Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I have a 28-80 plastic wonder. Mine is as sharp and constrasty as my 24-70 f/2.8. and it is as light as a feather. Those can be had for about $35Well...I would say buy the D750 body new then, and look for lenses later. Not sure about the 10-20 or the 18-35 Siggies...how much of the frame will those fill on FX? PLUS, you know, I get this feeling that the 24MP FX Nikons are really not "all that demanding" on lenses. I look at them almost like medium format 120 rollfilm; the FX sensors have one million pixels per millimeter for each millimeter of image height, and the sensor is like 2.7x bigger than APS-C in area...in the same way as 35mm was to medium format, the FX frame does NOT require as much magnification as do the smaller sensors, to reach a given image size, let's say 12 inches across...
I feel like 24MP FX Nikon is BETTER at ISO 800 than ANY medium format rollfilm ever was at that ISO level. At low ISO values, I think the amount of detail 24MP FX Nikon can capture is more information that a piece of 6x6 120 rollfilm with 1980's technology. I don't really think it is "imperative" to have the best lenses on FX 24 MP Nikon...
And I mean lenses like the 28-80 plastic-mount D-series at f/7.1 with flash or tripod...look pretty good. Or the $88 28-105 AF-D zoom.
I have the D750-24-120 combo and it is tough to beat.
I have a 28-80 plastic wonder. Mine is as sharp and constrasty as my 24-70 f/2.8. and it is as light as a feather. Those can be had for about $35Well...I would say buy the D750 body new then, and look for lenses later. Not sure about the 10-20 or the 18-35 Siggies...how much of the frame will those fill on FX? PLUS, you know, I get this feeling that the 24MP FX Nikons are really not "all that demanding" on lenses. I look at them almost like medium format 120 rollfilm; the FX sensors have one million pixels per millimeter for each millimeter of image height, and the sensor is like 2.7x bigger than APS-C in area...in the same way as 35mm was to medium format, the FX frame does NOT require as much magnification as do the smaller sensors, to reach a given image size, let's say 12 inches across...
I feel like 24MP FX Nikon is BETTER at ISO 800 than ANY medium format rollfilm ever was at that ISO level. At low ISO values, I think the amount of detail 24MP FX Nikon can capture is more information that a piece of 6x6 120 rollfilm with 1980's technology. I don't really think it is "imperative" to have the best lenses on FX 24 MP Nikon...
And I mean lenses like the 28-80 plastic-mount D-series at f/7.1 with flash or tripod...look pretty good. Or the $88 28-105 AF-D zoom.
My D750 has the 24-120 VR almost continuously mounted. It's one of my go-to lenses, and makes up my "kit" of the D750, 16-35mm f/4, 24-120mm f/4, and the 70-200mm f/4. It's not quite the "triumvirate" of the f/2.8 group, but it does just about everything I need. I also have the 105mm f/2.8 VR micro for close-up work.
I also own the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 AF-D. It came with a screaming deal on a F100. I believe the 28-105 may have been a kit lens with the F100. At any rate, the two make a great "walk around" kit, and I carry the 24mm f/2.8 and 20mm f/2.8 for wider work.
Doesn't matter if it's an old thread. Still useful information.