Upgraded to Nikon D750, lens question

[dkhillerud]

Hello, I recently upgraded from my Nikon D7200 to a Nikon D750. I primarily used a Tamron 17-50 mm 2.8 lens for my Disney trips. I would bring my Nikon 85 mm 1.8 lens for parades at night but didn't end up using it all that much. I also have my Nikon 70-200 mm 2.8 lens that I have brought occasionally but let's be real, that sucker is heavy!

Anyway, my Tamron lens is obviously for a crop sensor camera so that is retired. I bought a Sigma 35 mm 1.4 art lens and I love it! I'm not sure however if just that lens alone will be fine for Disney? Anyone with any thoughts, should I invest in a new zoom lens for the new camera? What do you primarily shoot with?

Thanks for any thoughts, suggestions!

 

[mom2rtk]

I shoot Canon, but I had the same issue when I went full frame. My favorite 17-55 f/2.8 was crop only. I bought the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and have loved it. Great in low light, very sharp. It filled the same need as my old crop lens did. I assume there's one available in Nikon mount.

I find that, in general, I need some zoom at Disney, where it's often too crowded to zoom with my feet.

 

[dkhillerud]

I shoot Canon, but I had the same issue when I went full frame. My favorite 17-55 f/2.8 was crop only. I bought the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and have loved it. Great in low light, very sharp. It filled the same need as my old crop lens did. I assume there's one available in Nikon mount.

I find that, in general, I need some zoom at Disney, where it's often too crowded to zoom with my feet.

Thanks! I've been thinking about the Tamron 24-70 vs the Nikon 24-70. I loved my 17-55 lens, so figure I would like the other Tamron just fine too. How many lenses do you bring on average, just the zoom or do you bring others? I typically bring just one. I haven't shot much with the new 35 mm lens but what I have shot is awesome. The colors are unreal. Trying to decide if it's worth it to haul two lenses around.

 

[mom2rtk]

Thanks! I've been thinking about the Tamron 24-70 vs the Nikon 24-70. I loved my 17-55 lens, so figure I would like the other Tamron just fine too. How many lenses do you bring on average, just the zoom or do you bring others? I typically bring just one. I haven't shot much with the new 35 mm lens but what I have shot is awesome. The colors are unreal. Trying to decide if it's worth it to haul two lenses around.

I usually bring one other lens in a backpack each day. My choice varies depending on where we're going that day. Sometimes a fisheye, sometimes my 70-200 f/4 (I opted against the 2.8 because of the weight). Sometimes I bring the 50mm f/1.8 but honestly I'm just not a prime gal. I tend to prefer my zooms.

 

[havoc315]

As a former D750 owner and avid Disney photography shooter..... Let me tell you that you really don't *need* a standard zoom lens.
In fact, my favorite simple travel kit (for Disney and other travel), is an ultrawide lens (zoom or prime) and a normal-prime lens.
So if I was going to add anything to your bag, it would be ultrawide. (the Nikon 18-35 is an affordable high quality lens for that purpose).

You can read more about my 2 lens philosophy here:

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/the-two-lens-travel-solution/

 

[dkhillerud]

As a former D750 owner and avid Disney photography shooter..... Let me tell you that you really don't *need* a standard zoom lens.
In fact, my favorite simple travel kit (for Disney and other travel), is an ultrawide lens (zoom or prime) and a normal-prime lens.
So if I was going to add anything to your bag, it would be ultrawide. (the Nikon 18-35 is an affordable high quality lens for that purpose).

You can read more about my 2 lens philosophy here:

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/the-two-lens-travel-solution/

Thank you! I really enjoyed your blog post, very well written with an objective point of view. I think an ultrawide might be just what I need to push my photography (at Disney and otherwise) into a different direction. "Instead of just being images of the scene, they are images that bring you into the scene." This statement really stuck out to me. While I do enjoy capturing the smaller details, I feel I may often be leaving out the bigger more immersive picture. I'm going to go and read a few more of your blog posts. Great info!

 

[mom2rtk]

Thank you! I really enjoyed your blog post, very well written with an objective point of view. I think an ultrawide might be just what I need to push my photography (at Disney and otherwise) into a different direction. "Instead of just being images of the scene, they are images that bring you into the scene." This statement really stuck out to me. While I do enjoy capturing the smaller details, I feel I may often be leaving out the bigger more immersive picture. I'm going to go and read a few more of your blog posts. Great info!

I'm not a prime kind of a shooter. I've tried, but I just am not. But I am absolutely in agreement with the ultra wide suggestion. It's a great next step for you.

 

[dkhillerud]

I'm not a prime kind of a shooter. I've tried, but I just am not. But I am absolutely in agreement with the ultra wide suggestion. It's a great next step for you.

Honestly, I'm not sure if I'm a prime kind of shooter or not! I'll give it a try and see. I figure if I try it and it doesn't end up working like I'm used to I'll switch. I'm hesitant since I'm so used to the tamron lens I've always had and have been super happy with it, but maybe the prime lens will force me to push my knowledge and composition some?

 

[havoc315]

I'm not a prime kind of a shooter. I've tried, but I just am not. But I am absolutely in agreement with the ultra wide suggestion. It's a great next step for you.

Prime shooting isn't for everyone. Takes a slightly different mindset. A prime shooter will miss some shots by not being able to zoom out fast enough. A prime shooter needs to rely more on foot zoom, and more on cropping in post. A prime shooter may need to change lenses more often.

On the other hand -- Shooting prime forces you to be more thoughtful of the composition, often leading to better photos. A prime lens will open the door to higher quality photos, for a few reasons. 1. Even a mid-level prime is sharper than a high priced zoom. (though this is a minor difference, most people can't really tell the difference). 2. The prime, typically being faster, will allow for faster shutter speeds and lower ISO-- so less motion blur, less grain. 3. Similar to 2... for Disney, prime can shoot dark rides better than a zoom. 4. For travel, a prime will typically be lighter weight than any zoom approaching equivalence. 5. Prime obviously gives you better control over DOF and bokeh.

So like all things, it's a trade off.
But for me..... If I'm shooting an ultrawide like 12-24 or 16-35, AND a prime like a 35mm or 50mm (on full frame)..... Then I'm really covering a great range. Using the 16-35 + 50mm, for example: I can easily crop the 35mm to fill the gap from 35 to 50. And I can easily crop the 50mm to give me up to 75mm and still have plenty of resolution. So I'm effectively covering 16-75mm.

 

[mom2rtk]

Prime shooting isn't for everyone. Takes a slightly different mindset. A prime shooter will miss some shots by not being able to zoom out fast enough. A prime shooter needs to rely more on foot zoom, and more on cropping in post. A prime shooter may need to change lenses more often.

On the other hand -- Shooting prime forces you to be more thoughtful of the composition, often leading to better photos. A prime lens will open the door to higher quality photos, for a few reasons. 1. Even a mid-level prime is sharper than a high priced zoom. (though this is a minor difference, most people can't really tell the difference). 2. The prime, typically being faster, will allow for faster shutter speeds and lower ISO-- so less motion blur, less grain. 3. Similar to 2... for Disney, prime can shoot dark rides better than a zoom. 4. For travel, a prime will typically be lighter weight than any zoom approaching equivalence. 5. Prime obviously gives you better control over DOF and bokeh.

So like all things, it's a trade off.
But for me..... If I'm shooting an ultrawide like 12-24 or 16-35, AND a prime like a 35mm or 50mm (on full frame)..... Then I'm really covering a great range. Using the 16-35 + 50mm, for example: I can easily crop the 35mm to fill the gap from 35 to 50. And I can easily crop the 50mm to give me up to 75mm and still have plenty of resolution. So I'm effectively covering 16-75mm.

My problem is that I like cropping off the 70mm end of my 24-70 already and still feel somewhat limited by that. That and the fact that most of what I do is on the fly. That's especially true for me at Disney.

But I do feel limited by having less control over DOF/bokeh.

I'm enjoying the lens discussion though. You do have me thinking about an ultra wide zoom. The widest I have available for my FF right now is 16mm (using the only FF usable length in my old Tokina 11-16 f/2.8).

And you also have me thinking about a higher quality prime. I just sold a couple I wasn't using much.

 

[havoc315]

My problem is that I like cropping off the 70mm end of my 24-70 already and still feel somewhat limited by that. That and the fact that most of what I do is on the fly. That's especially true for me at Disney.

But I do feel limited by having less control over DOF/bokeh.

I'm enjoying the lens discussion though. You do have me thinking about an ultra wide zoom. The widest I have available for my FF right now is 16mm (using the only FF usable length in my old Tokina 11-16 f/2.8).

And you also have me thinking about a higher quality prime. I just sold a couple I wasn't using much.

Ultrawide has become much more popular than it used to be, with so many great first and third party options.
And for primes, third parties have really stepped up with some phenomenal affordable glass, especially with Tamron and Sigma.

I haven't been to Disney since 2016 -- it was Nikon D750 at the time. Going this summer, and I'm already contemplating my camera bag. (Sony FF these days).
If I stick to my own philosophy, it would be 12-24 + 35/1.8 and/or 55/1.8.
I often avoid a telephoto zoom when traveling --I miss a few shots, but not worth the weight. My own current telephoto zoom is 70-200/4... I could pack it, but would only use it at Animal Kingdom.
I'm strongly considering a bag full of primes. I recently treated myself to a 135/1.8 -- Fantastic amazing lens, costing a small fortune. It's really more my portrait lens, not a travel lens. (also kinda heavy).
But I'm seriously considering: 12-24 + 35/1.8 + 55/1.8 + 85/1.4 + 135/1.8 --- Probably not all 4 of those primes, but 3 out of the 4. (the 35 and the 135, and either the 55 or the 85). Then just bringing 2 lens per day into the parks.
On my last major vacation, I had my large camera bag for air travel. But then a small sling, for walking around. Kept the camera on my shoulder, and the small sling bag had 1-2 additional lenses and/or flash, plus DJI osmo pocket.

Question is..... How do I feel about taking a camera into Disney *without* a camera bag in which to store it.

 

[mom2rtk]

Ultrawide has become much more popular than it used to be, with so many great first and third party options.
And for primes, third parties have really stepped up with some phenomenal affordable glass, especially with Tamron and Sigma.

I haven't been to Disney since 2016 -- it was Nikon D750 at the time. Going this summer, and I'm already contemplating my camera bag. (Sony FF these days).
If I stick to my own philosophy, it would be 12-24 + 35/1.8 and/or 55/1.8.
I often avoid a telephoto zoom when traveling --I miss a few shots, but not worth the weight. My own current telephoto zoom is 70-200/4... I could pack it, but would only use it at Animal Kingdom.
I'm strongly considering a bag full of primes. I recently treated myself to a 135/1.8 -- Fantastic amazing lens, costing a small fortune. It's really more my portrait lens, not a travel lens. (also kinda heavy).
But I'm seriously considering: 12-24 + 35/1.8 + 55/1.8 + 85/1.4 + 135/1.8 --- Probably not all 4 of those primes, but 3 out of the 4. (the 35 and the 135, and either the 55 or the 85). Then just bringing 2 lens per day into the parks.
On my last major vacation, I had my large camera bag for air travel. But then a small sling, for walking around. Kept the camera on my shoulder, and the small sling bag had 1-2 additional lenses and/or flash, plus DJI osmo pocket.

Question is..... How do I feel about taking a camera into Disney *without* a camera bag in which to store it.

I actually do something similar. I bring a few lenses in a rolling backpack for air travel, but have a much more comfy traditional backpack to use in the parks. I typically take one lens on the camera plus one in the bag. Most days it's my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 on the camera 95% of the time. Sometimes I bring a fisheye as my second lens for some fun different shots. Other days I put in the 70-200 f/4. I love using it for shows. On our recent 10 day trip I think I brought it 3 days.

I typically don't go bagless, but on our RotR early morning, we got it down to my camera plus my daughter's small purse. So no backpack (I did put a plastic baggie in her purse to stow the camera in case of rain). I enjoyed that, but was amused when we got on RnR and they stopped the car at launch to tell me I needed to stow the camera. Uh, sorry. Nowhere to stow it! I wasn't planning on shooting on that ride (one of the only ones I don't) but she didn't know that. She finally let us go and just said to make sure I held on to it. Yeah, that was the idea.

I've been so settled on my lenses for a while that I haven't kept up with the new third party offerings. I really need to take a look. Your 135/1.8 sounds very appealing!

 

[dkhillerud]

I love the 70-200 for shows as well. I opted for the expensive 2.8 version because I need it for sports photography in high school gyms. I'm thinking maybe I could be trying the 85 mm more for shows? Much lighter to carry around. I've used it a few times for nighttime parades but not much during the day. I primarily got that lens for taking senior pictures.

I'm leaning towards renting an ultra-wide lens for our next trip this summer. I think that might be a good starting point vs buying one. I've never shot ultra-wide so figure renting might be a good place to start? An interesting question for either of you, if you were renting an ultra-wide which one would you try out?

mom2trk what prime lens did you sell if you don't mind me asking? What do you think you would try if you ever did decide to try another prime?

I always have a small backpack with me in the parks. My family ends up getting annoyed with me and my photographs after awhile! I end up putting the camera away at some point to maintain peace!

 

[havoc315]

I actually do something similar. I bring a few lenses in a rolling backpack for air travel, but have a much more comfy traditional backpack to use in the parks. I typically take one lens on the camera plus one in the bag. Most days it's my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 on the camera 95% of the time. Sometimes I bring a fisheye as my second lens for some fun different shots. Other days I put in the 70-200 f/4. I love using it for shows. On our recent 10 day trip I think I brought it 3 days.

I typically don't go bagless, but on our RotR early morning, we got it down to my camera plus my daughter's small purse. So no backpack (I did put a plastic baggie in her purse to stow the camera in case of rain). I enjoyed that, but was amused when we got on RnR and they stopped the car at launch to tell me I needed to stow the camera. Uh, sorry. Nowhere to stow it! I wasn't planning on shooting on that ride (one of the only ones I don't) but she didn't know that. She finally let us go and just said to make sure I held on to it. Yeah, that was the idea.

I've been so settled on my lenses for a while that I haven't kept up with the new third party offerings. I really need to take a look. Your 135/1.8 sounds very appealing!

Kinda off topic....... Because it's winter, haven't used the 135mm too much yet, but a breathtaking portrait lens..

_DSC3407_Luminar4-edit.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

[dkhillerud]

Wow!! That is impressive!!

 

[havoc315]

I love the 70-200 for shows as well. I opted for the expensive 2.8 version because I need it for sports photography in high school gyms. I'm thinking maybe I could be trying the 85 mm more for shows? Much lighter to carry around. I've used it a few times for nighttime parades but not much during the day. I primarily got that lens for taking senior pictures.

I'm leaning towards renting an ultra-wide lens for our next trip this summer. I think that might be a good starting point vs buying one. I've never shot ultra-wide so figure renting might be a good place to start? An interesting question for either of you, if you were renting an ultra-wide which one would you try out?

mom2trk what prime lens did you sell if you don't mind me asking? What do you think you would try if you ever did decide to try another prime?

I always have a small backpack with me in the parks. My family ends up getting annoyed with me and my photographs after awhile! I end up putting the camera away at some point to maintain peace!

For the Nikon D750..... I'd just buy the 18-35, very light weight, high quality, and very affordable. Been around a long time so you can buy it used. If you don't like it, just re-sell it ---- Cheaper than renting!

If I was going to rent, then I'd go with a "dream lens".....
The Nikon 14-24/2.8 used to be the gold standard for ultrawide photography.. it's showing it's age compared to newer lens, but still an amazing lens. (but beware, it's big and heavy).

I'd also look at the Tamron 15-30, and the Sigma 12-24/4 ART.

 

[havoc315]

D850 + Nikon 18-35:

Roosevelt Island Tram by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Disney Fantasy at sunset by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Nowadays, 18mm isn't wide enough for me. But it's plenty wide for an ultrawide newbie.

 

[mom2rtk]

It wasn't even so much the expense of the 2.8 long zoom that put me off. It was the weight. Just knowing myself, I knew I'd be less inclined to actually bring it out and use it. And definitely less likely to bring it to the parks. My Canon 6D is so good at higher ISO that I can use the f/4 even in low light. But as mentioned I do find myself withing for more DOF.

I sold my 28mm/1.8 and my 85mm/1.8. I wanted to use the 28 for dark rides at Disney but honestly, just never had great luck with it. Not sure if it was a focus issue or what, but I decided to let it go.

I had bought the 85 to do senior photos. And my daughter graduated last year so that was done. I thought about keeping it for parades and shows, but it's only 15mm longer than my 24-70/2.8 and I can crop to get there. Can't crop to get the bokeh, but I was stopping down the 85mm a bit already, something I didn't have to do with the Tamron 2.8 lens.

I really haven't done much research yet on the wide angle options for my Canon. What I'd really like is a higher quality fast prime. Something with IS (because I have unsteady hands). Sigma has a 24mm/1.4 but as always I'll have to do my thinking on weight/size.

I absolutely agree with Havoc on buying something used then selling it if you don't like it. I've bought and sold many through the years and rarely lose anything on them. Sometimes I even make a few bucks.

 

[mom2rtk]

@havoc315 Those are spectacular shots! I think you're going to love that 135. Very tempting!

 

[dkhillerud]

Gorgeous shots! I'm going to look for a used copy of that lens, I think you're right, cheaper than renting and can sell if I change my mind. Good point!

So many awesome lenses out there, Its always hard to know what to try next! Thank you both for the conversation, its been very helpful!