Nikon D750 & D780

minnnt said:
Yes, you are a fool. The lenses are the same. Just use FX lenses on your D500.

Nikon 12-24 f4/24-70 f2.8/70-200 f2.8.
Click to expand...

I've always thought that using FF lenses on APS-C bodies is daft as you're carrying around glass that the camera can't use and with it the additional plastic and metal etc. and of course you maybe paying more for the pleasure of having and not using these things.

Of that lot I think that the 12-24mm makes the most sense but there are quality 10-xxmm APS-C alternatives and certainly there are APS-C alternatives to the 24-70mm and possibly for the longer lens too but I don't know as the longer lenses aren't my thing.
 
woof woof said:
As an outsider looking in I don't know how you and your Mrs manage with all this constant chopping and changing.
Click to expand...

Let say a very understanding mrs who can be just as bad when we go shoes and bag shopping [emoji23][emoji23]
 
rookies said:
Well ive the chance to do a straight swap

D750 with 24-120 and a youngo flash

For

My d500 and 18-35 sigma art lens.

The swap I just like FF and feel it got the edge. But d500 I love the AF and the AF spread along with it body

Hard choice. Also I feel the lens lay out is nicer for FX

I could be a fool who know??
Click to expand...

To be honest the D500 AF spread is much, much better - if you're happy to go back to a crop then it looks like a reasonable move to me - but only if you need the extra reach and AF, otherwise stick with the D750, its an excellent all rounder.
 
rookies said:
Let say a very understanding mrs who can be just as bad when we go shoes and bag shopping [emoji23][emoji23]
Click to expand...

It seems youre buying according to whatever thread has the most chatter at the time? The usual pattern, AF or other issue, then within a few days its a new camera. You have a great setup at the moment.
 
Last edited:
JohnN said:
To be honest the D500 AF spread is much, much better - if you're happy to go back to a crop then it looks like a reasonable move to me - but only if you need the extra reach and AF, otherwise stick with the D750, its an excellent all rounder.
Click to expand...
He has a d500 and on about going back to a d750
 
woof woof said:
I've always thought that using FF lenses on APS-C bodies is daft as you're carrying around glass that the camera can't use and with it the additional plastic and metal etc. and of course you maybe paying more for the pleasure of having and not using these things.

Of that lot I think that the 12-24mm makes the most sense but there are quality 10-xxmm APS-C alternatives and certainly there are APS-C alternatives to the 24-70mm and possibly for the longer lens too but I don't know as the longer lenses aren't my thing.
Click to expand...

Other than the odd gem, most DX lenses are a bit average. The FX range of pro lenses perform better, they're weather sealed, they focus faster etc etc, which suits what Andrew wants, (and the DX sensor uses the best part of the lenses at that!) and the D500 is massive so it's not really going to be an imbalance of lens and body.

Yeah it's more expensive but Nikon don't make a high quality professional DX zoom above 55mm.
 
minnnt said:
Other than the odd gem, most DX lenses are a bit average. The FX range of pro lenses perform better, they're weather sealed, they focus faster etc etc, which suits what Andrew wants, (and the DX sensor uses the best part of the lenses at that!) and the D500 is massive so it's not really going to be an imbalance of lens and body.

Yeah it's more expensive but Nikon don't make a high quality professional DX zoom above 55mm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 70-200 must be amazing on crop.
 
minnnt said:
Other than the odd gem, most DX lenses are a bit average. The FX range of pro lenses perform better, they're weather sealed, they focus faster etc etc, which suits what Andrew wants, (and the DX sensor uses the best part of the lenses at that!) and the D500 is massive so it's not really going to be an imbalance of lens and body.

Yeah it's more expensive but Nikon don't make a high quality professional DX zoom above 55mm.
Click to expand...

I know Nikon's APS-C lens line is weak and I'd be looking elsewhere.

Generally I don't think people think enough about their own needs and by that I mean realistic needs. Reading internet forums you'd think that most people need to be able to take pictures of black cats fired from a catapult a midnight during a thunderstorm and go on to print a 6ft wide gallery quality print. I think it's better to think about what you want to take pictures of, how you'll get the picture and what final result you want to achieve most of the time and then pick the appropriate gear. The once in a lifetime cat shot from a catapult at midnight stuff should IMO be ignored or covered by rented gear otherwise people end up spending thousands on gear which is mostly underused and carrying weight they don't need.

Anyway, my interruption is over and I'll leave the gear heads to their thing :D
 
woof woof said:
...you'd think that most people need to be able to take pictures of black cats fired from a catapult a midnight during a thunderstorm and go on to print a 6ft wide gallery quality print.....
Click to expand...

Brilliant :D
 
woof woof said:
I know Nikon's APS-C lens line is weak and I'd be looking elsewhere.

Generally I don't think people think enough about their own needs and by that I mean realistic needs. Reading internet forums you'd think that most people need to be able to take pictures of black cats fired from a catapult a midnight during a thunderstorm and go on to print a 6ft wide gallery quality print. I think it's better to think about what you want to take pictures of, how you'll get the picture and what final result you want to achieve most of the time and then pick the appropriate gear. The once in a lifetime cat shot from a catapult at midnight stuff should IMO be ignored or covered by rented gear otherwise people end up spending thousands on gear which is mostly underused and carrying weight they don't need.

Anyway, my interruption is over and I'll leave the gear heads to their thing :D
Click to expand...
i think i should print that 6 foot wide and stick on my wall-for gas attacks hitting!:cool::ty:
 
woof woof said:
I know Nikon's APS-C lens line is weak and I'd be looking elsewhere.

Generally I don't think people think enough about their own needs and by that I mean realistic needs. Reading internet forums you'd think that most people need to be able to take pictures of black cats fired from a catapult a midnight during a thunderstorm and go on to print a 6ft wide gallery quality print. I think it's better to think about what you want to take pictures of, how you'll get the picture and what final result you want to achieve most of the time and then pick the appropriate gear. The once in a lifetime cat shot from a catapult at midnight stuff should IMO be ignored or covered by rented gear otherwise people end up spending thousands on gear which is mostly underused and carrying weight they don't need.

Anyway, my interruption is over and I'll leave the gear heads to their thing :D
Click to expand...
haha that is brilliant you should have that as you signature, if you dont i will :D:D:D:D
 
kingo15 said:
haha that is brilliant you should have that as you signature, if you dont i will :D:D:D:D
Click to expand...

lol, you know I did but it ditched the quote so I dropped it as I didn't want that gem to appear to be mine.
 
AndyFo said:
Been doing more research on a wide zoom and think it's come down to either Nikon 16-35 (bit pricey tho) or my current favourite Sigma 17-35 ex dg hsm. Favouring the Sigma due to the price being around £250 used which seeing as I don't shoot wide that often will leave me with a bit more for a good portrait lens. Anyone have experience of the Siggy as not much real world feedback to be found on the net.
Click to expand...
Nobody have anything good or bad to say about the Sigma 17-35 EX DG HSM then?
 
AndyFo said:
I've now lost a total of 5 and given up replacing them, I'll manage without. Strange thing is I've never ever noticed it come off and never found one around the house or in the car, they just disappear.
Been doing more research on a wide zoom and think it's come down to either Nikon 16-35 (bit pricey tho) or my current favourite Sigma 17-35 ex dg hsm. Favouring the Sigma due to the price being around £250 used which seeing as I don't shoot wide that often will leave me with a bit more for a good portrait lens. Anyone have experience of the Siggy as not much real world feedback to be found on the net.
Click to expand...
Not used the Siggy, but can recommend the Nikon 18-35mm G. Cheaper than the 16-35 but not as cheap as the Siggy.
 
Would love to go with the Nikons but not sure I can justify the price as I don't shoot wide that often and most of my photography seems to be portraits so really wanted to try a really good portrait lens. Also have a hankering to try a long zoom like the Tamron 150-600 purely because a lot of nature and sport I haven't really tried not having the reach before. Just worried that after the Nikon 10-24 DX that I have been using that the Siggy will disappoint. Decisions decisions.
 
AndyFo said:
Would love to go with the Nikons but not sure I can justify the price as I don't shoot wide that often and most of my photography seems to be portraits so really wanted to try a really good portrait lens. Also have a hankering to try a long zoom like the Tamron 150-600 purely because a lot of nature and sport I haven't really tried not having the reach before. Just worried that after the Nikon 10-24 DX that I have been using that the Siggy will disappoint. Decisions decisions.
Click to expand...

What camera you got? As you mention DX
 
Cloudforest said:
Cheers Graham,

I might try one of those - it looks okay on the pics of your camera.

Some nice invert pics on your Flickr, by the way. I particularly like the Hoverflies.
Click to expand...
Actually if you have a nose around amazon or even ebay, you can find a kit form to make a round eye peice like on D500 or D810
 
Cloudforest said:
Cheers Graham,

Some nice invert pics on your Flickr, by the way. I particularly like the Hoverflies.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I can't wait for spring to arrive. [emoji219] [emoji218] [emoji222] [emoji221]
 
rookies said:
What camera you got? As you mention DX
Click to expand...
D750 Andy the reason I mention DX is because I have the Nikon 10-24 which is a superb DX lens. I had this with my d7000 before the D750 and kept it as it will just about work on FX but only really useable from about 17/18mm so not really getting the best out of it. I am going to put it up for sale and that's why I was considering the Sigma 17-35 but although it's a full frame zoom I worry that it's not as good as the Nikon with regards to sharpness.
 
AndyFo said:
D750 Andy the reason I mention DX is because I have the Nikon 10-24 which is a superb DX lens. I had this with my d7000 before the D750 and kept it as it will just about work on FX but only really useable from about 17/18mm so not really getting the best out of it. I am going to put it up for sale and that's why I was considering the Sigma 17-35 but although it's a full frame zoom I worry that it's not as good as the Nikon with regards to sharpness.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately no score for the 17-35mm on Nikon, but on the 5D4 it's quite a bit softer than the 18-35 on the D750, for whatever that's worth.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...on-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV__1094_975_573_1106
 
Thanks for that Toby but I think this is testing the older none DG lens which is known to be a bit soft. The newer DG version is meant to be streets ahead and somewhere I read that it was sharper than the Nikon but finding it hard to find confirmation of this. Doesn't really matter now as about 2 minutes ago I made an offer on one on eBay and it's been accepted so I'll guess I will find out in few days time.
 
Anyone used the Sigma 24-105 f4? How does it compare to the Nikon 24-120?
 
Last edited:
AndyFo said:
Thanks for that Toby but I think this is testing the older none DG lens which is known to be a bit soft. The newer DG version is meant to be streets ahead and somewhere I read that it was sharper than the Nikon but finding it hard to find confirmation of this. Doesn't really matter now as about 2 minutes ago I made an offer on one on eBay and it's been accepted so I'll guess I will find out in few days time.
Click to expand...
Not sure you'll want to see this then :confused:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...-ED-on-Nikon-D750__565_1106_573_1106_1094_975
 
Oh sh1t that's not so good, I'm hoping that's only on the Cannon and that it will be better on Nikon, ever the optimist Ay.
 
AndyFo said:
Oh sh1t that's not so good, I'm hoping that's only on the Cannon and that it will be better on Nikon, ever the optimist Ay.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it'll be fine, tests can be misleading and as twist says there's sample variation.
 
Chuckoir said:
Anyone used the Sigma 24-105 f4? How does it compare to the Nikon 24-120?
Click to expand...
I got one but can't compare as i never used a 24-120 [emoji53]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top