Help with choosing Nikon lenses

The_Abyss

The_Abyss

The_Abyss

Soldato
Joined
15 May 2007
Posts
12,804
Location
Ipswich / Bodham
After 6 years of faithful service, I've chosen to retire my 5D2 and replace it with a Nikon - mostly likely a D750 but still flirting with stretching to a D810.

I'm not at all familiar with the lenses available from Nikon, so wanted to ask your recommendations on what would be the sensible purchases to replace my current range, including:

- Sigma 12-24
- Canon 24-70 2.8 I
- Canon 70-200 2.8 I IS
- Canon 50 1.4

Out of all these the Sigma gets the least use and so I'd be prepared to drop it to keep costs down if required. I'll most likely be looking for pre-owned rather than new, and don't mind an older lens if the quality is good.

Thanks!
 
If it's like for like....

For the best image quality, can't go wrong with Nikon's 'Holy Trinity'...
Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f 2.8 ED N
Nikon AF-S 24-70 mm f2.8G ED N
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 G ED VR II

You've got a few choices for the 50mm 1.4 prime, I'd probably go for:
Nikon 50mm F1.4G AF-S Nikkor Lens

I hear great things about the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Lens but I've never used it personally.
 
I use wide's mostly used the 14- 24 and the 16-35 I now just have the 16-35 as it suited my use better,
Buy a second hand D800 I have access of both and while the 810 is better it is not worth the extra £1000, that would be more sensible to spend on decent glass.
 
Yeah change like for like as Spleen mentioned, that's pretty much what I did when I changed from a Canon 5D2 to a Nikon D800 a couple of years ago (and then to the D810 later). The 14-24 2.8 is an amazing lens.

I wouldn't agree with Peter regarding a used D800 though, if you're going to do it get the D810, the D800 is great, I was very pleased with it but the D810 is better and worth the extra imo, best camera I've used.
 
Agree the D810 is a better camera but on my budget it is not twice ( or nearly 3 times) as good, UK price £2300.
Second hand d800 with less than 6000 shots taken £850, new 16-35 £660 gives me £800 left for a 70-200 VR no rush as I use a sigma 70-200 2.8 at the moment and it is good apart from the slow focusing.
 
I go with the D800 second hand, tonight in the D810 that stands out as better enough to warrant the price difference. It is nice overall, with a lot of small improvements, but no single must have extra feature. If you are a super hardcore landscape tog then the DR at ISO 640 could be something but its not that much.



There are a lot of wide angle options:
The nikon 14-24mm is still considered the best overall in terms of optical quality, build, focus and rnage (no other goes to 14mm).

The Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR is popular due to accepting regular 77mm filters but optically it is the weakest.

The Nikon 18-35mm f/5.6 is sharperthan the 16-35mm, but is a stop slower t the long end and no VR. It is way cheaper though, and I would take it over the 16-35 - except 18mm is not at wide.

The Tamorn 5-30mm f/2.8 VC is a top contender very close to the Nikon 14-24 optically, not quite as wide (you think 1mm wont make a difference but it does), but does get you to 30mm and does have VC. It is also big and heavy and will require special filter holder.
 
^^^I agree with that, I wouldn't bother with the 1.4 and i think if you really care about shooting 50mm at f/1.4 then you should get the sigma ART.

There is nothing wrong withe the Nikon f/1.4 but the 1.8G is just so good and way cheaper.
 
D.P. said:
^^^I agree with that, I wouldn't bother with the 1.4 and i think if you really care about shooting 50mm at f/1.4 then you should get the sigma ART.

There is nothing wrong withe the Nikon f/1.4 but the 1.8G is just so good and way cheaper.
Click to expand...

Agreed, superb lens and it's exactly why I couldn't justify the extra cash personally.
 
The_Abyss said:
Thanks very much everyone, for your help. Time to start searching eBay :)
Click to expand...

If you are going used then it may be worth trawling some of the etailers that offer warranties on used products.

Harrisons Cameras, LCE, WEX, MPB and a few others can offer some decent prices along with peace of mind transactions and some will perhaps do a trade in agains you current gear. I've personally had nothing but positive experiences with Harrisons and MPB and traded quite a bit of equipment with them.
 
yeah, i've always got my 2nd hand gear from an actual shop that then gave a limited warranty for peace of mind. Prices fall between the cheapest online new and the low-end ebay baragains but it is worth the trade-off.
 
I had the "wide angle conundrum" and in the end after looking at the respective pricing and then poring over reviews I thought the following:

--------------------------

Nikon 14-24 f2.8 - £940 - Widest angle, best overall edge-to-edge IQ and f/2.8... but ask yourself how often you will even use it so wide open. Plus the only filters you can use are through custom, expensive, and very unwieldy kits. No VR, though not a big deal imo. It is monstrously huge and heavy for the category average.

Nikon 16-35 f4 - £620 - Next widest angle, has VR, and takes 77mm filters. However, for every good review I read about how sharp it is when stopped down, I read one that says the corners are very poor. Build quality decent but also above average length and weight. There is something about it which tickles my spidersenses just does not scream "buy me".

Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-f4.5 - £425 - Loses an extra 2mm over the 16-35 so you have to judge if it's wide enough for you, however reviews are pretty much universally positive, and it is highly praised for overall IQ especially for the money, even in the corners. I read reviews that state when stopped down quality is close enough to the 14-24 to be very impressive. Lacks VR but very importantly takes 77mm filters. Build quality, it is plastic but solid, light and compact.

--------------------------

IMO the 18-35mm is the best balance of having everything you could want, if IQ, filters and size/weight are all concerns for you. 18mm isn't as wide as the others, but it's still decently wide and you can still do a lot with it.

With the money I save buying the 18-35mm I also bought a Sony RX100. Win win. :)
 
Last edited:
The ultimate ate setup is something like the Nikon 14-24mm plus the 18-35mm. Gives you everything you want really, the ultimate IQ when needed, and small light portable 77mm filter lens for casual shooting, long hikes etc.
 
D.P. said:
The ultimate ate setup is something like the Nikon 14-24mm plus the 18-35mm. Gives you everything you want really, the ultimate IQ when needed, and small light portable 77mm filter lens for casual shooting, long hikes etc.
Click to expand...

...or the Tamron 15-30 VC.

However I just don't personally do enough landscapes for it to be worth the investment, although this may change in Summer when I get into the mountains hiking.

EDIT - Very interesting and thorough comparison of various wide angles here which shows the Nikon 16-35mm beating the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 and often edging out the 14-24mm (not int he corners)... http://www.sandeepmurali.com/blog/2...ootouts---nikon-vs-canon-guest-starring-sigma

No 18-35mm in sight, sadly.
 
Last edited:
The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 just isn't a very good lens though.

The nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 is not a bad lens by any means buts performance is not very even with weaker rest at some focal lengths and apertures, corners.often far behind, and more distortion. It's still easily good enough for profesional use, and it's better than the old Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 or the Canon 17-35 f/4 L etc. It's just in comparison to the best UWA lenses out there it looks mediocre, and then there is the fact that the much cheaper 18-35mm is optically slightly better.


The combo I'm think of is Tamron 15-30mm + Nikon 20mm f/1.8.

But I also don't shoot many landscape any more. It's just too difficult and I don't have the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom