Witch lens (for Nikon DX) would you get?

[stk]

I have for a long time been planning to upgrade my camera body or change system, but recently I have decided too stick with what I have, and spend my money on improving my system.

What I have today is:
Nikon D5600
Sigma 8-16 f/4.5 - 5.6
Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8
Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4
Nikon AF-S 70-300 f/4.5 - 5.6 VR
(and a handful of speedlights, a not very good tripod and so on)

I have already decided on witch tripod to get, but I'm very unsure when it comes to lenses. I have previously owned a lot of lenses, but I sold them as I was getting ready to change system.

My question is, what would you get if you were in my situation? I'm not interested in questions about my needs or my style or anything, I want to know what you would have done, and of course why.

 

[jaomul]

With all due respect, no one can answer that without asking your interests. No point in recommending you a sigma 150-600 if you only ever shoot wide angle. Your current lens choice is solid for a general setup imo

 

[stk]

With all due respect, no one can answer that without asking your interests. No point in recommending you a sigma 150-600 if you only ever shoot wide angle. Your current lens choice is solid for a general setup imo

But I'm not interested in recommendations, I'm interested in what others would choose in the same situation.

I know what's out there, I can read specifications and I've read a ton of reviews (especially for older lenses). If you want to recommend a 150 - 600 mm lens, then do it. I would love to have one!

But if you must know, I'm mostly interested in learning and getting experience. As of now, I take mainly portraits and landscapes. I would like to change my Sigma 8-16 mm into something better, and I would like something fast and as sharp as possible around 100 mm for both product photography and portraits. But again; what would you buy, and why?

 

[480sparky]

Never having been in said situation, nor forseeing ever being in it, it would be silly to even contemplate what I would get.

 

[Braineack]

But I'm not interested in recommendations, I'm interested in what others would choose in the same situation.

if I was in your situation (which I have no clue what it is) I'd sell all my subpar equipment and buy a FX body and good FX glass.

 

[jaomul]

But I'm not interested in recommendations, I'm interested in what others would choose in the same situation.

if I was in your situation (which I have no clue what it is) I'd sell all my subpar equipment and buy a FX body and good FX glass.

Who is the fullframe fanboy

 

[stk]

..

 

[jaomul]

Id get a good 90-100mm macro such as the tamron 90mm or sigma 105 for product and a long portrait lens and i'd get a good standard oom such as maybe a 18-140mm or 16-80/5 for when I only wanted one lens to carry

 

[stk]

Id get a good 90-100mm macro such as the tamron 90mm or sigma 105 for product and a long portrait lens and i'd get a good standard oom such as maybe a 18-140mm or 16-80/5 for when I only wanted one lens to carry

Thank you for answering.

I had the Tamron 90 mm macro (272E), but I sold it due to autofocus problems. I think a firmware update would have fixed it, but I'm not sure. With older cameras were the autofocus did work, it was still too slow for portraits of kids who can't stand still for more than a split second.

 

[jaomul]

Use your 50 for fast kids

 

[snowbear]

How heavy into portraits? Is a lot, and you are considering a FX body down the road, then grab something the fast 85mm.

 

[stk]

How heavy into portraits? Is a lot, and you are considering a FX body down the road, then grab something the fast 85mm.

I'm considering FF, but I'm not sure I will stick to Nikon. As for now I can't justify the price.

The new Sony a7 mkIII is at the moment my close to realistic dream camera, but as I add the glass I want to the price, it's just way to expensive.

A used 85 f/1.8 is, however, a lens I have been close to buying at several occasions.

 

[Designer]

As of now, I take mainly portraits and landscapes. I would like to change my Sigma 8-16 mm into something better, and I would like something fast and as sharp as possible around 100 mm for both product photography and portraits. But again; what would you buy, and why?

I agree; "full frame".

You can get a (probably used) body, and just pick away at the lenses as you get more money.

If you do end up with a "full frame" body, a 100 or 105 will be about the minimum focal length for portraiture, probably more like 135 or 180 would be my recommendation. There are many excellent lenses in those focal lengths, and it looks like you've already got the wide end covered.

 

[jaomul]

Because you cant really shoot nice portraits on a crop sensor

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/03/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-shootout-can-tell-difference/

 

[ac12]

For a GP lens, I went with the 18-140 f/3.5-5.6.
It has its limitations (slow, bit heavy) but it has given me better than expected service.
I change lenses very infrequently now. That lens meets at least 80% of my shooting needs.

Another good GP lens is the 16-80 f/2.8-4.
The 2 big differences are:
1) It is a FASTER lens than the 18-140. So better for lower light.
2) The zoom range is smaller, but wider. It has a wider short end than the 18-140. If you are indoors or shoot wide, that 2mm can make a difference. But it is significantly shorter on the long end.
Except for field sports, the 80mm end is good enough for most things. And you do have your 70-300 to reach out further.

I have always liked the convenience of a GP zoom, starting from the old 43-86.

• When I shot slides, what I shot was what was projected. So in camera cropping was critical. Hence the short zoom over a 50mm prime.
  
• Carrying less lenses, makes for a lighter kit.
  
  • This becomes important when that kit is on your shoulder every day for 2-3 weeks (on vacation). It is no fun when you are so worn out that you don't want to shoot. Been there, done that.
    
  • As I get older, the weight that I can carry for a significant length of time, goes down. IOW, today I cannot carry what I used to easily carry 25 years ago.

Today my travel kit would be 2 lenses; the 18-140 + 35 f/1.8 (for low light stuff).
That is a lot less bulky and lighter than the 4 lenses I carried with my film camera, when I was younger.

A Sigma 150-600 or Nikon 200-500 is a nice lens to have, if you shoot far. But personally, I do not shoot long, enough to justify the cost of the $1,400 Nikon 200-500 lens. Instead, I went with a manual focus 500mm for 10% of the cost of the Nikon zoom. The manual 500 was "good enough."
If I shot birds, or wind surfing, or similar distant subjects, a LOT, then the picture is different, and the need for the 200-500 lens goes up.