Ready to pull the trigger...

[Nwcid]

I have a Nikon D850 with Tamron 24-70 G2, sitting in a shopping cart.

I am have the money, I want one, but I can't quite click the button.

Are there any good reasons not to get this?

 

[ac12]

Is there something better that you can use the money for?

Maybe yes, maybe no.​

How is your financial situation for your point in life?

IOW, you may have the cash, but how is your retirement finances?​

What is causing you to not "quite click the button?"

Sometimes the sub-consious mind is trying to tell you something.
Maybe your sub-consious mind is trying to tell you that you don't need to buy such an expensive camera.​

Sometimes it is just your upbringing that makes it hard to spend a lot of money on a "luxury."

When my OLD TV died, I had a hard time putting down the $$ to buy a new one.​

 

[Nwcid]

Finances are good. 13% +4% match going into retirement. Just paid off mortgage this year.

I am ready to move to a full frame camera. I looked at a D750, but other then full frame, doesn't seem like much of an upgrade from he D7100. This moves me into the D810, which is a great unit, but expensive and 4 years old. The D850 only about $550 more, is a new model and comes with 4K video and a focus system that can not be beat.

I usually try and buy things that either hold, or increase in value. My wife, who has a degree in finance, has even said it was ok.

 

[Derrel]

I dunno....I look at the used D800 prices here...$875 to $900 for a 36-MP FX camera...that seems like a great value to me....that's the last body I bought, and I payed $798 for the D800 I bought, with 38,000 clicks on it back in November of 2017. To me, a formerly $3,699 camera for $798 is a good value.

MY ISSUE with your idea is the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens....Ughhh...sooo big, sooo heavy, such a boring range for a zoom: NOT long enough at the top end, and costly, and a heavy weight for a walk-around lens...

I'm NOT a fan of that lens specification for its size,weight,price,and its HUGE, obnoxious profile for a close-range lens...I think it's overly large for people work...I think this type of lens has become ridiculously over-sized.

 

[Nwcid]

I dunno....I look at the used D800 prices here...$875 to $900 for a 36-MP FX camera...that seems like a great value to me....that's the last body I bought, and I payed $798 for the D800 I bought, with 38,000 clicks on it back in November of 2017. To me, a formerly $3,699 camera for $798 is a good value.

MY ISSUE with your idea is the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens....Ughhh...sooo big, sooo heavy, such a boring range for a zoom: NOT long enough at the top end, and costly, and a heavy weight for a walk-around lens...

I'm NOT a fan of that lens specification for its size,weight,price,and its HUGE, obnoxious profile for a close-range lens...I think it's overly large for people work...I think this type of lens has become ridiculously over-sized.

I use my 18-105 a lot with my current set up. While it is not my favorite lens, I have not found any amazing replacements that cover a similar range. I shoot a lot of stuff at the lower end, and a bit at the upper. If I am going to be shooting mostly above 70 mm, I switch to my 70-300 as I find I get much better images with it.

The 24-70 and 70-200 seem to be the "go to" for FX cameras. I am fully open to suggestions.

 

[OldManJim]

Whenever I face a situation like this, I put everything on hold for a week and don't think about it. Then, in a week, I re-examine and if I haven't changed my mind, I go for it. About half the time, i decide not to pursue and don't regret it.

Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[Derrel]

18-105 on DX has a wide range...24-70 on FX has a narrow range.

 

[Designer]

Would your wife click the button for you? Y/N

 

[Nwcid]

18-105 on DX has a wide range...24-70 on FX has a narrow range.

Correct. Is there high quality glass that covers a similar range? I have enough comparable lenses to cover the rest of my ranges for now.

 

[kap55]

18-105 on DX has a wide range...24-70 on FX has a narrow range.

Correct. Is there high quality glass that covers a similar range? I have enough comparable lenses to cover the rest of my ranges for now.

I use a Sigma 24-105 f4 Art on a D750 and am very happy with it. Because I shoot mostly nature/landscape I am really not interested in a 24-70 at all and wouldn't use f2.8 even if I had it. Much rather have extra zoom range at a constant f4 than a faster lens.

 

[Destin]

I have the 24-70 G2 and I while I like it on my D810, I agree that the zoom range isn’t very good. I find myself wishing for more on the long end ALL. THE. TIME.

I’ve been thinking about trading it out for something like a 24-120 f/4 because I think it would be a lot more useable. The difference between 2.8 and f/4 is negligible on modern cameras.

 

[smoke665]

Would your wife click the button for you? Y/N

Are you crazy???? DW and I have a quid pro quo arrangement on spending on things above the bills. "Unless", I get it in the door without her knowing ------ I don't feel bad about that because I've been noticing a few things that occasionally show up without her mentioning it either.

 

[ac12]

24-85 f/3.5-4.5, smaller and lighter (465g) than the 24-70 f/2.8 VR (1070g)
AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
It would complement either 70-200 or 70-300 lenses.

The 24-120 f/4 is the closest to the 18-105.
AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR from Nikon
Bit wider on the short end, and bit shorter on the long end, which is what I like. I found the 18mm not quite wide enough. I used a 24 on my F2, and the 18 is equivalent to a 27. Those few mm makes a difference.
Comments have been made that the Nikon 24-120 is not as sharp as some of the 3rd party lenses.
The 24-120 f/4 (at 710g) is not a light lens, but it is 35% lighter than the 24-70 f/2.8 VR (at 1070g).

As a GP lens, I would take the 24-120 over the 24-70.
For me, the extra zoom range is the key.
If you are working in the 50-100mm range, you don't have to swap lenses or carry two bodies, like you would if you had the 24-70 and 70-200.
I admit, I am spoiled by the zoom range of the 18-140 on my D7200.

I used a 43-86 for MANY years, but as soon as I got a 35-105, it replaced the 43-86. Not for optical quality, but for the extra zoom range.

 

[Nwcid]

Thank you for all of the input.

I think part of my problem was the mindset that I was going to be about $3500 into a camera, and with all the stuff in the cart, was closer to $5000.

I did order just the body, it will be a couple of weeks before it ships anyhow. Over half of my current lenses will work, until I decide what I really need with the new body.

I will be reviewing all the lenses you have listed. I appreciate the input.

 

[kap55]

I think you have made a pretty wise choice to use what you have for now and then evaluate. Looking at your lenses you are in good shape. Don't ignore the Tokina - will work fine at the wide end in FX mode. I tried it a couple of times going from a D90 to a D750 and was quite surprised with the results.