What do you recommend for fx lenses?

[Mashburn]

I have a d750. 70-200 f2.8 Vr 2. 50mm 1.8d.

I also have a tokina 11-16mm f2.8. Love it but it's a dx. Which means I can only get 15-16 with it. Because it vignettes. (if anyone wants to buy hit me up)

So I want a f2.8 or lower wide angle. That is sharp.
(still photography like buildings and astronomy)

Something that has a range from 20-70mm, f2.8-4 or just f2.8 or lower. Sharp as well. (portraits, maybe sports)

No fish eye.

And I might be interested in a 150-600mm that is sharp. (possibly used row sports/wildlife)

Of course I don't want to break the bank. Preferably 300$-1000$ range. But I know I have to spend a lot more at times.

Or anything else you want to throw at me. Thanks.

 

[Derrel]

So I want a f2.8 or lower wide angel. That is sharp.
(still photography like buildings and astrology)

Something that has a range from 20-70mm, f2.8-4 or just f2.8 or lower. Sharp as well. (portraits, maybe sports)

No fish eye.

And I might be interested in a 150-600mm that is sharp. (possibly used row sports/wildlife)

Of course I don't want to break the bank. Preferably 300$ range.

You want these things...the f/2.8 or lower wide angel, for astrology use? And you're hoping for $300 prices?

 

[jsecordphoto]

The only thing you're looking at for that budget is the rokinon 14mm. I use the tokina 16-28 f2.8 but that is around $600

 

[KmH]

LOL>

Astrology is horiscopes.
Astronomy is about looking at the sky.

Lots of people mix up the two.

 

[Derrel]

LOL>

Astrology is horiscopes.
Astronomy is about looking at the sky.

Lots of people mix up the two.

Not to mention wide angels and wide-angle lenses...the wide angels were the portly ones here on Earth...

 

[SnappingShark]

I would look at the Nikon 16-35 f/4
It's an AMAZING lens, and it relatively cheap, and has almost no distortion / vignetting and it's sharper than your grandfather in his 20's in a suit!!

 

[astroNikon]

astrology?
What's your sign ?

then I can check your sign and look for it in the heavens and stars with my astroNOMY equipment.

(he's never gonna live this down with this group )

 

[MOREGONE]

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is a good lens in that price range. Wasn't wide enough for me so I went to the 24-70 but it was a good lens

 

[Dave442]

The Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is also about the only new lens for that budget. But not sure if that is really any improvement over using the 11-16mm at 16mm.

I would pick up a used Nikon 20mm or 24mm f/2.8 D lens, anything wider for buildings and you may want to use some perspective correction and that is going to crop out a lot of the image. While these other lenses may not fit the entire building or sky, I just stitch multiple shots.

Even if you picked up just the 14mm there would be a big gap from your 50mm to that 14mm.

 

[Mashburn]

I don't mind spending more money on one lens. I was just saying I like to stay cheap if I can.

And sorry for the grammar. Lol

 

[Mashburn]

So I want a f2.8 or lower wide angel. That is sharp.
(still photography like buildings and astrology)

Something that has a range from 20-70mm, f2.8-4 or just f2.8 or lower. Sharp as well. (portraits, maybe sports)

No fish eye.

And I might be interested in a 150-600mm that is sharp. (possibly used row sports/wildlife)

Of course I don't want to break the bank. Preferably 300$ range.

You want these things...the f/2.8 or lower wide angel, for astrology use? And you're hoping for $300 prices?

I fixed it.

I was meaning I like to stay cheap if I can. I don't mind spending up to a grand. But "prefer" to be cheap.

 

[jsecordphoto]

Buy once, cry once. Drop money on good glass, it's worth it.

 

[Mashburn]

Buy once, cry once. Drop money on good glass, it's worth it.

Yeah that's what I'm trying to figure out what is a Good lens.

 

[jsecordphoto]

The new tamron 15-30 2.8 is a pretty amazing piece of glass. I love my tokina 16-28 but I do notice some softness in the corners wide open, which I pretty much only notice when shooting astro, otherwise I'm at f8-16 and its tack sharp at those apertures. Nikon 16-35 is great if you don't need f2.8. Nikon 14-24 if you want the best

 

[Mashburn]

The new tamron 15-30 2.8 is a pretty amazing piece of glass. I love my tokina 16-28 but I do notice some softness in the corners wide open, which I pretty much only notice when shooting astro, otherwise I'm at f8-16 and its tack sharp at those apertures. Nikon 16-35 is great if you don't need f2.8. Nikon 14-24 if you want the best

Probably going to go after the tamron. Cause anything over f2.8 is ruled out just cause of astronomy. And I looked at the tokina, but I can't use filters. And that is something I do because of waterfalls.

Thanks