This totally depends on your main interest. Examples:
Portraits: something like the 85/1.8 or 1.4
Insects, flowers, macro etc: 105/2.8VR or similar
Birds and other wildlife: 300mm f4 or longer
Landscapes: 16-35mm f/4 or similar wide-angle lenses
Street photography: 28/1.8 or 24/1.4 or 35/1.4
If you have more than just one interest, well then you will eventually need more than one extra lens. But start with the area you like best. Still can't decide? Then don't buy any extra lens, use those two kit lenses for a while (they are excellent by the way) and it will soon become apparent what lens, if any, you are missing.
My budget-minded set for the D600 is: 24-85 VR - general shooting, family, travel, landscapes 70-300 VR - tele work, daylight sports, portraits 50 f1.8G - street photo and low-light
However, I must say that using a speedlight such as the SB-700 brings these lenses up to a very good standard. No lens is gonna turn bad light into good light, and photography is all about light. As long as you can get the perspective and framing right, and get an eye for good light (or good speedlight tecnhiques), these lenses should get you a long way.
Sure, I'd like to own a good set of f2.8 zooms and f1.4 primes. But the cost, size and weight are way above my grade.
http://egozarolho.blogspot.com 1. Good content, good aesthetics and good tecnique. On that order. 2. Light is more important than glass and pixels. 3. In the digital photography process, software is as important as gear.
>My budget-minded set for the D600 is: >24-85 VR - general shooting, family, travel, landscapes >70-300 VR - tele work, daylight sports, portraits >50 f1.8G - street photo and low-light > >However, I must say that using a speedlight such as the SB-700 >brings these lenses up to a very good standard. No lens is >gonna turn bad light into good light, and photography is all >about light. As long as you can get the perspective and >framing right, and get an eye for good light (or good >speedlight tecnhiques), these lenses should get you a long >way. > >Sure, I'd like to own a good set of f2.8 zooms and f1.4 >primes. But the cost, size and weight are way above my grade.
I'm starting with the same two zooms and a fast 50mm is on my shopping list, either a new f/1.8 or possibly a used f/1.4 if I can find a good deal on one. Since I'm hoping to do some video work, I'm thinking a legacy lens with an aperture ring might be worthwhile. I will probably add macro extension tubes at some point since I'm also on a budget and can't justify buying a macro lens.
>What Tom said. This question comes up now and again, enough >that I finally wrote up a page on it. See >this.
Your last revision/update was 16-Feb-2010. Given recent lenses that have been released by Nikon, e.g. 24-120 f/4, 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G, 70-200 f/4, etc. do you feel it is still current, or is another revision/update due?
As others have said, it depends on your interests. For me, if I were limited to two lenses they would probably be the 24-120 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8. The third lens would be the 400 f/2.8.
Those choices reflect my emphasis on sports photography. The 400 is a stellar lens for field sports (American football, soccer, field hockey, baseball). The 70-200 is also useful on the field and in gyms, where I would need f/2.8 for available-light shooting. The 24-120 would be my general photography lens as well as being used for team and individual portraits. I could also use it in the gyms when strobing.
As others have already said, it depends on what type of shooting you do. I would shoot your kit lenses for a while and you will naturally discover the lenses you need based on your interests.
As an example, when I recently purchased a new camera I thought I would like to get a new 105mm macro lens. I then started experimenting with shooting night landscapes and found that I really enjoy it. My Nikkor 16-85 VR is not really fast enough or wide enough for what I want to do. As a result, I now want my next lens to be a fast wide angle lens for this type of shooting. If I would have spent my money on a macro I would have wasted my money as my interests are now elsewhere. Get out there and shoot the heck out of your kit lenses for a while and you will soon discover what you want to do.
<"If you only could have 2 maybe 3 lenses for the D600??">
I believe that this is not the correct question to ask. It is not wise to tailor your lenses to a particular camera body, since new cameras come on the market every couple of years, while good lenses have a quasi unlimited service life. I believe you should invest in the best glass you can afford, since this will "future proof" your equipment. To make a point - For FX you probably want to cover a focal length range from about 24 to about 200-300mm. I have a 24-70/2.8 which I got five years ago when I had a D200 (my second camera) plus the 70-200/2.8 VRI that I bought seven years ago for the D70 (my first digital camera). These two lenses plus a TC and a fast 35mm prime lens cover 95% of my photographic needs. They provide excellent IQ and will probably do so for the foreseeable future, regardless of what kind of cameras will become available.
Well I could probably do everything with my 50mm f/1.4 lens, but I also have the kit 24-85 lens that seems to be a decent lens. I just bought the 85mm f/1.4. I like fixed focal lenses, but if I had to get a zoom then I'd probably get the 70-200mm f/2.8 for a fourth, but can't justify getting a fourth lens at the moment.
Hmmm.........For many folks the D600 is the first venture to full frame (FX) from APS-C (DX). Thus new glass! Good glass may last forever but my experience is many change camera bodies every three to four years. This being the case get the best lenses possible so in the future all you need to do is upgrade camera bodies. My pick would be:
A few paychecks later get a TC-20EIII. You are then set, unless you get an itch for a Macro, a Super Telephoto, T/S Lens, or fisheye! Nikon Acquisition Syndrome (NAS) is like the Lays Potatoe Chip commercial "Betcha can't just eat one". Three is never enough! There will always be a time/need/desire for another!
I've been rethinking my lens arsenal lately, and assuming no other lenses, I would look at the following for general photography, covering MOST situations.
Inexpensive budget: 24-85 and 70-300 VR or, if you want an 18-300
Moderate/moderate high budget: 24-120 and 70-200 f/4
Pro: 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8
When shooting film, the advice used to be to cover your focal lengths between 20/24mm at the wide end and 300mm at the long end. With three lenses (17/18/20-35; 28/35-70-105; 70/80-200/300); . Add a "fast 50mm like at f/1.8 or better f/1.4 and you were set for some low light images with ISO 800 or 1600 film. Add an accessory speedlight and you were great for most general photography.
Now, with DSLR performance being so good, I don't think this applies anymore. ISO performance of current production DSLRs since the D3/D700 are amazing...I don't have a problem shooting my "generation older" D700 at ISO 1600 or 3200 and would probably be happy at ISO 6400 if I had to shoot that fast. So the get a fast 35mm/50mm lens doesn't really apply, I don't think.
Super zooms have come a long way since thier introduction and perform quite admirably. Indeed even my "old" used 28-200G lens can produce some amazing images (at least for me), even in low light (at ISO 1600).
Today's high MP cameras allow great cropping abilities...more pixels on subject. My 12 MP D700 if okay in this regard but it really blown out of the water with the D800 and even the 24MP D600. So do you really need that faster/longer/heavier zoom? If you shoot wild life (birds in flight comes to mind) then yeah, maybe you do, but for "general photography" I wonder.
Which brings me to my last point: what are you shooting? Depending on your "typical" subjects a lens may need to be added to fill a void or to better perform a task. Shoot architecture...then a 14-24mm f/2.8 and a 24mm PC-E may be more important than a 70-200. Macro... then maybe a 105 VR Micro or a 200mm f/4 Micro should be added. Portraits... 85mm f/1.4, 105 or 135 DC.
Since you have the 24-85 and the 70-300, use that, find out if it works for you, then decide what you are lacking and where you want to add to your kit. I would think your at a great starting point. Congrats on the D600.
If you put a gun to my head and said pick three lenses to go with an FX DSLR, and I could NEVER get another lens again, they would be:
AFS 16-35 f4 AFS 50 f1.8 AFS 70-300 VR
With this kit (and some compromises), I could competently shoot landscapes, travel/architecture, portraits, low-light indoor basketball, and outdoor field sports. WHich is pretty much everything I shoot.
If I could add a 4th lens, it would be the 24-120 f4 for when I was on a trip and wanted to leave the other three lenses at home.
My 5th lens would be the 70-200 f2.8 VRII, but that costs as much as the other three combined, and I would have more use for the other three than I would for the f2.8 tele zoom.
On a budget, my three choices would be:
AFD 18-35 ED (used) AFS 50 f1.8 AFD 70-300 ED (used)
add: AFD 28-105 (used) add: AFD 80-200 f2.8 Two Ring
>AFS 16-35 f4 >AFS 50 f1.8 >AFS 70-300 VR > >With this kit (and some compromises), I could competently >shoot landscapes, travel/architecture, portraits, low-light >indoor basketball, and outdoor field sports. WHich is pretty >much everything I shoot.
Hmmm... except you have nothing in that list you could really use for shooting night football. Maybe that's not something you shoot, though?
You are absolutely right. At this time, my son plays youth football during the day. If/when he is playing under Friday night lights, I'll have to pony up for the fast tele zoom. To be honest, night sports is really the only use I have for a four figure tele-zoom, which is why I haven;'t brought myself to spring for it yet.
I also don't have an AFS 300 f4 prime to use for shooting outfielders in baseball (my older son plays centerfield). My 70-300 VR is not tack sharp for cropping at that distance on a high school field. It's also pretty slow at that FL, requiring me to bump ISO a little on overcast spring days.
That is why we need a lot of lenses. It's impossible to shoot everything I shoot with just three lenses without making some compromises and taking a pass on some subjects.
Fri 18-Jan-13 04:51 AM | edited Fri 18-Jan-13 04:55 AM by Bringbackcloughie
I would have a nikon 24-70mm f2.8 with vibration reduction once it becomes available, the new 70-210 mm f4 and a 14-24mm f2.8.
Of these I have the third. But my tripod blew over and has broken the petals and seized the lens mechanism, so now it's on it's way to Japan for assessment and possible repair. And I never even got a chance to try it out on my brand new D60
Sorry to hear of your report. It seems that tripods are an area where we all need to be careful. There's more than one report, I've read recently of a gentleman's 200-400 blew over while on a tripod and snapped in half ;-(