Replacing my stolen gear

[toprock03]

Greetings-

I am abroad for 8 months and unfortunately my gear got stolen.   My d600, 50 1.8d, 20-35d 2.8, 2.8 35-70d, 35 1.8g  and accessories were all taken.  I need some help choosing replacements.  The insurance process being abroad is making this a bit more difficult and renting lenses to test is not an option.  I have about $ 6400 usd to use towards new equipment (plus a few hundred extra for filters and cards) and there is no option to pocket any savings

My usage will be for general people and pets and some landscape while in the alps and European countryside.

I was thinking about the following setup but any input would be helpful

D610, 24-70 2.8g, 70-200 f4g, 16-35 f4, 50mm 1.8g

I considered changing the package around to get the Zeiss 21mm zf2 but I'm not sure if I would prefer to have the flexibility of the 16-35 as I would shoot landscapes stopped down anyways.  Also I could also arrange the budget for the 80-400 and move other pieces around

Also I have not had a lot of time for photography prior to my travels so I dont have a lot of shooting experience to look back on to help with the choices.  I do know it's best to spend on lenses and my the body as I will be keeping any lenses for a long time

Thanks for your input

Cheers
Adam

[PeterAit]

The 70-200 f/4 is a terrific lens, I would definitely keep that on the list.

The 28-70 is also a terrific lens, I use to use one on my D700. But it is expensive and bulky and if you don't need the extra stop take a look at the Sigma 24-105 f/4, lighter, smaller, and about 1/2 the cost. It's gotten some very good reviews and I love mine. It does overlap some with the 70-200 but I like that because I shoot a lot of images in the 70-100 range and it saves me a lot of lens changes.

[toprock03]

Peter -

Thanks for your recommendation.  I am going back and forth abit between the Sigma and the Nikon and if i were to skip the 24-70 2.8 that would open me up for a few different options.  I wish I was able to take a look at the Sigma in person but there are not any camera shops where I am at that have them available.  I understand optically its fantasic but it is a bit heavier (and perhaps a better build) and does take larger filters.  That said my new layout could be as follows and still be within a few hundred of my budget

Nikon D610
Nikkor 70-200 F4
Nikkor 16-35 F4
Nikkor 24-120 F4 -or- Sigma 24-105 F4
Nikkor 85mm 1.8G
Nikkor 35mm 1.8G -or- Nikkor 28mm 1.8G

Any thoughts on that run down?

[Paul2660]

I would also consider the Nikkor 14-24 F2.8, if you don't mind the weight and filter issues, excellent wide zoom.  Also look at the new Sigma Art 50mm 1.4, reviews are excellent.

Paul

[PeterAit]

Peter -

Thanks for your recommendation.  I am going back and forth abit between the Sigma and the Nikon and if i were to skip the 24-70 2.8 that would open me up for a few different options.  I wish I was able to take a look at the Sigma in person but there are not any camera shops where I am at that have them available.  I understand optically its fantasic but it is a bit heavier (and perhaps a better build) and does take larger filters.  That said my new layout could be as follows and still be within a few hundred of my budget

Nikon D610
Nikkor 70-200 F4
Nikkor 16-35 F4
Nikkor 24-120 F4 -or- Sigma 24-105 F4
Nikkor 85mm 1.8G
Nikkor 35mm 1.8G -or- Nikkor 28mm 1.8G

Any thoughts on that run down?

I am surprised to hear you say that the Nikkor 24-70 is lighter than the Sigma 24-105. I don't have my Nikkor 24-70 anymore, so can't do a comparison, but that's not my recollection.

I do not know your photographic style or needs, but in your list above I see a lot of overlap in focal lengths. Not always a bad thing, but it can make the wallet lighter and the camera bag heavier. Do you have a specific reason for wanting the 2 fixed focal length lenses at the end of your list? Lovely lenses, I am sure, but those focal lengths are covered by the zooms you list. If you do decide you want a 35mm fixed lens, consider the Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

Not that you asked, but in your shoes I would get the Nikkor 16-35, the Sigma 24-105, and the Nikkor 70-200. If you have any money left over, spend it on wine and food!

[toprock03]

Thanks for the replies-

My first challenge is that the way my insurance policy works - I only get reimbursed for funds spent on replacing my lenses.  If I don't replace the stolen lenses then i only get the depreciated cash value of the items which isn't much for the D lenses.  So basically i need to spend it to utilize my policy

My thoughs on the overlapping focal lengths were to have lighter fast glass to complement the slower zooms- especially since they would all be at f4.  This could be used for low light photographs of family or the dog.  When traveling I would leave some of the glass behind.

I thought about the 12-24 instead of the 16-35 but i had to be honest with my photographic needs.  If on a hike the weight savings would be nice for the 16-35.  In addition the other lens I was considering was the Zeiss 21.  The reason I thought the 16-35 would be a better choice for me was twofold.  First the Nikon lens performs well- especially at the equivalent focal length of 21mm.  Second I would use it for landscape and that means stopped down.  So overall the quality difference between the Zeiss or even the 12-24 may not be worth the extra cost- especially if I'm not making huge prints

So you are right-  my challenge is to re look at my kit completely from scratch- only doing so without being able to test or try before making a commitment.

Thanks again for all advice or insight

[toprock03]

I am surprised to hear you say that the Nikkor 24-70 is lighter than the Sigma 24-105. I don't have my Nikkor 24-70 anymore, so can't do a comparison, but that's not my recollection.

Sorry for not being clear- I meant I was under the impression the sigma was heavier than the Nikon 24-120.  That may not be the case either

[peterottaway]

I have the Nikon 28/1.8,35/1.8,60/2.8 and 85/1.8 as my basic set of primes - never that interested in 50mm. My most used lenses are the 28mm and the 60mm not that the 35mm is a bad lens it is just that the 28mm is a more natural fit for me.

There was some commentary around when the 28mm first came out that the lens was suspect at middle apertures but I have had no trouble with my copy and have used it to print up to A2+. Sometimes people get caught out by lens curvature and don't / won't change their snapshot style of shooting but I've had no real problems with landscape shooting, Can't really say much about its performance wide open as I don't use f 1.8 or f 2.0.