/ Full frame nikon lenses

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
jethro kiernan - on 28 Nov 2016
I got a Nikon D7200, it was an insurance replacment and I was put on the spot by the insurance company and didn't spend my usual time doing all the usual internet searching and am now regretting not moving up to full frame.
I think the Nikon D7200 is a great camera and on my prime lenses I don't have any issues with it, however for landscape my Tokina 12-24mm has reached its limit, it was a good lens on my previous camera especially for climbing but I think the quality is not going to be of a similar quality to a nikon 16-35mm in full frame
Similar story with the sigma 17-50mm to a lesser extent, there doesn't seem to be a wide angle replacment for the Tokina and I am loath to invest in furtherDX lenses when nikon seems to be investing in FX
I was thinking of changing to a Nikon D610 and a nikon 16-35mm lens (I have a 50mm and 85mm) to tide me over,any one made the transition to full frame and what are ther thoughts with regards landscape in particular.
The other option is to change brand entirely but really can't afford a Sony R7II ;-)
davidbeynon on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to jethro kiernan:

The Nikkor 20mm f2.8 is a thing of beauty.

Unfortunately mine is on a rock somewhere near Squareface and has been for several years. Feel free
jethro kiernan - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:

A 20mm on full frame would be high on the list
davidbeynon on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to jethro kiernan:

A mate of mine with more money than sense favours the zeiss 21mm but the difference in quality is so marginal that I would buy the nikkor every time.
jethro kiernan - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:
Zeiss Lovely lenses I'm sure but could never justify the cost
Mind you my first lens was a Carl Zeiss 35-70mm for my F 301
Wasn't as upmarket as their lenses now affordable for a skint student anyway
Post edited at 14:34
MikeTS - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to jethro kiernan:
I just went full frame. First was the Nikon 50 1.8, bargain of a lifetime. Then Tamron USDs - 24-70 2.8 (amazing lens) and 70-300 (could not afford the 70-200 2.8 which apparently is also amazing) For a wide angle I am looking at an old Tokina 17 mm 3.5 (lighter weight for landscapes when out in the mountains) with good prices on eBay.
PS bought a 750 rather than a 610 and it is great.
Post edited at 15:43
ali_colquhoun - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Yes full frame lenses are expensive but for landscapes you might not need the fastest autofocus ever, since trees and mountains tend to move much more slowly that the sports cars etc that the the latest lenses are now designed for. Therefore you can buy secondhand lenses which are amazing and cheap. The 20mm f2.8 is a great start and nice and light to boot. I got mine for 150. A 50mm can be had cheaply too and then you are in business.

I own a bunch of zooms but if I'm out and about in the hills I will often just take these two small primes to keep weight down.

Of course you could get a Sony and then use a Metabones adaptor to use your Nikon lenses.

Without a doubt the best places to buy used stuff are Fixation and Grays of Westminster.
jethro kiernan - on 28 Nov 2016
In reply to ali_colquhoun:

I've used Grays before, I already use the Nikon 50mm 1.4 and would probably get a 20mm at some point.
A 16-35mm f4 would probably live on the camera for a lot of landscape if I went down the route of full frame.
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to jethro kiernan:

The 16-35 F4 or 24-70 2.8 (the none VR version) are both great for landscapes. Primes are great for astro / portrait work but aren't great for landscapes unless you're really trying to save weight. The zoom with your feet thing doesn't really work as you have to change your foreground composition. Also you will want to vary the focal length to take advantage of perspective distortion (make the mountains in the background look bigger) or to reduce the depth of field (the greater the reach the easier it is to get a narrow depth of field).

I own both lenses and they're great. There are also a number of third party lenses that are a bit cheaper. The Tamron 24-70 in particular always gets good reviews and is great value for money.

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.