General Purpose/Walkabout lens - Nikon FX
Discussion
I'm thinking about upgrading my old D5100 to a full-frame body (D610 probably). One thing I'm slightly struggling with is finding a good general purpose lens. So far the best fit (on paper) I've found is either the Nikon 24-85mm or the Sigma Art 24-105mm f/4. Can anyone give any input on either of these, or suggest a better alternative?
My current general purpose lens is the Nikon 18-140mm DX, I realise I probably won't get anything that flexible in FX format but I wonder if there's something close.
My current general purpose lens is the Nikon 18-140mm DX, I realise I probably won't get anything that flexible in FX format but I wonder if there's something close.
Another vote for the sigma- their art series is superb.
I use the EF mount version of the sigma art 24-105.
My quick review- optically almost identical to the canon 24-105. The image stabilisation isn't quite as good as canons. Built quality of the sigma feels far superior. The sigma doesn't loose a stop when you zoom in. (A lot of constant aperture zooms aren't really, and do get a little darker at the long end). Oh and focus and zoom rings are the opposite way around on the sigma.
The sigma also has quite a large filter thread size- 82mm, so that may or may not be a consideration if you have screw on polarisers and NDs
I use the EF mount version of the sigma art 24-105.
My quick review- optically almost identical to the canon 24-105. The image stabilisation isn't quite as good as canons. Built quality of the sigma feels far superior. The sigma doesn't loose a stop when you zoom in. (A lot of constant aperture zooms aren't really, and do get a little darker at the long end). Oh and focus and zoom rings are the opposite way around on the sigma.
The sigma also has quite a large filter thread size- 82mm, so that may or may not be a consideration if you have screw on polarisers and NDs
A lot depends on the range you want - my current "do it all" walkabout lens is a 28-300. Its not particularly fast, but seems to do the job pretty well.
If you don't need the extra reach, a 24-120 f4 is good, but Rockwell favours the 28-300
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm
That said, I get more use out of my 16-35 than any of my other lenses, but clearly, its reach is severely limited
If you don't need the extra reach, a 24-120 f4 is good, but Rockwell favours the 28-300
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-120mm.htm
That said, I get more use out of my 16-35 than any of my other lenses, but clearly, its reach is severely limited
RobDickinson said:
Ken Rockwel is the last person I would listen to advice from.
I've found that his reviews are generally mirrored by other reviews around the internet. I accept that his tone and delivery is a bit 'individual', but do you think his opinions are wrong? If so, is there another review resource that you would recommend that has such a broad range? It's a genuine question - I tend to do a lot of research before I spend my cash on new kit, so I would like it to be trustworthy.
He promotes jpg over raw. he'll shoot a 36mp a7r2 at 11mp and complain its not 6mp. etc. Theres a lot to dislike over at KR. He creates controversy for the sake of it to drive clicks. He even admits this on his about page. he also changes his mind frequently.
He's the photography equivalent of a kardashian.
As to who I would trust?
Roger over at lensrental blog is about the best (only one I know who has access to top end test equipment and multiple copies of lenses) , after that I take a balanced view of many reviews, TDP, lenstips, photozone.de and actual real world use.
He's the photography equivalent of a kardashian.
As to who I would trust?
Roger over at lensrental blog is about the best (only one I know who has access to top end test equipment and multiple copies of lenses) , after that I take a balanced view of many reviews, TDP, lenstips, photozone.de and actual real world use.
I shoot both the 24-70/2.8 and 24-85/3.5 on a regular basis on a D800.
The 24-70/2.8 is my go-to lens given handling, consistency edge to edge, and IQ. But it is big/heavy for a walkabout.
The 24-85 is my travel alternative given it is so much lighter and more compact, and it still offers excellent sharpness with the benefit of VR, but at the expense of overall IQ. A fair trade off when size and all-day portability is important when travelling.
The 24-70/2.8 is my go-to lens given handling, consistency edge to edge, and IQ. But it is big/heavy for a walkabout.
The 24-85 is my travel alternative given it is so much lighter and more compact, and it still offers excellent sharpness with the benefit of VR, but at the expense of overall IQ. A fair trade off when size and all-day portability is important when travelling.
Thanks all for the input, some useful insight there.
Anyone got/familiar with the Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D? Apart from the different aperture, what are the other differences between that and the later 3.5-4.5 G version?
Another question - what would the advice be around upgrading from DX to FX - get a new body first, get new lens(es) first or wait until funds allow both?
Anyone got/familiar with the Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D? Apart from the different aperture, what are the other differences between that and the later 3.5-4.5 G version?
Another question - what would the advice be around upgrading from DX to FX - get a new body first, get new lens(es) first or wait until funds allow both?
8bit said:
Another question - what would the advice be around upgrading from DX to FX - get a new body first, get new lens(es) first or wait until funds allow both?
The best way (and probably the best chance of negotiating a discount) is to go for the FX body and FX lenses in the same deal. However, if budget constraints or threat of marital dis-harmony mean you need to phase the expenditure, I'd say go for FX lenses first, then the FX body. The rationale is that DX lenses are near-useless on an FX body, but FX lenses work fine on a DX body.
Nigel_O said:
8bit said:
Another question - what would the advice be around upgrading from DX to FX - get a new body first, get new lens(es) first or wait until funds allow both?
The best way (and probably the best chance of negotiating a discount) is to go for the FX body and FX lenses in the same deal. However, if budget constraints or threat of marital dis-harmony mean you need to phase the expenditure, I'd say go for FX lenses first, then the FX body. The rationale is that DX lenses are near-useless on an FX body, but FX lenses work fine on a DX body.
Back to the wine!
FX/Full frame primary advantages is low light noise, shallower depth of field at a given aperture ( actually a drawback for landscapes..)
Secondary usually better dynamic range (tho not always), better colour sensitivity.
Downsides, usually size, size of lenses, cost. Sometimes performance.
Secondary usually better dynamic range (tho not always), better colour sensitivity.
Downsides, usually size, size of lenses, cost. Sometimes performance.
Technically I can't argue, but are those differences significant at the OP's level? Modern sensors are damn good at low light whether DX or FX. Point is, is the OP's photography at such a level that he's being held back by DX or is it just a perception that 'FX is better' so he wants it 'cos it says so on the net?
Just trying to save you money 8bit
Just trying to save you money 8bit
Simpo Two said:
is the OP's photography at such a level that he's being held back by DX or is it just a perception that 'FX is better' so he wants it 'cos it says so on the net?
Yep - the 'betterness' of FF is limited to certain edge cases you wont really see in the average photography esp with a general purpose walk around zoom.IMo for that kind of stuff you are better off with an x-t2 or A6300 or something
So the rationale for upgrading to an FX camera was based on a few things. My D5100 suffers a bit in low light due to ISO grain and I like shooting in low light. I also like doing stuff using the Brenizer method and that's hard on a crop sensor because you have to take way more shots than with a full-frame or risk gaps in the stitch later on. I've also got a load of images I like but wish had a shallower DoF - I know this can be faked in post but I prefer to minimise post processing.
The context for the original post was in part about what to do with the existing camera if I do upgrade. The D5100 + 18-140mm is a good combination for every day stuff, family days out, shots of the kids etc. It may make some sense to keep that, particularly if there's no decent option for a general-purpose lens for FX, and just use the full-frame system for stuff it's better at.
The context for the original post was in part about what to do with the existing camera if I do upgrade. The D5100 + 18-140mm is a good combination for every day stuff, family days out, shots of the kids etc. It may make some sense to keep that, particularly if there's no decent option for a general-purpose lens for FX, and just use the full-frame system for stuff it's better at.
8bit said:
I also like doing stuff using the Brenizer method and that's hard on a crop sensor because you have to take way more shots than with a full-frame or risk gaps in the stitch later on.
Absolutely not a dx-fx issue. Shouldnt matter at all, the problem is overlap and focal length.8bit said:
I've also got a load of images I like but wish had a shallower DoF - I know this can be faked in post but I prefer to minimise post processing.
Your using a slow superzoom, £100 on a nifty fifty will get you very shallow dof, or an 85/1.88bit said:
My D5100 suffers a bit in low light due to ISO grain and I like shooting in low light.
That can happen and be improved with a FX sensor but a lot is down to technique (exposure/ettr) and getting a faster lens and/or flashRobDickinson said:
8bit said:
I also like doing stuff using the Brenizer method and that's hard on a crop sensor because you have to take way more shots than with a full-frame or risk gaps in the stitch later on.
Absolutely not a dx-fx issue. Shouldnt matter at all, the problem is overlap and focal length.RobDickinson said:
8bit said:
I've also got a load of images I like but wish had a shallower DoF - I know this can be faked in post but I prefer to minimise post processing.
Your using a slow superzoom, £100 on a nifty fifty will get you very shallow dof, or an 85/1.8RobDickinson said:
8bit said:
My D5100 suffers a bit in low light due to ISO grain and I like shooting in low light.
That can happen and be improved with a FX sensor but a lot is down to technique (exposure/ettr) and getting a faster lens and/or flashI agree about not wanting a bag of primes but you could have a couple of f2.8 zooms to cover 17-200mm.
Note: if you want the same field of view you get with a 200mm lens on a DX camera but with FX, you'll need a 300mm f2.8... how much are they?
Of course if there's a another factor - ie the need to spend money on shiny new things (we all suffer from it!) then FX will be fine - but I'll add the rider that I once 'upgraded' from DX to FX - and went back to DX.
Note: if you want the same field of view you get with a 200mm lens on a DX camera but with FX, you'll need a 300mm f2.8... how much are they?
Of course if there's a another factor - ie the need to spend money on shiny new things (we all suffer from it!) then FX will be fine - but I'll add the rider that I once 'upgraded' from DX to FX - and went back to DX.
I have had similar thoughts and decided to stick with DX.
A sigma 17-50 f2.8 and 50-150 F2.8 Are both crop sensor lenses, inexpensive and give good results on a D7200.
For macro and wildlife I think the extra reach wider DOF are not that much of an issue,
I do keep eyeing up the D500 though
A sigma 17-50 f2.8 and 50-150 F2.8 Are both crop sensor lenses, inexpensive and give good results on a D7200.
For macro and wildlife I think the extra reach wider DOF are not that much of an issue,
I do keep eyeing up the D500 though
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff