Considering lenses for landscape and portrait

Hello, all

I am considering buying a Nikon N80 and combination of lenses mainly

for landscape, portrait and sometimes street and candid. The lenses I

am considering are:

Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Autofocus Lens

Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens

Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens

 

My budget for lenses is $500, and perhaps less, obviously not enough

to buy all of them.

 

It may be a good choice to buy Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF Autofocus

lense. But I don't like the quality and distortion of zoom lense.

 

Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.

 

Thanks & Regards,

-Bo Chen

Bo, zoom lenses of today are very good, far better than the ones of the 70ties. If you choose a medium priced Nikon, not a cheap third party product, you get a lens which delivers very good images, the 24-85 is certainly a good choice. The only thing is, zooms are slower than primes. For portraits or low light situations you sometimes may need a f/1.8 lens. For all of the suggested primes you need a higher budget. I'd recommend start with 1.8/50 and one of the others. Comes time comes another lens. You can also check the used market (eBay e.g.).

Bo, my humble opinion is rather practical: to take a "distorted" pictcure is better that to take no picture at all. I lost too many "magical moments" while I was switching lenses...

Marco,

Don't worry. I have a CoolPix 5400. It can be turned on promptly and I won't miss magical moment. ;-)

 

-Bo Chen

That's a great setup you have planned. You don't have to get them all at once. Landscape, street, candid: 35. Portrait: 85. The lenses are fantastic, I use the same except the 105 DC instead of the 85. I am delighted with the pics from each.

Whether you prefer the convenience of a zoom instead is your personal priorities: weight, cost, convenience etc

<em>"The lenses I am considering are: Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D

Autofocus Lens Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

Autofocus Lens Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens." --Bo Chen<br>

</em><br>

Looks good to me. Id buy this setup before adding a first

zoom. For every shot missed while changing lens theres

going to be a shot missed because a zoom lens was too slow. You

have to anticipate which lens you may need and luck plays its

part.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

My advice would be to invest in fewer lenses, but choose the best glass you can afford. Start small and grow based on your needs, shooting style. And don't forget to consider how much weight you are willing to carry around. I might be getting old. ;)<p>

Which does not necessarily eliminate zoom lenses from the picture. I agree with Marco and have the 24-50mm myself. Not great, but convenient. I appreciate the wider angles for landscapes and street, but may not be as useful for portraiture.<p>

After some time saving, I have been able to indulge myself with a 20mmf2.8 and a 35mmf2 which I prefer over the 24-50. But I still use it every now and then, when switching lenses is not an option.<p>

You may want to consider second hand lenses as an option to reduce cost.<p>

Good shooting,<p>

Jose Luis

I like that setup a lot ;-)

I too would forgo the f/1.4's and get the f/1.8's like you.

 

Is all those about $800-1000? I personally would start with the 50 and perhaps the 24 then expand the other two later before getting the zoom. I'm going that path too with digital, I have a 50/1.8 and a 85/1.8 and wanting now a 20/2.8 (the dan 1.5x FOV). I also have a 80-200/3.5-4.5 D as Galen Rowell likes when set at f/8 abouts.

 

Just thinking I could also do 24 and 85 at the start too. I think its more specialised for landscape and portrait. Thou its bit $$ e than the 50 lens. Or simply just get the 50 one lens to begin with, its in the middle.

This is one of the age-old questions. My first lens for a Nikon AF camera was a 28-

105, and it is still a lens I often use. It can be used as a macro lens as well, so you

get a lot of bang for your buck. If you want to go the prime route, I've gone on trips

with a 35mm f2.0 and an 85mm prime 1.8 and done very well. Adding a 24mm 2.8

would round things out. If that bumps up your budget too much, you could try the

24, 50, and 85 -- getting some 2nd hand, you could probably cut costs. Only thing

is I would strongly counsel AGAINST is getting a used 35mm f2.0D -- so many have

had oil leaks on the blades (causing the diaphragm not to close to your set f stop and

overexposing film) that I would only get this lens new and make sure to send in the

5-yr warranty card.

 

If you're primarily using primes with your N80, you may want to instead consider a

manual camera like the FE-2 -- you can then get some used AI or AIS lenses which

are pretty cheap these days. They make a very nice combination.

 

Have fun!

"The lenses I am considering are: Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Autofocus Lens Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens." --Bo Chen

 

I am a big fan of the 35-70 f2.8 AFD lens, and I would go for one of them first, plus an 85mm f1.8 AFD plus a 24mm f2.8 AFD as money permits. And I would try to get all of them in used but great condition to save money. I know that 35-70mm dosen't sound like much of a range, but the focal length gap from 35mm to 50mm and the gap from 50mm to 85mm are way too much for me.

For $500, I would go for the 24, 50, and 85. Try to get them secondhand in mint condition, except maybe the 50. 24mm = $200 (mint cond, max), 50mm = $100 (new), 85mm = (not sure, but shouldnot be more than $300 secondhand; non-D versions should be cheaper). If you are learning photography like me, then forget about the zooms. Missing a shot shouldnot be a big deal for photography students, unlike pros.

Most of My shots are with the 24-120 (300$ at keh)

plus a 85 f1.8 (200$ at keh)

Don?t need more

please take a look

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=256969

 

saludos

Just to hammer home the consensus, my own AF lens kit is: 24, 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. Start wit the 50/1.8 - not for the learning about photo hairshirt reasons - just because I find it's usefull for both:

 

(1) People shots - you can get "close" enough and blur the backgrounds

 

(2) It's remarkably useful for landscape. Just went to lovely Gaspe Quebec, and at least at this seashore/mountant environment the 50/1.8 was the 'right lens' most of the time.

 

The 35/2 or even 24/2.8 is great for shooting in an urban environment, getting building shots relatively close, shooting a group shot of people in a room, and what not. 35mm is a very popular focal length for good reason. The 35/2 focuses pretty closely, but I don't see it as a substitute for a 50mm in this regard with people shots.

 

Of the mentioned lenses, my 85/1.2 gets the least attention. I'm kind of surprised, but that's the way it is. The 50 is often "tele-enough" for the occassion, I guess.

My favorite combo when dealing with light weight, versatile and sharp people/landscape is 24mm 2.8D and 85mm 1.8D. Both extremely sharp (in fact my wife complains about the 85mm 1.8D showing too much sometimes). 24mm is perfect for great depth of field and wide up close without being to critical about distortion (like 20mm is). The 85 is great for head shots and gives enough tele for long landscapes. I often choose this kit over the heavy "2.8 zoom" pro stuff I also own.

<p>I would also consider the Micro 105mm F/2.8 (instead of the 85). Why? It shares the same filter size with the 24, 35, and 50mm lenses. Makes the hassle when travelling a little bit less ...</p>

<p>(OK there are people saying that the micro is too sharp for portaits - but I never had a problem with that.)</p>

Thanks all for your valuable answers. After reading your answers, I have made up my mind to start with 24mm f/2.8D and 50mm f/1.8D. As time goes on, I will buy 35mm f/2.0D and a tele lense 85mm or 105mm.

Thanks to all again!

-Bo