D610+24-70/2.8 or D750+24-85 Kit lens

rodd1000

rodd1000

Messages
365
Name
Karl
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys looking to bump up to a full frame camera after coming from a Fuji Xt1 system and have narrowed it down to one of these combinations. I can pick up the D610 with the excellent 24-70/f2.8 for around similar money to the newer D750 with a 24-85 Kit lens.

I do alot of product photography but would also use the set up for landscapes, all from a tripod (with the odd bit of walk around snapping) I know the best combo would be d750 and 24-70 but unfortunately can't stretch that far.

I'm favouring the D610 option as it gets me the best quality lens. Could you guys see any reason why not or suggest an alternative solution that I may have overlooked?

Much appreciated.
 
Given none of your uses require silly stupid AF capabilities the D610 option (which has perfectly decent AF) would probably suit you better I'd have thought...
 
As Nawty mentioned the af is perfectly reasonable on the D610 for what you're needing. The D610 does let itself down on its implementation of live view though. Always better to have a great lens than a good one if at all possible.

I have a D610 and use it extensively for landscapes with a 16-35 and 70-200, have a look on my Flickr link it helps at all.
 
stumeech said:
As Nawty mentioned the af is perfectly reasonable on the D610 for what you're needing. The D610 does let itself down on its implementation of live view though. Always better to have a great lens than a good one if at all possible.

I have a D610 and use it extensively for landscapes with a 16-35 and 70-200, have a look on my Flickr link it helps at all.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys pretty much what I thought. Excellent work on your Flickr Stu, you do a fair bit of travelling i see. Some quality shots. Could you elaborate on the live view problem? How do you find the 16-35, I did look at this one.
 
Last edited:
If your doing Landscapes and Product photography get the best possible glass you can, the D610 & D750 are stunning bodies and will both serve you well, Go for the D610 & 24-70mm f/2.8 because the glass is what shall make it in the field, the D610 does have slower AF but if your doing Landscapes and product photography your be fine!
 
rodd1000 said:
Thanks guys pretty much what I thought. Excellent work on your Flickr Stu, you do a fair bit of travelling i see. Some quality shots. Could you elaborate on the live view problem? How do you find the 16-35, I did look at this one.
Click to expand...
I'm lucky to travel for work a lot so I can piggy back photography with that.

The live view on the D610 is annoying as it doesn't show you aperture change once you have it switched on, and doesn't show a live histogram which is annoying considering my £150 Canon Powershot S110 does!

The D610 also doesn't have one click to 100% zoom in image review either which I find really annoying as I was very used to it on my D300s.

As for the 16-35, it's a really good lens, very sharp. Things I have noticed in no particular order:

16mm - quite a bit of distortion, especially when you have flat horizons
16-20mm - some extreme corner softness
20-28mm - sharp all over, no corner softness (in fact very sharp) or distortion
28-35mm - not the strongest part of the lens but still pretty good

I tend to think of it as a 18-28 with the ability to do either end as and when I need too.

The VR is very good, I tried it handheld the other day at 1/2 second. The f/4 is a touch limiting for astro work, I'd probably buy a Samyang 14 or 24 for short term use if I ever did any of that sort of work.
 
stumeech said:
The live view on the D610 is annoying as it doesn't show you aperture change once you have it switched on, and doesn't show a live histogram which is annoying considering my £150 Canon Powershot S110 does!
Click to expand...

Really? I didn't know that, I really enjoyed those features on the xt1 and sort of expected it on a higher end bit of kit. Infact I'm not sure how I'd live without the real time live view exposure, certainly made life easier. My old D5100 doesn't have it but I understand the d7000 did. Why would they leave it out on what is supposed to be a superior model.

From what I've read it looks like the D750 has this. Had my heart set on the 610 until now, sort of put a spanner in the works.
 
Last edited:
rodd1000 said:
Really? I didn't know that, I really enjoyed those features on the xt1 and sort of expected it on a higher end bit of kit. Infact I'm not sure how I'd live without the real time live view exposure, certainly made life easier. My old D5100 doesn't have it but I understand the d7000 did. Why would they leave it out on what is supposed to be a superior model.

From what I've read it looks like the D750 has this. Had my heart set on the 610 until now, sort of put a spanner in the works.
Click to expand...
It is annoying. Annoying enough I'm stockpiling cash to cut mine in for a D750. Don't get me wrong tho, the D610 still takes amazing files, especially in RAW.
 
stumeech said:
It is annoying. Annoying enough I'm stockpiling cash to cut mine in for a D750. Don't get me wrong tho, the D610 still takes amazing files, especially in RAW.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up on this Stu, I would have definitely overlooked it. Wonder how many others bought one presuming the D610 did do this.
 
I am in a similar situation, although also considering Canon 6D or 5D3. The 24-120 F4 also seems to be quite well reviewed, perhaps a step up from the 24-85 without the cost of the 24-70. I am also looking at the Tarmon 24-70 F2.8.

Only problem I have is all of these lenses are faiirly large, I love primes but a zoom is great fro travel, walkaround shooting.
 
AndrewSt said:
I am in a similar situation, although also considering Canon 6D or 5D3. The 24-120 F4 also seems to be quite well reviewed, perhaps a step up from the 24-85 without the cost of the 24-70. I am also looking at the Tarmon 24-70 F2.8.

Only problem I have is all of these lenses are faiirly large, I love primes but a zoom is great fro travel, walkaround shooting.
Click to expand...

The Tamron 28-75 2.8 is very lightweight and small. Cracking image quality too
 
For what you want to do I don't think you really need the 24-70/2.8G.

The 24-70/2.8 is a great lens for photojournalists, fashion & wedding photographers, etc. It is reliable, built like tank, relatively fast aperture, etc. However, unless you know you need it I wouldn't consider it as ideal general purpose lens. I know many people love it, but frankly optically it is not a spectacular lens. I would be at all surprised if Nikon refresh it relatively soon, add VR and improve performance on 24/36mpx sensors.

If you want to do landscape and product photo I would rather get two prime lenses. Perhaps 28/1.8G or the Sigma 35mm 1.4 for landscapes and Micro Nikkor 60/2.8G for product photography. Or a wide-angle zoom You can two specialised lenses and still save money compared to 24-70/2.8G and get the better body.
 
I've ran a D610 and 24-70F2.8. The auto focus is a bit unreliable in low light and the spread of points really biased over the centre, but for landscapes its fine, and you can manually focus and check it by zooming in in live view anyway. The 24mm is wide enough for 95% of all landscapes.
 
I'd agree with Steve, despite a lot of focus on ultra wide as being "needed" for landscape I've used a 24-70 (Tamron) for 90% of my landscape/city shooting in the last 12 months - the D610 AF should grand and as mentioned a lot of landscape stuff is done on tripod anyway.

Might the 24-120 f4 VR lens be a cheaper alternative to the 24-70 if you really want a zoom lens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top