Suggestions on lens for D610

After doing quite a bit of research, I am going with the Nikon D610. My question is regarding lenses. I am looking for a quality everyday lens. The kit lens that comes with it the D610:
Nikkor 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 VR

i'd honestly consider a good copy of the 28-105mm 3.5-4.5D
 
Or, if you just want landscape and cityscape, nothing else, get just this excellent U$750 ultra wide lens:
  • $747 - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED

I was about to suggest the same lens. I have it and I'm very satisfied with its performances. It's very light, well built, and not too expensive considering the focal lenght. You will make some amazing landscape shots with it. Then, if budget allows, get the 50mm f/1.8 G for low light stuff. Eventually, you can add more lenses as you need.

Whats the advantage of the 18-35 over something like a 24-70?
I dont think its an advantage, I see this lens as a disadvantage over the 24-70mm 2.8
18-35mm is a good range for landscape but pretty useless for general use like the 24-70mm range
Personally I wouldn't bother with it unless I am interested in a landscape lens or a very wide lens but not a general use lens.
 
agreed. I'd hate an 18-35 as a walk around lens. I think the 24-70 is too short as it is.
 
Whats the advantage of the 18-35 over something like a 24-70?

While lenses with a 24mm or 28mm focal length at their wide end are OK for landscape, nothing beats a wider field of view like an 18mm or 20mm. Seriously, it's a totally different approach, and you have to see it to beleive it. Composition-wise, it's just incredible what you can do with it. This small Nikon 18-35mm zoom covers all the most used focal length in the wide-angle range, so you are covered.

It also depends on the type of photography you make, but in my case, I don't like those kit lens that don't do anything well. Sure, they are convenient for the everyday stuff, but often, they don't go wide enough to be an interesting wide angle lens, and they don't have enough reach to be a decent telephoto. Also, whenever I purchase a zoom lens, I never exceed a ratio of 2 or 3 maximum between both ends of the focal length because anything more than that, and you get into a lot of compromise to make it possible. Something I'm not ready to do with my lenses considering I have a D610 and I always strive for the highest IQ possible. There's no point in putting a so-so lens on such camera, better off buying a P&S instead.

So, I like to have a real wide angle lens (18-35mm), a normal lens (50mm f/1.8) for low-light situations, and a telephoto (70-200mm f/4). Whenever I choose a lens, I know exactly why I put it on my camera and I already envision what I want to do with it. I also have a 105mm macro lens, but that's something else.

But that's me...
 
agreed. I'd hate an 18-35 as a walk around lens. I think the 24-70 is too short as it is.

That's a tough one because the OP says :

"I am looking for a quality everyday lens." and then later says "My photography is mostly landscape, with the hopes of getting into cityscape.".

I would hate my 18-35mm lens just as well if it was my walk around lens, but it's not. It has only one purpose and it's mostly for landscape or other wide-angle creative shots. The OP has to decide if he will dedicate a lens for landscapes, and use another one for his everyday walk around stuff. Actually, I like my 50mm f/1.8 a lot for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
My travel kit is the Nikkor 18-35mm + Nikkor 50mm + Tamron 70-200mm.
This covers all my needs easily, and makes forget the need for a 24-70mm.
However, the 24-70mm would be a great one lens only kit, for sure. Just not for me.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
I do not understand the technical issues, but a week ago I bought a Nikon 24-70 F2.8 from amazon, and I am quite satisfied
 
I do not understand the technical issues, but a week ago I bought a Nikon 24-70 F2.8 from amazon, and I am quite satisfied

There's nothing wrong with your 24-70mm lens, if its focal length span is exactly what you need, that's the lens for you.

The OP said he was into landscape which usually calls for a wide angle lens. All I said was that lenses wider than 24mm are just more interesting to use and have more creative potential. We are all very used to see pictures shot with a 24mm or 28mm wide angle lens, but we don't get to see often those shot with a 18mm or 20mm lens. That's all I mean.
 
Can you explain what makes the 18-35 more interesting to use and more creative potential than a 24-70?

I do not understand the technical issues, but a week ago I bought a Nikon 24-70 F2.8 from amazon, and I am quite satisfied

There's nothing wrong with your 24-70mm lens, if its focal length span is exactly what you need, that's the lens for you.

The OP said he was into landscape which usually calls for a wide angle lens. All I said was that lenses wider than 24mm are just more interesting to use and have more creative potential. We are all very used to see pictures shot with a 24mm or 28mm wide angle lens, but we don't get to see often those shot with a 18mm or 20mm lens. That's all I mean.
 
Can you explain what makes the 18-35 more interesting to use and more creative potential than a 24-70?

I saw in another discussion that Ruifo has created an album with pictures shot with his Nikkor 18-35mm here : Album on Flickr. If seeing is believing, then I think it cannot be more obvious in Ruifo's shots why the creative potential is so much better once you go wider than 24mm or 28mm.

As far as risking a logical explanation as to why its creative potential is higher, I would say that the field of view of an 18mm or 20mm lens is wider than what our eye can see, or actually perceive. While human beings have a very wide view with both of their eyes, it's just the center area that is perceived with lots of details. A wide angle lens of 18mm or 20mm kind of squeeze so much more to see into a manageable field of view. Anyway, when I look at pictures done with such wide-angle, I just have the feeling that I have so much image for the limited space I have on my sensor. It's also a lot easier to carry the impression of space into the picture with a 18mm lens than a 28mm. I also love those pictures with an object in the foreground while the background is still in focus (look at the picture named "Wood" in Ruifo's album).

I don't know how to explain it better.
 
Last edited:
most of the shots in that album were shot at 24 or 35mm :p
 
One of the lenses you listed in your short list was the 24-120 F4 VR. I have this lens and absolutely love it. I wavered whether I should buy it because the F4 aperture was worrisome. Well I got it and there has been no looking back. For landscapes and city/street photography it is a great all in one lens. I don't deny that there are better lenses for specific purposes but it is a great one to start with and then you can decide where you want to go from there.

The only thing I would get you to rethink if you do decide to get that lens is the D610. Right now it is packaged by Nikon with the D750. That package is the same price as buying the lens and the D610 separately. You can get a better camera for no more money. Win Win.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top