Working on well rounded lens combo for my kit... need some help.

[KooKoo102]

Along with my D610 I have:
nikon 24-70 f2.8
sigma 50mm f1.4
sigma 120-400 variable a.

Im looking to spend some money and upgrade / get some more lenses. My primary goal is to have a (good quality) well rounded kit.

My thoughts are to:
get sigma 50mm 1.4 ART
get nikon 16-35 f4 vr
keep nikon 24-70 f2.8
get nikon 70-200 f4
(sell sigma 50mm and 120-400 lenses)

Or should I keep my 120-400 (not get the 70-200) and get the nikon 105mm macro, so I can keep the reach and add a macro to the bag?
Another idea, dump the 50mm 1.4 ART and keep my 50 I already have? I dont use it all that much to begin with, so I dont know if its worth the $1000 upgrade FOR ME. I know its a MUCH better lens in comparison, but I mostly use my 24-70.

Please let me know what you think, I want to make the best decision... and im having a hard time.
Thank you,
-Andre

 

[tirediron]

I have a moral aversion to getting rid of lenses once I've bought them, so I'm not the best person to answer this, but it would help greatly to know what sort(s) of thing(s) you shoot?

 

[KooKoo102]

Sorry about that.. I had intention to say that I am a hobbyist. I shoot anything from portraits of my family, landscape, Macro (if I had a lens), architecture, and some wildlife.

 

[D-B-J]

If it were me, I'd sell the 120-400 and get the 70-200 fixed aperture, and the 16-35. If I had a full frame my first purchase would be the 16-35 for landscapes. Definitely keep the 24-70, as it's such a versatile lens. And don't bother upgrading the 50. It'd be rather expensive and I doubt the ROI would be significant enough to warrant the upgrade, unless you need the best of the best 50mil.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KooKoo102]

Well... This is what I think about the 50mm situation. I dont use it a whole lot because it does not give me the reuslts I get with my 24-70 (# of good shots out of shots taken) I figured if I had a good 50 that gave me the results im looking for, maybe I would use it more.

 

[D-B-J]

Well... This is what I think about the 50mm situation. I dont use it a whole lot because it does not give me the reuslts I get with my 24-70 (# of good shots out of shots taken) I figured if I had a good 50 that gave me the results im looking for, maybe I would use it more.

If you're not getting good results with a 50mm 1.4 then how would getting a more expensive 50mm 1.4 improve your shooting? I'll have to assume that your issue arises when shooting at a wide aperture, and you're ending up with a lot of shots oof. Yes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KooKoo102]

Well.. im not a fan of the focus on the lens. Does not seem accurate. I ususally shoot 2.0/2.8 but have gotten some decent sharp shots of my son at 1.4 and im happy with the image quality. But in comparison I rather shoot with my 24-70 because it seems to be more accurate with focus.

 

[Derrel]

I thin D-B-J has a pretty good answer above, re the 16-35 VR and then the 70-200. I did see a test of the new Sigma 50/1.4 Art from a Korean site, and WOW....it's Leica-like...it's reallllllly got some serious imaging chops. The new 50/1.4 has amazing correction for coma, so for like night photos at wide f/stops it's amazingly well-corrected, and renders point lights as points, where a lot of other lenses give you awwwwwful lights. It's gonna be the hot, new 50mm lens. But still, it's $900 for one lens length, and a length that not everybody is excited about, so the 16-35 and 70-200 make m ore sense. I've never heard anything good about the 120-400 Sigma. 105mm VR Nikkor macro??? Ehhh...if you really want it, okay, sure.

 

[D-B-J]

Well.. im not a fan of the focus on the lens. Does not seem accurate. I ususally shoot 2.0/2.8 but have gotten some decent sharp shots of my son at 1.4 and im happy with the image quality. But in comparison I rather shoot with my 24-70 because it seems to be more accurate with focus.

Not to call you out but I think it's most likely a result of user error. I have the cheap 50mm 1.8D and have had good success with it, even wide open or close to. That being said, I still echo my earlier sentiments--the 16-35 and 70-200 will give you a nicely rounded kit, for sure.

Cheers!
Jake

 

[runnah]

I thin D-B-J has a pretty good answer above, re the 16-35 VR and then the 70-200. I did see a test of the new Sigma 50/1.4 Art from a Korean site, and WOW....it's Leica-like...it's reallllllly got some serious imaging chops. The new 50/1.4 has amazing correction for coma, so for like night photos at wide f/stops it's amazingly well-corrected, and renders point lights as points, where a lot of other lenses give you awwwwwful lights. It's gonna be the hot, new 50mm lens. But still, it's $900 for one lens length, and a length that not everybody is excited about, so the 16-35 and 70-200 make m ore sense. I've never heard anything good about the 120-400 Sigma. 105mm VR Nikkor macro??? Ehhh...if you really want it, okay, sure.

Boy I am trying hard to get excited about that "art" lens and I just can't.

50mm blah
Sigma blah
Art blah
$900 blah

Adds up to a lot of blah.

But to the OP, skip sigma and get a nice VR 70-200. Get the cheapo 50mm 1.8 to see if you like the focal length before you spend big bucks. I'd suggest looking for an 85mm prime.

 

[KooKoo102]

Well.. im not a fan of the focus on the lens. Does not seem accurate. I ususally shoot 2.0/2.8 but have gotten some decent sharp shots of my son at 1.4 and im happy with the image quality. But in comparison I rather shoot with my 24-70 because it seems to be more accurate with focus.

Not to call you out but I think it's most likely a result of user error. I have the cheap 50mm 1.8D and have had good success with it, even wide open or close to. That being said, I still echo my earlier sentiments--the 16-35 and 70-200 will give you a nicely rounded kit, for sure.

Cheers!
Jake

Its all good, could very well be user error. But overall... it seems I have to fight to get images in focus compared to my 24-70. the 16-35 is 100% a done deal. The only thing about the 70-200 is the loss in focal length... 200 mm is quite a bit for me to loose. And i can not afford the nikon 80-400 @ $2700 right now.

 

[runnah]

Tamron 150-600?

 

[KooKoo102]

I thin D-B-J has a pretty good answer above, re the 16-35 VR and then the 70-200. I did see a test of the new Sigma 50/1.4 Art from a Korean site, and WOW....it's Leica-like...it's reallllllly got some serious imaging chops. The new 50/1.4 has amazing correction for coma, so for like night photos at wide f/stops it's amazingly well-corrected, and renders point lights as points, where a lot of other lenses give you awwwwwful lights. It's gonna be the hot, new 50mm lens. But still, it's $900 for one lens length, and a length that not everybody is excited about, so the 16-35 and 70-200 make m ore sense. I've never heard anything good about the 120-400 Sigma. 105mm VR Nikkor macro??? Ehhh...if you really want it, okay, sure.

The 120-400... its not horrible... actually better then I was expecting. At the time when I got the D610 I needed something.. but wanted to spend more on the midrange (24-70), Long focal distance got the short end of the stick. I take it you are not a fan of macro? I have not done any macro since my A77. Even then, it was a 30mm. Damn was that short.

 

[KooKoo102]

Tamron 150-600?

You know... I have thought of that one. But for right now it does not fit in my bag, and eveything I get needs to fit so it can be a carry on for my trip in sept. Otherwise I am not chancing it will baggage handlers.

 

[KooKoo102]

I thin D-B-J has a pretty good answer above, re the 16-35 VR and then the 70-200. I did see a test of the new Sigma 50/1.4 Art from a Korean site, and WOW....it's Leica-like...it's reallllllly got some serious imaging chops. The new 50/1.4 has amazing correction for coma, so for like night photos at wide f/stops it's amazingly well-corrected, and renders point lights as points, where a lot of other lenses give you awwwwwful lights. It's gonna be the hot, new 50mm lens. But still, it's $900 for one lens length, and a length that not everybody is excited about, so the 16-35 and 70-200 make m ore sense. I've never heard anything good about the 120-400 Sigma. 105mm VR Nikkor macro??? Ehhh...if you really want it, okay, sure.

Boy I am trying hard to get excited about that "art" lens and I just can't.

50mm blah
Sigma blah
Art blah
$900 blah

Adds up to a lot of blah.

But to the OP, skip sigma and get a nice VR 70-200. Get the cheapo 50mm 1.8 to see if you like the focal length before you spend big bucks. I'd suggest looking for an 85mm prime.

lol, How do you feel about the 85 f1.8? The 1.4 is a little out of my range. Only half stop difference, but im sure better optics.