$2000.00 to spend on glass. What would you buy? (2 or 3 choices please) Nikon D600

Mike_E · Nov 21, 2012

IF you really want sharp, get a good tripod.

Then one of these Tokina 17-35mm f/4 Pro FX Lens for Nikon Cameras ATX175PROFXN

And after the tripod and the Tokina keep your 50mm and get an older 80-200mm f2.8.

If you do get an ultra wide be sure that you can use filters on it. No filters = bad, no good on landscapes.

unpopular · Nov 21, 2012

no sunset/sunrise photographer needs a $2,000 lens.

TheFantasticG · Nov 21, 2012

BlairWright said:
You may want to consider looking at the Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR, it's FX and frankly a pretty darn good lens. The other lens that it a great alternative is the exceptional Nikon 17-35 2.8 ED-IF.

Of course the 14-24 and 24-70 2.8's are the Nikon standards these days there are other good options. Since your budget is somewhat limited you may want to look at the other options.

Lastly, I always tell people to stay away from off brand lenses. They have horrible resale value and their quality normally (not always but normally) is lower than Nikon's lens quality.

I agree with the first two sentences, the last sentence not at all. I'm referring specifically to 3rd party macro glass. If you really like macro and have a limited budget look into the new Sigma 105mm OS, Tamron 90mm SP Di II, Nikon 60mm 2.8G Micro... Personally, I love the color and IQ that comes out of the Tamron 90mm SP Di I... Especially because you can pick them up used $350 in fantastic condition.

Mike_E · Nov 21, 2012

unpopular said:
no sunset/sunrise photographer needs a $2,000 lens.

[h=1]Tokina 17-35mm f/4 Pro FX Lens for Nikon Cameras[/h]

Price: $669.00

Mail In Rebate -$70.00
B&H

Solarflare · Nov 22, 2012

Now that one is easy, I would get the complete prime lens trinity:

AF-S 28mm f/1.8G - ca 700$
AF-S 50mm f/1.8G - ca 200$ <-- redundant for the OP, since he already has a 50mm f/1.4
AF-S 85mm f/1.8G - ca 700$

Total: 1600$

Another Alternative for fans of macro:

AF-S 28mm f/1.8G - ca 700$
AF-S 50mm f/1.8G - ca 200$
AF-S 105mm f/2.8G VR micro - ca 1000$

Total: 1900$

Next expensive option is:

AF-S 16-35mm f/4 VR - ca 1200$
AF-S 70-200mm f/4 VR - ca 1200$

Total: 2400$

Which is already above budget, though.

benhasajeep · Nov 24, 2012

Mike_E said:
IF you really want sharp, get a good tripod.

Then one of these Tokina 17-35mm f/4 Pro FX Lens for Nikon Cameras ATX175PROFXN

And after the tripod and the Tokina keep your 50mm and get an older 80-200mm f2.8.

If you do get an ultra wide be sure that you can use filters on it. No filters = bad, no good on landscapes.

And a remote release!

Even though I have upgraded bodies twice now in the digital realm. I am still using my 80-200 f/2.8 (2 ring) from 13 years ago!!! It's hard to come up with a good enough excuse to pay a couple thousand dollars for its replacement, when it works so well. Yea, it's not VR, and it focuses slower. But it works pretty good with the better bodies. I have 4 Tokina lenses still, and although they are not quite the same as Nikon's best. They are all very good lenes. And 1 gets a lot of use. They are built like a tank, better than some of Nikons cheaper lenses, thats for sure. Even though we just switched over to full frames from now on (D800, D600). We are keeping the Tokina 11-16 in the bag. Such a good lens, worth keeping it in the bag even if the cameras shift down sensor size. The majority of my lenses are Nikon (majority of which are AF-D's). But mentioning that Tokina has a place in our bags as well. I can't say the same for Sigma (although I do have one currently).

pab · Nov 30, 2012

I pulled the trigger.

Got the Nikon 14-24mm. UPS says its on time for a delivery for today.

Thanks for all the help, I really feel that the wider lens will help me with that I am shooting. (more landscapes than anything)

Going forward though, I think next week or the following I am going to pick between the 24-70 and the 70-200 Only reason I am considering the 70-200 over the 24-70 is becuase I currently have the 24-85 (not a baaaad lens) and that would fill the majority of my focal lengths.

TheFantasticG · Nov 30, 2012

If thats what you shoot most of the time you won't be disappointed. Congrats.

jake337 · Nov 30, 2012

If I were you:

Nikkor 28mm f1.8G
Nikon Autofocus 28 F1.8 G AF-S (67) WITH HOOD, CAPS, DIGITAL SLR WIDE ANGLE LENS - KEH.com

nikkor 135 f2 DC
Nikon Autofocus 135 F2 D/DC (72) WITH CAPS 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com

nikkor 300mm f4.5 IF ED AIS(I'd try to find one not missing a tripod mount though)
http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK06010200048Z?r=FE

Those three lens cover all your missing areas and will set ya back about $1,900 plus shipping.

pab · Nov 30, 2012

jake337 said:
If I were you:

Nikkor 28mm f1.8G
Nikon Autofocus 28 F1.8 G AF-S (67) WITH HOOD, CAPS, DIGITAL SLR WIDE ANGLE LENS - KEH.com

nikkor 135 f2 DC
Nikon Autofocus 135 F2 D/DC (72) WITH CAPS 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com

nikkor 300mm f4.5 IF ED AIS(I'd try to find one not missing a tripod mount though)
http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses/1/sku-NK06010200048Z?r=FE

Those three lens cover all your missing areas and will set ya back about $1,900 plus shipping.

Thanks for the ideas.

My next step is sell my 24-85 kit lens. Buy the 24-70. Then get the tokina macro and maybe a fish eye and call it a year. Next year the 70-200 will complete me.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2

TheFantasticG · Dec 1, 2012

Complete you...? Yeah, until NAS sets in.

pab · Dec 2, 2012

TheFantasticG said:
Complete you...? Yeah, until NAS sets in.

Your right lol. I already have the 24-70 on order. Not sure I will do the 70-200 2.8. Been reading reviews on the F4 70-200 and for a grand less it will do the job just fine for me.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

TheFantasticG · Dec 2, 2012

Might also consider a used 70-200 2.8 VR1. See 'em going for $1300-$1500 right now in a few places.

kundalini · Dec 2, 2012

Since you already have the 24-85mm, I'd ride that pony until upgrading to the 24-70mm wasn't a financial burden. Explore the focal lengths that you do not already have covered.

Congratz on the 14-24mm. Awesome lens.

pab · Dec 2, 2012

kundalini said:
Since you already have the 24-85mm, I'd ride that pony until upgrading to the 24-70mm wasn't a financial burden. Explore the focal lengths that you do not already have covered.

Congratz on the 14-24mm. Awesome lens.

Thats actually a really good point. I had my 24-85 for sale on amazon and thats why I was going to get the 24-70. But I have NEVER owned a Zoom lens or anything over 105mm for that matter. I would like to have all three, but I think I would get more immediate use out of the 24-70. I have a little boy coming in January and it most likely will be used along side my 50mm 1.4G to take shots of him.

Thanks btw, its a bad ass lens.. Already found myself doing stupid looking photos with it lol