Comments requested on a plan for lenses

Hi guys

 

Have been thinking about an end-game for my bag of lenses so that I buy with a

plan and, after much reading and the odd comment from this site, have settled

on a core set which I'd be grateful for your views on.

 

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8

 

Nikon 35mm f/2.0

 

Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (already have)

 

Nikon 70-200mm VR f/2.8

 

What are your thoughts and in what order would you get these?

 

As well as the 50mm prime I also own the 18-200VR, which at some stage I will

want to sell or trade in. I've only had it for a few months so it is if very

good condition.

 

And are there any other lenses that you would consider after this initial

setup? eg 85mm f/1.4 or 135mm f/2.0 to give me really fast at the long end of

things?

I'd add one zoom and one prime..

 

 

ZOOM: 28-70mm 2.8 AFS to fill the gap between 14-24mm and 70-200mm.

 

PRIME: 85mm 1.4D (just because ;)

I think your set up is just fine. While many like the 28-70 or 24-70 I have never been a fan of that zoom range thats just me. My Nikon kit looked a like what you want.

I would say "Get what you need when you need it."

 

There is NO such thing as an end game for lenses. There are always new lenses around the corner, and those new lenses may or may not be better suited to what you need. So, if your 50mm and 18-200mm are not meeting your needs, I'd try to identify exactly what need those two lenses are not meeting. Then buy a lens accordingly.

 

If you have an upcoming wedding and need reach and f2.8, then the 70-200mm makes sense as the next purchase. OTOH, if you have an immediate need to shoot something wider than 18mm, then the 14-24mm makes more sense as the next purchase.

I was in your situation MORE than ones, and "finally" have all the lenses I "need" and I'm very happy with that set-up.

 

10.5mm 2.8D FISHEYE

 

14mm 2.8D

 

35mm 2D

 

85mm 1.4D

 

105mm 2.8D MICRO

 

300mm 4D AFS

 

and only two zooms

 

28-70mm 2.8D AFS and 80-200mm 2.8D AFS

 

with all those lenses you can take pretty much any kind of picture you can imagine.

I search and research before buying every single one and IMO they are all GREAT lenses.. HIGHLY recommend you any of those lenses and the set up.

One of my clear needs in the next 6 months will be a lens with which I can capture indoors and outdoors.

 

More specifically:

 

Track cycling inside a velodrome; and

 

Outdoor (road) cycling and other olympic sports.

 

Alongside this primary need will be the desire to have high quality/flexible glass for travels through China/Nepal/Tibet.

Now you're talking...

<p><p><i><b>

Indoors and outdoors... Track cycling inside a velodrome...

Outdoor (road) cycling and other olympic sports.

</i></b><p><p>

Assuming you can get close enough, then the 70-200mm/2.8 AFS VR is your first lens. If you need more reach, it pairs nicely with the TC-14e or TC-17e.

<p><p>

<i><b>...for travels through China/Nepal/Tibet.</i></b>

<p><p>

For thw WA needs, if you have a DX body, then the 12-24mm remains a very good choice, unless you absolutely must have the 14-24mm. For people & local flavor, the 18-200mm should hold up fine. To be honest, I don't know why you'd need the 35mm/2.

Keith - strong bias towards the fast glass is because I have had the 18-200 for all of about 8 weeks and already am frustrated with its low light ability.

 

Many of my favourite travel shots (taken prior to my SLR days) come in low or variable light conditions. Some examples:

 

- pictures taken in markets in Malaysia under tarpaulins or hessian cloth shanty roofs;

 

- pictures taken in archways or temple entrances in Japan;

 

- Pictures taken dawn or dusk in dense Aussie rainforests.

 

Hence my willingness to fork over my hard earned Pacific Pesos (Aussie $$) for the f/2.8 and below glass.

14-24 lens is far too specialized for most people. ultra-ultra-wide on D3, great for that, but

no filters, only ultra-wide on DX, 12-24 DX is WAY better choice for that... and on FF, the

17-35 is a better choice for most photography.

 

You don't say if you're shooting DX or FX as far as I can tell. But you list FF lenses, so I'm

assuming you want to stick with that. I'd look carefully at the 24-80. You are describing

some "travel" conditions, and I think a bunch of primes is WAY inferior to a great zoom in

those cases. too much lens changing. too many missed shots.

Hi, this is what I have now for travelling/ general purpose:

 

D 80 body

 

17-35 AFS very nice and solid construction, 77 mm filter

 

85 f1,4 AFD for portraits and low light performance , 77 mm filter

 

If I add a film (full frame) body for backup, I already covered for 17-125 mm focal length (actual or equivalent).

 

Then maybe a 180mm f 2,8 AFD for sport, if you prefer more compact lens.

 

Hope this give you an idea..

If 18-200mm is your required range then maybe you should look into the 17-35mm f2.8 with your 50mm f1.4. If weight is a concern then maybe the 180mm instead of the 70-200mm f2.8. It looks like you have a DX format.

Sorry yes, should have specified that I am currently shooting with a D80 and yearning for a D300 which I'll probably get at bonus-time next year ( coincidentally just a few weeks before the trip).

 

The key reason for 14-24 rather than 12-24 is speed - the f/2.8 rather hand, from memory, f/4.0+. But yes, the 17-35 or 17-55 have also crossed my mind, and I can get an ultra-wide prime if I need to.

 

I can't recall yet having wanted to go wider than the 18mmm that my current set-up allows me (but then again I am aware that one thinks possibilities according to their tools so maybe I'm just craving to go wide but don't yet know it!)