EKB

I didn't make a direct head-to-head test, but when I was looking for an upgrade to my 18-105mm kit lens, I rented the 24-70mm f/2.8G and was underwhelmed. A couple of years later I rented the ...

Back when I bought my D90, I immediately bought the 35mm f/1.8 Dx to go along with the 18-105mm kit lens. The kit zoom & the 35mm prime made a good two-lens starter set for me, and although I've ...

Different people, different shooting styles. For me the 24-120mm f/4 works great on a DX body, and I find 24mm plenty wide enough on the wide end. Like you, I used the the 18-105mm kit lens a lot ...

I should have specified: My "35mm" is the DX 35/1.8

Both, but "brighter aperture" is more important to me when doing walk-around. Also, the primes are smaller and lighter than the 24-120.

I have and really like the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 on my D500, but for walking around I generally prefer a 35mm or 50mm prime. It depends on how much flexibility you need, and how much you'd want long ...

I take photos of chicks ;) but not of birds. DX is a sweet spot for me, and I got a D500 because I liked the ergonomics. If the D7200's ergonomics had fit me even slightly better I would have gone ...

My advice (free and almost worth it) would be to get a zoom, but not a "superzoom" like the 28-300mm. For your D750 I'd look at Nikon's 24-85mm, 24-120mm, or something similar. (A 24-70mm f/2.8 ...

I have the Nikon 40mm DX macro, and it's on my "It seemed like a good idea at the time..." list. I wouldn't recommend it. I also recently bought the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro (bought used because ...

Nikon 40mm f/2.8 DX "micro" Not because it is a bad lens, but because it turned out to be a "seemed like a good idea at the time" purchase of a lens that I turned out not to have any real use for. ...

I only have 6 lenses, 5 Nikon plus a Sigma 70mm macro. So I'm only going to list two here. 1. 35mm f/1.8G DX. I bought this immediately after buying my D90, even though I had to drive to a ...

Coming back five months later, I'll pick two lenses that I think would sell well for Nikon: 58mm f/ 1.8 G, priced about the same as the 85mm f/1.8G to match how the 58mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses are ...

My point was that a 70mm f/1.4 wouldn't have to be a DX lens. As an FX lens it would be smaller and lighter than the 105mm f/1.4, much like the 85mm f/1.4 is smaller & lighter than the 105mm f/1.4. ...

My understanding is that DX-only lenses of 50mm and longer won't gain any size/cost benefit unless the aperture is narrow, as in the 85mm f/3.5 "micro," or the various DX zoom lenses that have ...

It's an FX lens, but I like what it does on DX bodies. There are two schools of thought about putting 24-XXmm lenses on DX bodies. The one that doesn't miss the 16-24mm wide end on their midrange ...

I'll agree that it's the lens to go for if you value that sweet 16mm at the wide end. For better or worse, I have non-standard focal-length preferences. If I didn't I'd have jumped to FX when I ...

I'm not someone to ask about wide angle, since I live in the normal-to-portrait-telephoto range and have essentially no use for anything wider than 24mm (35mm FX equivalent).  That's why I stuck ...

Nikon did go to 16MP in the D7000, then to 24MP in the D7100 and D7200 before backing down to 21MP in the D500 and D7500. I am not switching to FX.

Yes, I've visualized the difference. I rented a D7100 for a week when trying to decide whether to upgrade my D90 to a D500 or a D7100 or D7200. I got the D500 because it was in almost all other ...

It isn't "432x288 extra pixels" (which would be 0.12 megapixels) It's 432x288 PLUS 432x3712 PLUS 288x5568 extra pixels. Also math: 2048x1536= 3,145,728 pixels or ~3 mega pixels