D750 walk around zoom

[synn]

That will probably remain the case until they can make a 16-200 f/2.8 as sharp as Canon's 24-70, and with a nine-bladed aperture.

It will be the size of a 600 f/4 and probably cost as much too.

[kers]

Both the art Sigmas (35 f1.4 and 50 f1.4) are very well seen optically, BUT they are huge.....

OK - agreed it is heavy- then i would take the Nikon 50 1.8G - 190g
I still have it for its size and weight.
Optically i like it better than the 1.4G  and autofocus speed is much faster...wide open not so fuzzy
Also it is very cheap.

[jwstl]

I use the 24-120 f/4 more than any other lens on my D800e and I have quite a few lenses. it is the perfect "walk around" lens if you don't need one 2.8. I read a number of reviews against the Sigma and the 2 lenses were close in performance but the Nikon won for me because of the slightly longer reach.

As for the 70-200 f/4 vs. the 70-300...I have both and the 70-300 is pretty darn good from 70-200 but not so great from 200-300. But it is a nice, inexpensive zoom for travel. I take mine when I travel with a DX body. The 70-200 f/4 on the other hand, is simply amazing. The first time I shot it and looked at the images in Lightroom I was completely blown away. It's sharp, contrasty, and produces beautiful colors. It's also fairly light and easy to hand hold which is nice because it doesn't come with a tripod collar. I never bothered to get one because I haven't needed it. I think it might be the best telephoto zoom Nikon makes. I'd say it's the best zoom they make but there's the 14-24...

[armand]

So I got the D750 with the 24-120 F4, the 70-200 F4 and 50 1.8G.

I still have to get around few settings but coming from a D90 is quite easy to start and do things without a manual. It was out in the snow storm but I didn't realize most of my shots were ISO 5000 and above; some around 10000 look quite good though.

Some quick testing showed significantly faster and more accurate continuous autofocus in low light. Single focus compared to the X-T1 in low light around the house is not that much faster than I thought, the X-T1 is quite dependent on the lens though.
I compared the Fuji 35 1.4 on X-T1, the 35 1.8G DX on D90 and the 50 1.8G and 1.8D on D750. Single focus is comparable. The 56 1.2 on the X-T1 is slower.

Otherwise I am not that impressed. The X-T1 holds his own on higher ISO shots. And I never realized how sharp the Fuji lenses really are, particularly wide open. The saving grace for the D750 is the big advantage in resolution, bigger than I thought it will be. If Fuji goes to 24MP things will change.


Back to the lenses I though hard if I should get the 16-35 F4 VR as it was on sale. I decided against for several reasons, and I might get the 18-35 3.5-4.5, and price was not one of them:
- big, twice as heavy as the 18-35 3.5-4.5
- not that sharp above 30 mm
- I don't use wider than 24 that much, so the 16 mm vs 18mm (or 18 vs 20 once you correct for the distortion) is not that important
- the 18-35 seems to be as sharp or sharper in the corners once stopped down
- the 18-35 will fit better in a light hiking kit (18-35, 50, 70-200) as it's sharper in the upper range
- the 18-35 seems to have enough weather sealing to be competitive
- VR will be missed though but I will likely have a tripod with me if it's a photo oriented trip




Overall I'll likely be happy with kit but the Fuji is more competitive than I thought, it needs few improvements and the autofocus is the main one.

[armand]

here is one at ISO11400 which came better than I expected. I didn't know it chose such a high ISO.

PS. not to be judged on the artistic merit