I've been shooting with my Nikon D90 with 35mm F1.8g and kit lens 18-105mm for quite a while now . Photography is just my hobby , I don't shoot events , weddings and sports, but I do shoot portraits , environmental portraits, street photography , and a little of landscape when I'm travelling.
I'm planning of buying a new lens or upgrading to FX. My plan is either :
Get Nikkor 24-70mm F2.8.
OR
Sell my Nikon D90+kit lens , and upgrade to Nikon D600 and get a 85mm F1.8g for portraits, and use 35mm F1.8g for little bit of environmental portraits (yes, little bit of vignetting happens).
I personally think that getting 24-70mm is the right choice. I don't have muchdecent glass with me and upgrading lens is better than upgrading body. But the disadvantage is that 24-70mm is kinda heavy for my D90. The amount of money spent in the 24-70mm F2.8, I could get tons of DX lens. Some people suggest me that If you want to get 24-70mm , get FX camera first.
Which way would you go ? or any other suggestions for me?
24-70 is a top notch, sharp, versatile lens and great for events. It has no problems with other types of photography but it's not necessarily the lens I would get for something like street photography or portrait shots.
Unless you have your heart set on FX, consider the D7100 with your 35/1.8G, add the 85/1.8G and that would make a great combo for street and portrait photography. It would also cost about as much as the 24-70 does.
I think 24mm is an awkward focal length on DX. It's not quite wide enough for anything. I had a 24-85mm when I was looking at switching to FX, and I just felt like it was never the right field of view.
As a hobbyist, I still think DX is mostly the best bang for the buck. I mean, for the price of a D600, you could get a D7100 + $800 worth of glass. Not that people with the budget for it won't get something out of the upgrade to FX, just that FX provides a different set of challenges, it isn't simply better, but it does cost and weigh more.
You could pick up a refurbished D7000 which would be an upgrade on your D90 in every way, a 50mm f/1.8g, an 85mm f/1.8g, and still be under $1500 spent.
Or go for the D7100 and the aforementioned glass, and you'll still have spent less than the D600 body alone.
+1 for a used D7000. I actually just bought a like-new one as a backup for $500. Extraordinary value and a great body. As for lenses, the G-line is your best bet, the 35 1.8g, 50 1.8g and 85 1.8g... If you go FX then the 28 1.8g is worth considering. I have a D600 and the D7000 is not far behind.
If photography is just a hobby then trust me the weight/price of the 24-70 2.8g is so limiting. Also, the 24-70 is more effective on FX so I don't recommend buying it for DX. Consider the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (if you go D7000) or Tamron 28-70 2.8 (if you go FX), if you need a zoom.
If by portrait you mean real portraits, you are now talking about lights, not cameras. A pair of SB-900 (used) and some compact RS-8 lightstands plus a pair of small umbrellas will be a great start. I would avoid the expense of FX. You aren't going to see much gain for the money spent. For "street" photography, the D5100 plus Nikon 18-55mm VR has a lot to offer. The D5100 has a cool fold out screen. You fold it out and point it up, and hold the camera at your waist, This does two things for you. First, holding at the waist is steadier. Second, you are looking down instead of holding the camera to your face and pointing it at people. Most people don't realize you are taking their photo. The 18-55mm VR is a very capable small zoom and won't attract anywhere near the attention a big honking 24-70mm would. The D5100 has been replaced by the D5200 (same sensor as the D7100,) and there are some good deals on it. A D5200 would do what you want as well. Buying that instead of a D7100 would leave $$ left over for lights.
One other thing I'll mention here. On forums you see people rave abou this or that, and usually it's very expensive. Don't buy stuff based on these sorts of posts. You will quickly go broke and your photos won't look any better than they did before. Think very carefully about what kinds of images you want to take and the conditions you will be taking them. It is wasteful to spend $4,000 when spending $1,000 will accomplish your goals nicely. I do shoot about half a dozen weddings each year but haven't put the $$ into FX. (The money goes into my pocket, not NIkon's.) I did buy a very capable lighting system though.
hijazist wrote:
As for lenses, the G-line is your best bet, the 35 1.8g, 50 1.8g and 85 1.8g... If you go FX then the 28 1.8g is worth considering.
FYI, "G" is just a designation for a lack of aperture ring - the 1.4 lenses are "G", the 2.8 zooms are "G", the 4.5-5.6 zooms are "G"... Nearly everything released in the last 5-10 years has the G designation.
binary visions wrote:
FYI, "G" is just a designation for a lack of aperture ring - the 1.4 lenses are "G", the 2.8 zooms are "G", the 4.5-5.6 zooms are "G"... Nearly everything released in the last 5-10 years has the G designation.
Sorry for not being accurate... my bad I meant the line which is usually referred to as the G trio, or the 1.8g lenses which includes the 28 1.8g, 50 1.8g and 85 1.8g, and sometimes the 35 1.8g.
I'd go +1 on the recommendation to stay with DX if you're a hobbiest, unless you want to eek out every last bit of dynamic range and ultra high ISO performance. DX is lighter, cheaper, and more sensible for travel and landscape (I'm thinking low ISO, tripod, having to carry geare to destination).
Don't get me wrong, FX is great and I love my 800E, but I still reach for a DX when traveling. The 16-85VR and 70-300VR pair really nicely as my 2-lens travel kit.
In terms of lenses, I'm not sure that the 24-70 is really the right choice, especially if you're staying with DX. I like the 16-85VR a lot. Some people don't like the 24/1.4G on DX, I'd beg the differ. I loved it on my old D90, as it is very similar to a 35mm FOV on FX, and renders images beautifully. If you like to shoot on the wider end, it's a phenomenal lens. If you want to upgrade the 35/1.8G, the Sigma 35/1.4 is probably the best 35mm lens I've ever used, and is far cheaper (reasonably priced) than the Nikon equivalent. On the longer end, I like my Sigma 85mm/1.4 very very much, and is a great upgrade to my older Nikon 84/1.4 AF-D.
Depending on what type of portraits you do, and what your personal style is, I've had success with lenses ranging from primes like the 24/1.4, 85/1.4, 200/2VR, to zooms like 24-70, 70-200, on both FX and DX. And that's both work indoors and outdoors, with natural light as well as strobes.
Buy a 17-35mm 2.8...on DX it's a nice normal range (not too long at the long end, but still nice), and then on FX it's a sweet ultra wide.....i'm looking for one right now....
I meant the line which is usually referred to as the G trio, or the 1.8g lenses which includes the 28 1.8g, 50 1.8g and 85 1.8g, and sometimes the 35 1.8g.