Former Nikon DSLR shooter getting back into photography. Where do I start?

[ac12]

I used a 43-86 in my film days, and I REALLY wished for more reach, like out to 105.
When I used the 43-86, it's long partner was the 80-200/4.5.

The 24-70 is WIDER than the 43-86, but not longer.
And like the 43-86, I would have to partner it with a longer lens, to get the extra reach.

So for ME, the 24-120 fits the bill as a GP lens, for ME.

 

[mjcmt]

I used a 43-86 in my film days, and I REALLY wished for more reach, like out to 105.
When I used the 43-86, it's long partner was the 80-200/4.5.

The 24-70 is WIDER than the 43-86, but not longer.
And like the 43-86, I would have to partner it with a longer lens, to get the extra reach.

So for ME, the 24-120 fits the bill as a GP lens, for ME.

I also had the 43-86 w/ a F2. That was really a poor performing zoom. That's when zooms were noticeably poor compared to primes. I replaced it with a 35/1.4 and never looked back. Unlike you I tried a 50, 85, and 105 and sold them within months of purchasing them because I didn't like as much a a 35. We all see life differently through a camera. Years later I did eventually add a 20 and 180 and seldom used the 180, but still keep it around.

 

[Rafterman]

I considered starting out with just the Z 35mm f/1.8 S and the Z 105mm f/2.8 S macro lens, but for travel, I know I would miss the versatility of a good zoom. When I had my previous crop sensor Nikon DSLRs, two of my favorite lenses were the old 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 on my D7000 and the newer 16-80mm f/2.8-4 VR on my D500. Considering the 16-80mm DX lens is the same field of view as a 24-120mm on full frame, I already know what it's capable of and how many situations it can handle. I know a good prime produces razor-sharp images, and the fixed focal length makes you "think" about your composure more, but for travel, I want photography to be relaxing and stress-free.

Now that I'm going to have reach out to 120mm, I'll likely skip buying the upcoming Z 70-180mm lens. No point in spending the money just to cover 120mm to 180mmm focal lengths.

My next Z lens purchase will probably be the 35mm f/1.8 S for low light interior situations or the 105mm f/2.8 S macro for portraits and uh...macro. If I ever get back into wildlife/bird photography again, I'll splurge on the Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S. The lens alone would be awesome, but with the 1.4x teleconverter, a 140-560mm f/6.3-8 would be pretty sweet as well.

 

[ac12]

I also had the 43-86 w/ a F2. That was really a poor performing zoom. That's when zooms were noticeably poor compared to primes. I replaced it with a 35/1.4 and never looked back. Unlike you I tried a 50, 85, and 105 and sold them within months of purchasing them because I didn't like as much a a 35. We all see life differently through a camera. Years later I did eventually add a 20 and 180 and seldom used the 180, but still keep it around.

Well it may have been a poor IQ lens, but in was convenient. And it hooked me into being a zoomie.
Well, except for the rather slow f/3.5 aperture, which in hindsight was my biggest mistake in buying that lens. With 64-100ASA film, the 43-86 was really only a daytime lens. Even pushing Tri-X to 1200, it performed poorly for indoor sports. If I was thinking clearly, I would have bought a 50/1.4, for the faster aperture.

I really wanted Nikon to stretch the 2x 43-86 to a 3x 35-105 fixed aperture lens. But when the 35-105 came out, it was a variable aperture lens I used a hand meter a LOT, and variable aperture lenses were difficult to use. Cuz you did not know what the exact aperture was at anything other than max or min focal length.

I replaced the 43-86 ver1 lens with the ver2 lens, and still have it on my F2.

 

[Geenphoto]

Hey all. It's been a minute since I last posted in here (April 2018), and I'm looking to get back into photography again. I used to shoot with Nikon crop sensor DLSRs (D3100, D7000, D500) and I did photography primarily as a hobby (landscapes, architecture, nature and birds) with a tiny bit of more "serious" work peppered in (portraiture, family photos, 2nd wedding shooter). My wife and I are both in our 40s, have no kids, and work fully remote, so we've decided to start traveling more. I want to get a camera that's much more capable than the one on my 6-year-old Samsung smart phone, even though it still takes pretty good shots with its 12MP sensor.

While the primary use of this camera will be travel, I'll also be using it to photograph car shows (mostly outdoor) and possibly some indoor events like pool/billiard tournaments.

I've researched for two weeks on the whole mirrorless vs. traditional DSLR thing, and I'm no closer to deciding on one over the other. I'm perfectly fine with buying gently used gear as opposed to new. As far as brands go, being a former Nikon shooter, I'm leaning towards either a D7200, D750 or the Z 5 mirrorless. However, I don't own any Nikon gear at the moment, so I'm also considering something like a Fujifilm X-H1, X-T3, or X-T4. Obviously, a crop sensor camera would tend to be smaller and easier to travel with, but I've never owned a full frame camera, and the size of the Z 5 is very appealing.

As far as lenses, if I buy a Nikon body, I'll probably get some used F-mount lenses since they're readily available and quite affordable in most cases. Obviously, I would need the FTZ adapter with the Z 5 body. On the other hand, Fujifilm mirrorless lenses are high quality, but not exactly cheap, with the XF18-55mm f/2.8-4 "kit" lens costing $700 brand new. Even the "must-have" for crop sensor cameras, the XF35mm f/2 is $400 new. Ouch.

It's probably obvious based on the gear I mention above, but I do have a pretty decent budget for all this. Something around the $1,500 range would be ideal, with an absolute max of $2,000.

Here's a few initial setups I'm considering, in no particular order. Of course, other lenses for specific needs could be added later on at any time. Thanks in advance for all feedback and suggestions!

- Nikon Z 5 with Z 24-70mm f/4 lens (or FTZ adapter and 24-120mm f/4 G lens)
- Nikon D750 with 50mm f/1.8 G and 24-120mm f/4 G lenses
- Nikon D7200 with 35mm f/1.8G and 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 G lenses
- Fujifilm X-T3 with XF 35mm f/2 and XF 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lenses

p.s. Let me mention that I did consider Canon and Sony. If anything from them is on my radar at all, it would likely be either the Canon 7D Mk II DSLR or the Canon EOS R mirrorless. However, if I decide to go with a traditional DSLR, it's going to be much easier for me to jump right back into a Nikon. And if I decide on mirrorless, the Fujifilm options have been around a long time and they have a very extensive and impressive lens library. It would just make more sense for me to choose one of those options over Canon/Sony.

Well, I still have my D700 but yes, I am getting back into photography with the birth of our first grandchild. I decided on the Z7 from Nikon and a FtZ converter so that I can use my old lenses with the new camera until I can upgrade them as well.

 

[AlanKlein]

Well, I went ahead and made a final decision.

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S in my Amazon shopping cart just went down from $1096 to $896 and that was all I needed to pull the trigger. Along with the lens, I bought a "Like New" condition Z 5 for $1,105, two Lexar Professional 128GB SDXC UHS-II cards, two spare EN-EL15C batteries, and a Tiffen 77mm UV filter for the lens. Can't wait to see what this setup can do. I'm very excited.

Good luck. Sounds like a great combo.

 

[FBPB]

Well, I went ahead and made a final decision.

The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S in my Amazon shopping cart just went down from $1096 to $896 and that was all I needed to pull the trigger. Along with the lens, I bought a "Like New" condition Z 5 for $1,105, two Lexar Professional 128GB SDXC UHS-II cards, two spare EN-EL15C batteries, and a Tiffen 77mm UV filter for the lens. Can't wait to see what this setup can do. I'm very excited.

Good choice!

I worked in IT, and as a wise man once told me: buy as high-end tech as you can at the time so it lasts longer...

Please let us know how you get along with the new outfit!

 

[RAZKY]

D7200/7500 on the other hand, there is no wide DX 24mm lens, so you are stuck with the normal DX 35/1.8.

Everyone else knows that an FX lens of any focal length or maximum aperture will function as well on a DX Nikon as any DX lens, so the OP is not "stuck" with anything!

 

[ac12]

Everyone else knows that an FX lens of any focal length or maximum aperture will function as well on a DX Nikon as any DX lens, so the OP is not "stuck" with anything!

Yes it WILL function.

But, factor in the cost difference between the DX and FX lenses, and the picture changes.
24/1.8 DX = n/a, FX = $750
35/1.8 DX = $197, FX = $527. $330 difference
50/1.8 DX = n/a, FX = $217. The FX lens is low enough in cost to not make a difference.

Cost IS a factor that cannot be ignored when you have a limited budget.
The FX 24/1.8 is HALF of the OPs $1,500 budget.

 

[greybeard]

(imho) The best deal going on Nikon these days is a Z5 with a 24-200mm super zoom. I have read every review I can find comparing the 24-70 with the 24-200 and they all say the same thing. The 24-70 is a little sharper but not by much. And, you can get a Z5 with a 24-200 kit for $1700. You can pickup a used like new 24-70 for around $400 all day if you think you need one.

 

[greybeard]

I have both the Z50 and Z50. Don't blow off the Z50 w/2 kit lenses. It sure has surprised me.

 

[Overread]

Thread locked
Please keep an eye on the last post date when replying to threads. There are many active recent conversations and threads to contribute too; please don't bring back old content where the original poster and the conversation have been left for months.