feel I get. 24-70 balances very well on 800 - feels like made for each other. I would suggest to go to a store and handle yourself before making judgement. It is trivial thing to say but don't underestimate it is what YOU feel matters most.

In terms of upgrades I were in situation similar to yours. I also upgraded from D7000, my second DSLR. First I sold my lovely 17-55/2.8, 35/1.8 and then the camera. In the mean time, I tested 600, Df and 800 (I rented the later two). I bought 800E and I am not going to look back to like 600/610 and Df. As has already been suggested in this thread, lugging around 800 with 24-70 (its worse with 70-200) whole day is not fun. But, so is 610 and 24-70. However, 610 and 24-85 or 24-120 is a different story, better for travel. But 24-70 is the lens of a different league in terms of crispiness of images.

I purchased 16-35/f4. Very sharp but prepare to handle a lot of distortions at wide side. Good thing is that you can use the same filter you use in 24-70, less bulk to carry around. Since you have have Lee filters, 14-24 is better for IQ, if price, weight and bulk are no concern. But note that, if you have not already, you will be surprised to know how wide 24 mm is in full frame compared to D7000. In my case (mostly, landscape), 24 mm mostly wide enough. I am hunting for a good old nikon 18mm/2.8 though. Now I am sure I do not need 14 mm.

Good luck.

 RightLight's gear list:RightLight's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
M35G35
Regular MemberPosts: 188Gear list
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Elti87, 4 months ago

Certainly cost is going to be a factor. It has taken me a few years to get to this point. I have a D800E and just acquired a Df, magnificent images from that camera. I have three lenses for landscape photography, 16-35G/f4, 24-120G/f4 and the 80-400G/VRIII. Now through my PC in the backpack it is near 24lbs that I am carrying through the airport. There are several other items in the bag, i.e. SB800 flash, filters, batteries and chargers and some minor parts. I would forgo 24-70/f2.8 or any f2.8 lenses for landscapes. Adds weight and cost. The 18-35G is lightweight  and cost less than the 16-35G/f4 and probably a tad better images. My D800E has a battery grip that adds additional weight. I don't know why I carry it around for landscapes? Hope this gives some thoughts. Good luck on your decision.

 M35G35's gear list:M35G35's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Elti87
Regular MemberPosts: 113
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Rexgig0, 4 months ago

Rexgig0 wrote:

Elti87 wrote:

dgc4rter wrote:

I recently purchased a D610 for my travel solution (traded in an Olympus EM-5). Being the smallest and lightest of Nikon's FF offerings (roughly the same size as a D7100) it was the logical choice as I already have a D800E and a set of Nikkor lenses.

Once you see and experience full frame, it's difficult to accept or be satisfied with anything else in terms of IQ which is why the EM-5 had to go (I found the controls too small and fiddly also). The D610 fits nicely in the hands, even better with the MB-D14 grip, and is a joy to use. However, coming from a D7000, I'm sure you are well acquainted with the ergonomics.

As for lenses, I will use my 50mm f1.8 G and 24-85mm VR on trips. Both are (relatively) light and compact lenses and give excellent results. Not as good as the 24-70 but that's just too big and heavy (and expensive) for me as a travel lens. However, I've toyed with the idea of getting the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VR which is half the price and gets very good reviews. Maybe sometime in the not too distant future.

The D610 is a superb camera and certainly gives the most bang for your buck of any FF DSLR to date. You will not look back.

Don't you feel that your "range" got hurt once you moved to FF? I mean, what was 105*1.6 before is now just 105mm. (But I guess you just crop more often?)

Focal length is focal length. Using FX, (or 35mm film) as compared to DX, simply means the crop factor is not there. It does not affect "range." The apparent magnification occurs when one enlarges the resulting cropped image to fill one's computer monitor, or enlarges to a specific print size. One gets better "range" by using a higher-resolution sensor, so that when the cropped image is enlarged to the desired size, resolution does not "fall apart."

Where are you getting a 1.6x crop factor? This is not the Canon forum. Nikon DX camera have a 1.5x crop factor. Though both are generally termed as being APS-C, the Nikon sensor is just a bit larger in area. (This is not a jab at Canon; I enjoy using Canons, too, including the in-between 1.3x-crop APS-H 1D-series sports/wildlife cameras.)

I like FX because my lenses, at least the ones with focal lengths shorter than telephoto, behave as they do on 35mm film, and FX cameras have nice, large viewfinders for better manual focusing. FX is Nikon's term for a digital sensor the same size as a "full" 35mm film negative. DX is the smaller digital sensor with a 1.5x crop factor.

-- hide signature --

I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

1.6 was a typo. Spare my life, master

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Elti87
Regular MemberPosts: 113
Like?
Re: Consider the balance and ergonomics.
In reply to Rexgig0, 4 months ago

Rexgig0 wrote:

I own neither lens at this point in time, but I know I would not want to use the heavier 14-24mm 2.8G on the lighter D610 body, unless I planned to use a tripod for most of the shots. For walking about, or any shooting to mostly be done on my hind legs, I want a heavier body to help balance a heavier lens. The depth of the grip is also an issue, as is the shape of gripping area for the thumb. (I am spoiled by the heft and gripping area of the Nikon F6!)

All of this is a matter of personal fit and taste, so what works for me may not be the best for anyone else; my point is to try to experience the handling of a camera, with a heavy lens, before making a buying decision.

I would like to point out that 14-24/2.8G and 16-35/4G has been much-discussed here recently, with some excellent discussion from members who own and use both. PHXAZCRAIG comes to mind, as a member who has posted excellent commentary and images. AnotherMike has also posted excellent comments and images in these discussions, though I am not certain he has a 16-35/4G.

-- hide signature --

I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

I will, of course, not use 14-24 as a walk around lens. It will serve me as my landscape lens.
Thanks for the heads up, I will check their posts!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Elti87
Regular MemberPosts: 113
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to RightLight, 4 months ago

RightLight wrote:

Elti87 wrote:

KSV wrote:

For travel you should think weight and size - believe me it is not fun to hang on your neck heavy camera coupled with heavy lens. You should think D610 or Df

I've been traveling for year now. I don't mind carrying and extra kg or so

If you use 24-70/2.8, camera weights (D610 vs 800) do not seem to make much difference to me (size does a little bit though in terms of carrying bag). I am not talking about number of pounds here, just the feel I get. 24-70 balances very well on 800 - feels like made for each other. I would suggest to go to a store and handle yourself before making judgement. It is trivial thing to say but don't underestimate it is what YOU feel matters most.

In terms of upgrades I were in situation similar to yours. I also upgraded from D7000, my second DSLR. First I sold my lovely 17-55/2.8, 35/1.8 and then the camera. In the mean time, I tested 600, Df and 800 (I rented the later two). I bought 800E and I am not going to look back to like 600/610 and Df. As has already been suggested in this thread, lugging around 800 with 24-70 (its worse with 70-200) whole day is not fun. But, so is 610 and 24-70. However, 610 and 24-85 or 24-120 is a different story, better for travel. But 24-70 is the lens of a different league in terms of crispiness of images.

I purchased 16-35/f4. Very sharp but prepare to handle a lot of distortions at wide side. Good thing is that you can use the same filter you use in 24-70, less bulk to carry around. Since you have have Lee filters, 14-24 is better for IQ, if price, weight and bulk are no concern. But note that, if you have not already, you will be surprised to know how wide 24 mm is in full frame compared to D7000. In my case (mostly, landscape), 24 mm mostly wide enough. I am hunting for a good old nikon 18mm/2.8 though. Now I am sure I do not need 14 mm.

Good luck.

Thanks for the heads up, for some reason I neglected the weight of the lenses, how stupid of me. 
I will go to the Nikon showroom and test it out myself.
It kinda sucks that I have to choose - convenience vs. IQ :\ 
How do you handle the distortion then? PS?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Elti87
Regular MemberPosts: 113
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to M35G35, 4 months ago

M35G35 wrote:

Certainly cost is going to be a factor. It has taken me a few years to get to this point. I have a D800E and just acquired a Df, magnificent images from that camera. I have three lenses for landscape photography, 16-35G/f4, 24-120G/f4 and the 80-400G/VRIII. Now through my PC in the backpack it is near 24lbs that I am carrying through the airport. There are several other items in the bag, i.e. SB800 flash, filters, batteries and chargers and some minor parts. I would forgo 24-70/f2.8 or any f2.8 lenses for landscapes. Adds weight and cost. The 18-35G is lightweight and cost less than the 16-35G/f4 and probably a tad better images. My D800E has a battery grip that adds additional weight. I don't know why I carry it around for landscapes? Hope this gives some thoughts. Good luck on your decision.

besides cost and weight, is there any other reason you would forgo f2.8 lenses?
Up until now, i really feel dependent on my 35 f1.8 lens for night images. I dont have any fast lenses except for that and i'd really love to have one that could allow me to take hand held shots at night as well

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
romfordbluenose
Contributing MemberPosts: 895Gear list
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Elti87, 4 months ago

Elti87 wrote:

M35G35 wrote:

Certainly cost is going to be a factor. It has taken me a few years to get to this point. I have a D800E and just acquired a Df, magnificent images from that camera. I have three lenses for landscape photography, 16-35G/f4, 24-120G/f4 and the 80-400G/VRIII. Now through my PC in the backpack it is near 24lbs that I am carrying through the airport. There are several other items in the bag, i.e. SB800 flash, filters, batteries and chargers and some minor parts. I would forgo 24-70/f2.8 or any f2.8 lenses for landscapes. Adds weight and cost. The 18-35G is lightweight and cost less than the 16-35G/f4 and probably a tad better images. My D800E has a battery grip that adds additional weight. I don't know why I carry it around for landscapes? Hope this gives some thoughts. Good luck on your decision.

besides cost and weight, is there any other reason you would forgo f2.8 lenses?
Up until now, i really feel dependent on my 35 f1.8 lens for night images. I dont have any fast lenses except for that and i'd really love to have one that could allow me to take hand held shots at night as well

For night shots f2.8 lens help you focus and see as the aperture is wider but when it comes to taking the shot unless you want a narrow DoF you still have to close the lens down. Of course it delpends on the type of shot you want but for example, a night shot including car lights streaming you'll need a widish DoF so f2.8 won't help you achieve that except for the initial amount of light it lets in.

High ISO, VR and good handholding techniques is probably what you need for hand held shots not necessarily f2.8.

Good handholding techniques will give you an extra 2-3 stops in my experience. So you should be able to handhold your 35mm at around at 1/8 without too much problem although it won't be pin sharp.

The 24-120 f4, or even the 24-85 f3.5 (at the wide end) is only 2 stops slower than the 35mm f1.8 and offers 4 stops of VR.

I use my 24-85 extensively for indoor architectural shots such as churches which are normally quite dark and the results are excellent.

The other answer to your question is size. You can only get a few f2.8 zoom lens in your bag and the bag still has to be big. This becomes a problem if you want to use carry on on airlines.

 romfordbluenose's gear list:romfordbluenose's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RightLight
Regular MemberPosts: 167Gear list
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to Elti87, 4 months ago

Elti87 wrote:

RightLight wrote:

Elti87 wrote:

KSV wrote:

For travel you should think weight and size - believe me it is not fun to hang on your neck heavy camera coupled with heavy lens. You should think D610 or Df

I've been traveling for year now. I don't mind carrying and extra kg or so

If you use 24-70/2.8, camera weights (D610 vs 800) do not seem to make much difference to me (size does a little bit though in terms of carrying bag). I am not talking about number of pounds here, just the feel I get. 24-70 balances very well on 800 - feels like made for each other. I would suggest to go to a store and handle yourself before making judgement. It is trivial thing to say but don't underestimate it is what YOU feel matters most.

In terms of upgrades I were in situation similar to yours. I also upgraded from D7000, my second DSLR. First I sold my lovely 17-55/2.8, 35/1.8 and then the camera. In the mean time, I tested 600, Df and 800 (I rented the later two). I bought 800E and I am not going to look back to like 600/610 and Df. As has already been suggested in this thread, lugging around 800 with 24-70 (its worse with 70-200) whole day is not fun. But, so is 610 and 24-70. However, 610 and 24-85 or 24-120 is a different story, better for travel. But 24-70 is the lens of a different league in terms of crispiness of images.

I purchased 16-35/f4. Very sharp but prepare to handle a lot of distortions at wide side. Good thing is that you can use the same filter you use in 24-70, less bulk to carry around. Since you have have Lee filters, 14-24 is better for IQ, if price, weight and bulk are no concern. But note that, if you have not already, you will be surprised to know how wide 24 mm is in full frame compared to D7000. In my case (mostly, landscape), 24 mm mostly wide enough. I am hunting for a good old nikon 18mm/2.8 though. Now I am sure I do not need 14 mm.

Good luck.

Thanks for the heads up, for some reason I neglected the weight of the lenses, how stupid of me.
I will go to the Nikon showroom and test it out myself.
It kinda sucks that I have to choose - convenience vs. IQ :\
How do you handle the distortion then? PS?

You are most welcome. It is very easy to forget the lens weight factor before making decision in terms of weight. Going to Nikon showroom is the best idea. Handle and feel yourself, compare and then decide. Then you are not going to regret or get into the hassle of return.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I returned 16-35. Its a good lens but I did not want to spend more time on correction. I also realized that a good little wider prime (than 24 mm) will be better for me for occasional use. That's why I am looking for the old 18mm/2.8.

You can handle distortion using almost any software (including NikonView!). I prefer Lightroom. But used that kind of correction only in those fews day when I had 16-35.

 RightLight's gear list:RightLight's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robert Palmqvist
Regular MemberPosts: 447
Like?
Re: Going FF(?)
In reply to romfordbluenose, 4 months ago

romfordbluenose wrote:

...

High ISO, VR and good handholding techniques is probably what you need for hand held shots not necessarily f2.8.

Good handholding techniques will give you an extra 2-3 stops in my experience. So you should be able to handhold your 35mm at around at 1/8 without too much problem although it won't be pin sharp.

For long I thought VR was just a marketing gimmick. I newer had it for 35mm and it never seemed to make much of a difference with DX. I was therefor quite surprised when I started to play with a 24-85 VR on my D700. I stumbled upon a "worst case scenario" during a bumpy bus ride through the Lincoln Tunnel this summer. I was in this pitch black bus, just some faint light through the windscreen up front. My whole world was rattling and shaking like crazy while I tried to put my camera bag down by my feet. I then thought to my self, what if I would try to take a picture under these circumstances, just to test the VR? Below is the result. I am not proud of the picture itself but this was the first time I thought to myself that VR might actually work

Handheld, 1/30 sec @ 72mm, f/4.5 and ISO 6400 (on a jumping bus with the worst light ever).

And here is another example of a situation where VR prove to be quite useful. I still prefer fast glass over slow but I have to admit that VR do work and can make a cheap kit lens like the 24-85 VR quite useful even in low light.

Handheld 1/40 sec @ 36mm, f/4 and ISO 6400 (pitch black exhibition @ National Museum of Natural History).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads