Just bought my first full frame Nikon (D600) Need a good first lens suggestion <$500

[greybeard]

Hello all,

I just purchased a D600 and I am looking for a good all around every day FX lens. I am open to buying used as well, I just want to stay under $500. Any input would be appreciated. I plan to buy more FX lenses as I can afford to, especially primes, but for now I am just looking for something that is decent quality that can get my by for general use and allow the camera to live up to its capabilities. Thanks!

The 24-85 kit seems like a no brainer.

 

[CR88]

I went for a 50mm f1.8 ... I just dont like normal zooms. In that area of focal lengths, prime lenses are definitely much cooler.

I do love my 50mm. I was hoping to find a good bright moderately wide lens to carry with me. I figure I could crop the shot if necessary. I will be shooting mostly landscape anyway. This first purchase is ideally for a light weight good all around kit, camera and one lens.

A lot of people who use the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 rave about its quality vs cost

I have heard that it is a GREAT lens for the $$$. I did come across that lens before when I was looking for my D200, but ultimately decided I was going to upgrade my camera first then look for FX lenses. For some reason I thought it was for crop sensor only. I didn't realize it was for full frame. I have read countless positive reviews of that lens and reviewed hundreds of image samples, and I do like my Tamron 70-200. I think that's the lens I will go with. Thanks!

 

[cwcaesar]

I see a lot of people here suggesting the 24-85 kit lens for this camera. It is an okay performer, but I absolutely LOVE my 85 1.8, probably give it 9.5 out of 10. The 50mm I would give an 8.5 or 9 out of 10, while I would only give the 24-85 about a 7 out of 10. It is not as sharp as the primes, and I really wish it was faster. I plan to drop this for the 24-70 as soon as I can afford it. In your shoes though, I would recommend the 50mm 1.8G as a starting point if you don't have an aversion to prime lenses.

 

[CR88]

I see a lot of people here suggesting the 24-85 kit lens for this camera. It is an okay performer, but I absolutely LOVE my 85 1.8, probably give it 9.5 out of 10. The 50mm I would give an 8.5 or 9 out of 10, while I would only give the 24-85 about a 7 out of 10. It is not as sharp as the primes, and I really wish it was faster. I plan to drop this for the 24-70 as soon as I can afford it. In your shoes though, I would recommend the 50mm 1.8G as a starting point if you don't have an aversion to prime lenses.

I love prime lenses. Actually my 50mm 1.4 is one of my favorite lens, even among the $$$ lenses I have borrowed or used with the wedding photographer I used to work for. It was limited when I would put it on my D200, but I am guessing I will got a lot more out of it now that it will be on a D600...which just showed up!

As for the 24-85, I have been looking at them but considering the reviews, it seems like people are asking for too much money. I could get one refurbished by Nikon for about $399, yet everyone I talked with wants about $450 for theirs. I would be willing to pay maybe $250-$300 for one, but not $400+

 

[480sparky]

What I choose for a lens depends on what I'm shooting. If it's candids at a family get-together, it's the kit zoom. If I want to create something to sell, it's taken with a higher grade of glass, possibly a prime.

 

[Derrel]

I think the reason the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D is often listed as having fungus is that it was a "pro lens", and the early ones date way back to 1992, which is now 21 years old. A LOT of 35-70/2.8's were carried by pro shooters day in/day out; remember, it came before the 28-70 AF-S, and wayyyyyy before the 24-70 AF-S, so, a lot of 35-70's were used daily, and used in the rain, put away wet, stored badly, etc.etc.. Of course, there are also plenty of them that were amateur used, and barely used at all. Fungus is a big problem in many sub-tropical areas; lenses from SE Asia for example often have fungus; lenses from the American southwest...not so much. Lack of a "monsoon season" really helps prevent fungus.

24-85mm is REALLY an amazing range; On FX, 24 is wide-angle, and so is 28; and the difference between 70 and 85mm is a big one too. I suspect that 24-85 AF-S G, aka "the NEW" 24-85 (there have been a few before!) will perform better when shot toward the sun than the 35-70 AF-D did.

 

[djacobox372]

I think the reason the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D is often listed as having fungus is that it was a "pro lens", and the early ones date way back to 1992, which is now 21 years old. A LOT of 35-70/2.8's were carried by pro shooters day in/day out; remember, it came before the 28-70 AF-S, and wayyyyyy before the 24-70 AF-S, so, a lot of 35-70's were used daily, and used in the rain, put away wet, stored badly, etc.etc.. Of course, there are also plenty of them that were amateur used, and barely used at all. Fungus is a big problem in many sub-tropical areas; lenses from SE Asia for example often have fungus; lenses from the American southwest...not so much. Lack of a "monsoon season" really helps prevent fungus.

24-85mm is REALLY an amazing range; On FX, 24 is wide-angle, and so is 28; and the difference between 70 and 85mm is a big one too. I suspect that 24-85 AF-S G, aka "the NEW" 24-85 (there have been a few before!) will perform better when shot toward the sun than the 35-70 AF-D did.

I here u, but haven bought and sold hundereds of old Nikon pro lenses, in my experience the 35-70mm is especially vulnerable to hazing and fungus. The majority of these lenses have a problem, while the vast minority of other models of the same vintage have issues. Maybe I'm just unlucky, this is based on a sampling of about 14 different copies mostly aquired in estate sales.

 

[TamiAz]

I love my 50mm 1.8 on my D600!!

 

[goodguy]

As for the 24-85, I have been looking at them but considering the reviews, it seems like people are asking for too much money. I could get one refurbished by Nikon for about $399, yet everyone I talked with wants about $450 for theirs. I would be willing to pay maybe $250-$300 for one, but not $400+

I don't know why would that be.
I bought my 24-85mm few months ago on kijiji, there were few for sale in the 350$-400$ and the one got I talked I talked the seller down to 325$.
Since then I see them under 400$ asking price from time to time.
Remember the asking price is just that, asking price. You are supposed to haggle.
Here is an example for this lens in my area for 375$, I wouldn't be surprised if the seller will sell the lens for less.

Nikon 24-85mm VR AF-S G - City of Toronto Cameras For Sale - Kijiji City of Toronto Canada.

 

[Centropolis]

Since you already have the kit zoom, I think for $500 you should go primes. If you don't need the latest andf greatest, for $500 you can get a used 50mm 1.8D AND a used 85mm 1.8D with money leftover. That will cover a walkaround general prime lens that's quite sharp and a decent focal range for portraits in the 85mm. If you don't shoot portraits, then maybe a new 50mm 1.4G?