full frame upgrade (Nikon D850)- lens advice needed

C

chris-edi

Messages
8
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I am looking to upgrade to full frame and I've got my eyes on the Nikon D850.

I have so far used a Nikon D5100 with the following lenses:
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 12-24 F4G

I use the 16-85 about 80% of the time, it's my absolute favourite and I would love a similar all round wide angle zoom lens for the 850. I shoot landscapes and cityscapes and prefer to not change lenses often, I don't do portraits or anything indoors. I often shoot at blue hour. Budget is not an issue as I have saved for a long time and am really looking to invest in top quality equipment, preferably with maximum sharpness and minimal distortion. I am a complete newbie to full frame, will the DX lenses still work on the 850? I assume I really need to get an FX lens, what would give me a similar range than the 16-85? I also need to be able to attach my Lee filter system and avoid vignetting.

Any advice you can provide would be appreciated (or if anyone has comments on the quality of the D850 itself, good or bad for my purposes, that would be useful too).

Thanks in advance
Chris
 
Last edited:
Don't use DX lenses of an FX camera. The image circle is smaller so they won't project the image onto all the sensor. The camera will know this and run in DX mode - which in turns turns into into a D500 of sorts.

You can use FX lenses on DX camera's though - and it is good to do so if you need some reach and you crop off all the softer bits as you're only using the sharp centre of the lens.

You will, and must, buy the FX lenses to get the best out of the camera. It will be an amazing upgrade for you - years back I did the same (D5000 to D800) and if it were me now I would totally buy the D850 and the most expensive F2.8 zooms and F1.4 primes to go with it. Don't for a single moment consider cheap lenses.

A camera like the D850 is the finest FF DSLR ever made and it deserves the finest lenses available. Because of it's resolution the poorer F4 zooms won't resolve as well as the vastly superior F2.8 zooms. You will need only consder the 24-70 F2.8 (the later one), the 70-200 F2.8 (the latest and greatest E version), and 180-400 if you have a spare £8k. The 300 prenze focal though is amazing. The only exceptions to the no F1.8 primes are the 20mm F1.8, and maybe the 85F1.8. For all other primes Ziess or Sigma Art only or the F1.4 nikon ones.
 
If you use crop lenses on a full frame camera like the D850 you won’t be using all of the full frame sensor so there’s no benefit.

If the 16-85 was a crop lens then multiple it by 1.5 to get the equivalent field of view to full frame. I guess the nearest equivalent would be the Nikon 20-120 f4 lens.

Can I ask why your thinking full frame DSLR? As you will be doing a full swap (camera and lenses) to go go to a full frame DSLR have you thought about mirrorless? The reason I ask is because of the quote below.

chris-edi said:
Budget is not an issue as I have saved for a long time and am really looking to invest in top quality equipment, preferably with maximum sharpness and minimal distortion.
Click to expand...

If I was in your shoes I’d probably miss full frame DSLRs and pick up a mirrorless full frame camera. That way you can start to build a collection of mirrorless Z lenses. The sad fact is long term as good as Nikon full frame F mount lenses are you are likely to be better to invest in newer mirrorless Z mount lenses than the older F mount lenses when starting a fresh. The majority of camera manufacturers see mirrorless as the future. Since the D850 was released in 2017 Nikon have released two models of the Z7. That’s faster than Nikon’s model refreshes of DSLRs that were around 2-3 years previously for the D8xx series (2012-2014-2017). The D850 is over due a model update but I doubt we will see one as Nikon concentrate resources on mirrorless.

Don’t forget size wise the D850 and it’s lenses will be much better and heavier than your D5100. This may not be an issue to you but it’s worth considering if it is. Personally I’ve gone from crop bodies through to full frame DSLRS with f2.8 lenses. The f2.8 lenses are stunning but just heavy.

I fell out of love carting big cameras and lenses around and up hills. I’m now thinking of getting a tamron 28-200 as it will minimise kit and weight I’m carrying. It’s also as near to a one lens solution as I can get on Sony. If I was still with Nikon and had gone mirrorless I’d look at the Nikon 24-200 Z mount lens as it’s supposed to be punch well above it’s price point and it would be fantastic to have one lens that covers such a big range.

Have a look at Stuart McGlennon’s videos on YouTube. He’s recently moved to a Nikon mirrorless (I think to a Z7 from a Nikon D8xx- I can’t remember the model) and did a video about it. He owns the landscape gallery in Keswick and his images are awesome. His two lens set up looked like it covered most things a landscape photographer needed to me.

View: https://youtu.be/KCuiR5sS77M


View: https://youtu.be/_Q3cUK7zyes
 
Last edited:
If you go the 850 route then as Steve says it deserves decent lenses. However, be aware that the rig will be substantially heavier (and bulkier) than what you are used to,
The full frame equivalent to your 16-85 is the 24-120. There is well known copy variation with this lens, but get a good one and you will produce excellent images.
If mirrorless then the z6 ii or Z7 ii. The 24-200 S is better than the 24-120 (i've had the 24-120 and own the 24-200) and the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's are top drawer lenses capable of producing the highest quality images. Again with these 2 there is a weight penalty. Also consider the 24-70 F4 S which is another excellent lens.
Wide angle 14-30 F4 or 14-24 2.8. Again I think the choice will be between size/weight.
If you are not selling images or covering events ask yourself do you need 2.8 zooms with higher iso images being so good these days?
I see you want maximum sharpness and minimum distortion. Then perhaps Z primes are the way to go. (20mm and 24mm S lenses are ideal for landscape and have received glowing reviews)
In your situation I would go for a 14-30 S and 24-200 S and see how they go. Perhaps add a prime ( 24mm and / or 50mm S ?) Pair with a Z7 ii.
As you are into landscape then I assume you already own a top quality tripod?
Decisions, decisions.
 
As above, if it was me I'd be looking at mirrorless as that's where most of the development seems to be. The Nikon Z system is still in it's infancy and there's no exact match for the 16-85mm but you could use the excellent 24-70mm f4 on the Z7/Z7-II and crop to give a bit more reach. Using the 24-70mm in DX mode will give you 105mm and still 20mp. Nikon need to bring out a mid range tele, I see they have a 100-400mm on the road map but not sure when that will come out. Plus, I expect it to be more high end like the Sony 100-400mm.

I've had the pleasure of owning both the D850 and Z7, image quality is pretty much the same as you'd expect.
 
thank you so much for all the helpful replies. I will definitely need to look into mirrorless as I hadn't really considered that so far.

if I go with the D850, can anyone comment on the quality of the 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-120 f4 lenses? the 24-120 would suit me much better in terms of focal range however it seems the 24-70 is superior in terms of image quality? I also had my eyes on the 16-35, would that be a good wide angle addition? the 14-24 seems great but doesn't take ND filters which are essential or me. I might get one of the three new and then perhaps look into the other two second hand. I do own a good quality manfrotto tripod already.

again thanks for the advice and I will do a deeper dig into mirrorless options to see if that would suit me better.
 
chris-edi said:
thank you so much for all the helpful replies. I will definitely need to look into mirrorless as I hadn't really considered that so far.

if I go with the D850, can anyone comment on the quality of the 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-120 f4 lenses? the 24-120 would suit me much better in terms of focal range however it seems the 24-70 is superior in terms of image quality? I also had my eyes on the 16-35, would that be a good wide angle addition? the 14-24 seems great but doesn't take ND filters which are essential or me. I might get one of the three new and then perhaps look into the other two second hand. I do own a good quality manfrotto tripod already.

again thanks for the advice and I will do a deeper dig into mirrorless options to see if that would suit me better.
Click to expand...
You will hear mixed opinions on the 24-70mm f2.8 tbh. I think this is because it is a "pro" lens and people expect IQ to be absolutely stellar, which is isn't. It is good though, and renders nicely. But what this lens mainly is is a workhorse, it's built like a tank and should last forever. I had the 24-120mm f4 and several copies of the 24-70mm f2.8, in terms of sharpness there's not too much in it. The f2.8 does render OOF areas nicer though. Don't forget you get 20mp in DX mode on the D850 so the 24-70mm essentially becomes a 24-105mm ;)
 
I used to have the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 (mark 1). Nice lens but I resented the heft of it to be honest, considering the limited range. I sold it and made do with a Tamron 17-35mm UWA zoom and an old Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 for the long end. This worked OK (the Tamron 17-35 is stellar in my opinion - as well as compact and lightweight).

But there were certain situations where I missed the 'normal' focal range, and found constant lens-changing a bit annoying so I started to look at standard zooms again. I have limped along with an old 28-80mm D lens from the film era, which is surprisingly sharp but has appalling bokeh. I'll keep it as a 'beater lens'. I briefly tried a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 which is sharp, and small, but my copy was decentred so it went back. I also felt that it was important to have a bit more range at the long end.

After weighing up the Nikon 24-120 f4 and the Sigma 24-105mm f4, I went with the latter. I don't think there's much between the two lenses optically, but the Sigma seemed to have nicer rendering to my eye. The Sigma is very sharp, and very convenient if you don't want to take extra lenses with you. It's similar to the Tamron 24-70mm optically. There is a drop-off in sharpness towards the edge of the frame, but only if you pixel peep. I'm very satisfied with it as a grab-and-go lens.
 
Well I go back to your original post. Maximum sharpness, minimum distortion, budget not an issue.
The Z7 (ii) along with 14-24 2.8S, 24-70 2.8S and 70-200 2.8 S will fulfil all those requirements.
Again, I say, if budget is not an issue.
Personally, assuming budget, I can't see the point in buying any more Nikon F lenses unless for specialist purpose, e.g. 500mm PF.
 
Good point, if I had an unlimited budget I would probably invest in the Z system.
 
chris-edi said:
thank you so much for all the helpful replies. I will definitely need to look into mirrorless as I hadn't really considered that so far.

if I go with the D850, can anyone comment on the quality of the 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-120 f4 lenses? the 24-120 would suit me much better in terms of focal range however it seems the 24-70 is superior in terms of image quality? I also had my eyes on the 16-35, would that be a good wide angle addition? the 14-24 seems great but doesn't take ND filters which are essential or me. I might get one of the three new and then perhaps look into the other two second hand. I do own a good quality manfrotto tripod already.

again thanks for the advice and I will do a deeper dig into mirrorless options to see if that would suit me better.
Click to expand...

I have both the 24-70 F2.8 and the 24-120 F4 that I use on a D810. The 24-120 is on the camera the majority of the time, primarily because it’s VR, but it’s also a bit lighter and a more useful focal length for me. In terms of image quality there’s not that much in it really, the 24-70 does edge it though. The more modern 24-70F2.8 VR is by all accounts a stellar lens but extremely expensive and not one I could justify when my existing two are more than adequate!
 
Peter123 said:
Well I go back to your original post. Maximum sharpness, minimum distortion, budget not an issue.
The Z7 (ii) along with 14-24 2.8S, 24-70 2.8S and 70-200 2.8 S will fulfil all those requirements.
Again, I say, if budget is not an issue.
Personally, assuming budget, I can't see the point in buying any more Nikon F lenses unless for specialist purpose, e.g. 500mm PF.
Click to expand...
This would be a very difficult combo to beat tbh. Not cheap though, but if I was investing I'd definitely be going for mirrorless nowadays as I mentioned earlier.

@chris-edi if you are going to look into a new system (which you will have to with the D850 and Z7's) are you dead set on Nikon? Sony and Canon have some great offerings, and in the case of Sony a much better choice of mirrorless lenses. Both Sony and Canon have the highly regarded 24-105mm f4 lenses, pair them with the high MP bodies and you've got a great walkabout lens. Canon do the lighter 70-200mm f2.8 (1070g) and you can get the great Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 for the Sony at 810g, and considerably cheaper.
 
snerkler said:
@chris-edi if you are going to look into a new system (which you will have to with the D850 and Z7's) are you dead set on Nikon? Sony and Canon have some great offerings, and in the case of Sony a much better choice of mirrorless lenses. Both Sony and Canon have the highly regarded 24-105mm f4 lenses, pair them with the high MP bodies and you've got a great walkabout lens. Canon do the lighter 70-200mm f2.8 (1070g) and you can get the great Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 for the Sony at 810g, and considerably cheaper.
Click to expand...

But they’re not Nikon. :nikon:
 
Why not get a D810 and use the saving to stretch to the better 24-70 and 70-200 lenses, plus the excellent 16-35.

The leap from D5100 to D810 is astonishing in itself. Even though the D850 is a few years old now, the D810 is still relevant for your type of photography. I admit the tilting LCD of the D850 will be a plus for your type of photography...

You haven't said anything about saving and processing images, ie if you are a RAW shooter. If you do, and have made the same monumental mistake of getting a computer with a non-i7 core (or equivalent) processor the computer will make hard work of processing the images. Boy, mine slows down. It coped with 24MP images from my Pentax K-3 and D7100 but grinds to a crawl when working on 36MP images from K-1 and D810. More recent PC processors (and PCs with SSD drives) will be quicker, but it is just something to consider....it's not just camera and lenses, the computer and storage too....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top