I apologize now but it's another gear advice post...

Jayson P · Apr 28, 2016

I have been shooting for about 9 years now and to say its been on a budget putting it lightly. I have my AA in photography which means absolutely nothing in my job or really at all. I shoot landscapes, stars, cityscapes, inside old dilapidated buildings, cycling (indoor track cycling and road), some macro of bike parts and maybe some bugs, and the occasional portrait.

Current gear is as follows (So you know what I have worked with, going Nikon so it will be all new gear):
Canon T2i, Canon EFS 18-55mm (kit), Canon 50mm 1.8 (Refurb.... yes, one of the cheapest lenses as a refub...), Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro (used), Canon 50mm FD Macro (thrift shop). Notice a theme? Not a lot of flexibility and my kit lens was my main lens, went with what I could afford.
Occasionally when I could I'd borrow an L lens from my buddy to get a couple shots I had in my head but wanted to some better glass.

However, where I am at now is different. I'm looking at a Budget of about $7K and have researched my ass off and was hoping to get a little advice to button things up. My choices are based on reviews and research, not due to any particular brand....

Nikon D810 w/ Nikon 24-120 ($3500) ($2800 body only $3000 b+h battery pack kit)
Tamron 15-30mm ($1200) over Nikon 14-24mm ($1900). Everything I've read points to the 15-30.
Sigma 105mm Macro ($620) over Tamron SP 90mm Macro ($649)
Nikon SB 700 ($326)... will be used for portraits, some indoor shooting, but mostly off camera stuff. Could find something cheaper here.

That is the base of what I'm looking at but I need help with a few more pieces. Total so far $5646.

Nikon 35mm 1.8 ($527) or Sigma 35mm 1.4 ($869)
Nikon 85mm 1.8 ($477) or Sigma 85mm 1.4 ($899)
I can buy 1 of the 35 and of the 85 but I am not really sure which way to go. I shoot more landscapes than portraits so I am thinking the Sigma 35 and the Nik 85, but I could be swayed. Would the Sigma 105 work as a suitable replacement for the 85mm?

Would it be better to buy the 810 body and get a Tamron 24-70mm ($1,299) or another walk around instead of the 24-120? The Tamron (good reviews and cheaper than the Nikon) is better than the 24-120 IQ wise but I would only be able to afford 1 of the 35 or 85s (can get both Nik 35/85 if i can find a military discount somewhere).

I feel like things are a little short at 120mm but the Nikon 28-300 didn't seem like a great option and the Sigma 150-600S or C and Nikon 200-500 just seem like too situation and not something I'd have a regular need for to make it worth it.

I feel with the research I have done covers my needs pretty well. I would truly appreciate any suggestions. Thank you for your time and reading this ridiculously long and drawn out post...

jaomul · Apr 28, 2016

I think you should think about things before you drop that kind of money. You don't need to buy everything at once. I'd certainly consider a d750 over the d810 if your doing lots of night stuff and sports, it's just a less specialized model

jaomul · Apr 28, 2016

BTW welcome to tpf

astroNikon · Apr 28, 2016

I think you have some DX (APS-C crop sensor) lenses listed in your options.

When looking at the D810 and D750 those are FullFrame sensors.
The Tamron 15-30mm is okay
but you compare it to a 12-24 which I believe is a DX crop ONLY lens. The 14-24 being a FX lens, which what you may have meant.

Confirm that the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is a FF/FX lens and not the DX version. With the price I think it is.

A lot of options there for a lot of different type of photography.

Jayson P · Apr 28, 2016

on B+H the DX 35mm 1.8 $196.95, FX $526.95, and thank you for catching my mistake. Meant to compare the Tam 15-30 with the Nik 14-24.... all the numbers in the post got me cross eyed. I edited the post to fix the mistake. Thank you.

jaomul · Apr 28, 2016

You ask would the sigma 105 replace the 85, maybe. The tamron 90mm vc macro has been described as portrait macro by some if I am correct. It does pretty much mirror the 85mm and does a nice job with portraits, I am sure the sigma would be great also

I know 2 guys that have the 24-120mm f4 and love them. I have used them and consider them great. They usually only get average to good reviews but I consider its an underrated lens

Jayson P · Apr 28, 2016

Awesome, thank you for the info jaomul!

astroNikon · Apr 28, 2016

With the SB-700 you could look at Yongnuo 568EX flashes.
Though if you do, stick with the brand and don't mix other non Nikon flashes with it.
I'd recommend getting their radio triggers too (Yongnuo or Nikon speedlights) of the 622-TX controller and 622N triggers.

though I have one Yongnuo, and use a SB-700 and SB800s, others have had reliable use with the Yongnuos 568ex (I believe that is their best speedlight with HSS, and every other feature).

have some sample track/road bike photos? I used to race track/road/mtb.

Derrel · Apr 28, 2016

You might want to just hold on a second before buying all those lenses, and read this, and maybe drill down to some of his source material and videos of people within his circle. The Problem with Modern Optics

I had never heard of this guy until a few weeks ago, but I KNEW from my own experience and 30+ years with Nikkor lenses that some of the new-generation lenses from Nikon, and from other makers, make photos that look very awful. A good example is the Sigma 35/1.4 ART...really ugly bokeh...awful rendering. There's a new trend, that of making lenses that score really high on test charts, but which are not very three-dimensional, or which have VERY harsh bokeh. Tamron is guilty of this in its newer 24-70 and 70-200 lenses...these are very high-acutance, high-resolution lenses, but the bokeh is very aggressive, nervous, and not idealized for many types of photography.

If you seek advice from people in their 20's and 30's., you'll find mostly test-chart recommendations, not lens recommendations. Besides--not all lenses are optimized for all types of subject matter; how perfect the sunstar is is a big deal with many landscape shooters; the degree of roundness of the subject rendering is a major deal with serious portrait and fashion shooters; the test chart scores are very big with internet shooters.

Simply--Sigma 85/1.4? No, get the lower-cost 85/1.8 from the Nikon G-series. Can a 105mm macro lens do double-dutry as a field telephoto? Maybe, for casual use, but the focusing might not be as good (meaning not as sure, not as repeatable, not as reliable) as you want it to be for distances over five or six feet. The difference between a 105mm and an 85mm is significant difference.

Jayson P · Apr 28, 2016

Derrel said:
You might want to just hold on a second before buying all those lenses, and read this, and maybe drill down to some of his source material and videos of people within his circle. The Problem with Modern Optics

I had never heard of this guy until a few weeks ago, but I KNEW from my own experience and 30+ years with Nikkor lenses that some of the new-generation lenses from Nikon, and from other makers, make photos that look very awful. A good example is the Sigma 35/1.4 ART...really ugly bokeh...awful rendering. There's a new trend, that of making lenses that score really high on test charts, but which are not very three-dimensional, or which have VERY harsh bokeh. Tamron is guilty of this in its newer 24-70 and 70-200 lenses...these are very high-acutance, high-resolution lenses, but the bokeh is very aggressive, nervous, and not idealized for many types of photography.

If you seek advice from people in their 20's and 30's., you'll find mostly test-chart recommendations, not lens recommendations. Besides--not all lenses are optimized for all types of subject matter; how perfect the sunstar is is a big deal with many landscape shooters; the degree of roundness of the subject rendering is a major deal with serious portrait and fashion shooters; the test chart scores are very big with internet shooters.

Simply--Sigma 85/1.4? No, get the lower-cost 85/1.8 from the Nikon G-series. Can a 105mm macro lens do double-dutry as a field telephoto? Maybe, for casual use, but the focusing might not be as good (meaning not as sure, not as repeatable, not as reliable) as you want it to be for distances over five or six feet. The difference between a 105mm and an 85mm is significant difference.

Thank you Derrel, I appreciate your help. I am in no rush right now, In fact I don't plan on making a single purchase for another couple of months. Trying to find out people's experiences with the equipment that the charts and other reviews I have found aren't telling me. A lot of my research has lead me to conflicting answers about which lenses are sharper and the reliability of Sigma and Tamron AF for example.

Watchful · Apr 28, 2016

You have a Velodrome near your home? awesome.
For sports and wildlife the D500 is a nicer camera than the D810 is. Add a
Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM ( S ) Lens and a USB dock for it to add some reach on the track.
You already listed some lenses for interiors that will work in that environment.

goodguy · Apr 29, 2016

First I would recommend the D750 over the D810, for 98% of the time it will do as good of a job and will save you a grand or more.
Owning the D750 its the best general use camera and I think will cover your needs nicely and more!
As for lenses, well I am not a big fan of the 24-120mm f4, I own the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G, my main lens and the one I mostly use and would recommend unless you want the Tamron version, Bokeh is one main difference between these 2 lenses and I would read more into these 2 lenses. But I would not recommend the new VR lens, just didn't hear stellar reviews over it, the older non VR that I own somehow seems sharper and I don't see anyone who owns the older version running to switch to the new model.
The Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC is my second most used lens, love it!
Its a great general use lens and will be great for many things including portrait, street candids, sports like the bike shots I saw on your flickr.....etc
Nikon 85mm 1.8G is my latest acquisition, got it for just portrait work simply because on long sessions my Tamron gets a little heavy, found using the Nikon 85mm a very liberating lens to be use as its so small, light weight compared to the Tamron, super sharp just great lens and amazing value for money.

For landscape and real estate photography I got a Sigma 12-24mm MkII, its the widest FX zoom lens you will find, excellent lens, very sharp and minimal distortion.

Nikon 50mm 1.8G is a lens everybody must own, best 200$ you will spend, just great lens to so many things and so sharp ad cheap, a must.

Last thing for Macro I will not recommend because I rather not recommend what I am not 100% sure, used to own the Nikon 60mm 2.8G, great lens but for insects work you want more focal length.

My Nikon 24-70mm and Tamron 70-200mm cover me from 24-200mm with constant f2.8 and I mostly shoot these lenses wide open, I really hardly use any other lens, they are just so usable and so good that for most cases I don't need anything else so these will be my first two recommendations.

Most my lenses I got used, just makes so much more sensor, the only lens I bought new was the Tamron, saved a whole lot of money by buying lenses used and these are strong made items so its well worth considering buying them used but of course there is always a risk involved so you need to be ok with that.

jaomul · Apr 29, 2016

Derrel said:
You might want to just hold on a second before buying all those lenses, and read this, and maybe drill down to some of his source material and videos of people within his circle. The Problem with Modern Optics

I had never heard of this guy until a few weeks ago, but I KNEW from my own experience and 30+ years with Nikkor lenses that some of the new-generation lenses from Nikon, and from other makers, make photos that look very awful. A good example is the Sigma 35/1.4 ART...really ugly bokeh...awful rendering. There's a new trend, that of making lenses that score really high on test charts, but which are not very three-dimensional, or which have VERY harsh bokeh. Tamron is guilty of this in its newer 24-70 and 70-200 lenses...these are very high-acutance, high-resolution lenses, but the bokeh is very aggressive, nervous, and not idealized for many types of photography.

If you seek advice from people in their 20's and 30's., you'll find mostly test-chart recommendations, not lens recommendations. Besides--not all lenses are optimized for all types of subject matter; how perfect the sunstar is is a big deal with many landscape shooters; the degree of roundness of the subject rendering is a major deal with serious portrait and fashion shooters; the test chart scores are very big with internet shooters.

Simply--Sigma 85/1.4? No, get the lower-cost 85/1.8 from the Nikon G-series. Can a 105mm macro lens do double-dutry as a field telephoto? Maybe, for casual use, but the focusing might not be as good (meaning not as sure, not as repeatable, not as reliable) as you want it to be for distances over five or six feet. The difference between a 105mm and an 85mm is significant difference.

Do you agree with the majority of the article linked? I haven't enough experience with older lenses (and I am not 20-30 unfortunately), but the modern example photos he gave were sort of sterile inside close ups with flat backgrounds, the examples he gave with the older lenses were more pleasing, but they were more pleasing environment also.

I know some newer lenses etc are probably to sharp, I even asked on this form previously if it was good practice to buy a sharp (85mms f1.8g) lens and remove some sharpness in portraits with pp, or try get a less sharp but more respected 85mm portrait lens.

Does this mean the photos once possible will not be possible anymore, at least not represented at the 3d look that was once possible, or is this guy just nostalgic

robbins.photo · Apr 29, 2016

Like GG I'd probably recommend you take a look at a 70-200mm F/2.8, I think you would find it extremely useful particularly for your indoor cycling shots. The Tamron version with the VC is an excellent lens.

The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is also a highly regarded lens, I actually use a 28-75 2.8 without the VC myself, always gotten great results from it. Prior to switching to full frame I also used the Tamron 17-50 quite a bit, so far at least I have always gotten great results from Tamron lenses.

My recommendation would be to start with the two zooms, the 24-70 and the 70-200, and then see what other needs you think you need to fulfill.

Dave Colangelo · Apr 29, 2016

The 1.8 Nikon's (35 and 50) are great lenses and suit me for just about everything I do. I have the 1.8 35mm on for most of my shooting. I also happen to own the 50mm 1.2 and while that in its own right is a great lens the 1.8 is more than fast enough for even the lowest of light situation. In reality the 1.2 is really the best stopped to 2 anyway so I rarely shoot at 1.2 when I use it. The 1.8 often gets stopped down to 1.8 but 2 is not all that uncommon when im using it. So I would save the money and take the 1.8 over the 1.4's any day. For what its worth the 50mm 1.2 is claimed to be one of nikons sharpest lenses at F2, I often cant tell the difference between it and my 35mm 1.8 (in regards to sharpness) but maybe its just my eyes.

I dont have a 750 or 810 so I wont really comment but I do hear great things about the 810's from users.

One thing I love about the Nikon system is the F-Mount its self. One thing worth thinking about is that the F -Mount has remained unchanged since 1959. Any nikon lens that they have made since (for their SLR's both film and digital) will mount up and work perfectly on the 750 and 810 (or any nikon for that matter). While most lenses will only work in full manual mode and only some will autofocus, this opens up a whole world of used lenses that are really great pieces. FWIW I found my 50mm 1.2 in an antique store for a very very very low price (thats a story for another time). You can get some really great old lenses if you need something specific for a pretty fair prices second hand. If you really want a 50mm 1.4 here is a vintage one with an opening bid of 20$ 1.4 is 1.4. Id say older nikon glass is some of the most under rated stuff out there especially considering the compatibility with their new bodies.

When it comes to Tele stuff I like the longer length nikon primes but I see the utility in some of their zoom lenses. I would stay away from any of those "do it all lenses" like the 28-300 as they often sacrifice stuff at one or both ends of the spectrum to get in all that range.

Regards
Dave