So what lenses would you buy?

So I have decided to go with the d800 and will be needing some new lenses (currently shooting with canon). I

have about 1200 to spend and im looking for a 24 or 28mm, 50mm, and a 85mm prime lens (any brand). I was thinking about the

24-120 f4 but have read some nasty stuff about sharpness and distortion, and I have pretty much decided to buy

and have decided not to buy every prime lens. So im looking for a little outside advice.

<p>For $1200, and assuming new lenses only, I'd buy a 28/1.8G and an 85/1.8G. But I don't really understand your question -- you say you're looking for these three prime lenses, then say you've decided not to buy "every prime lens".</p>

The 50mm 1.8G is an obvious choice, and for 85mm - sometimes you can find a deal on a 1.8D. Cameta has factory

demos for $350. I bought one a while back and it was good as new. I don't know the 28mm lenses as well as those

but as an alternative I'd consider the 24-85mm VR lens. Those three lenses would come in under $1200.

<p>$3000 for a body, $1200 for the lenses. To me, not the best way to divide the budget. I'd strongly consider a D600 instead, and have more budget for lenses.<br>

And it would help if you indicate what kind of photography you do. It could help narrow down choices if there are specific lenses suitable to whatever you're doing.<br>

<br>

The 24-120 f/4VR has got a bit a reputation, but everything I saw this negative reputation is not quite deserved. It's not as good a lens as the 24-70 f/2.8, but that does not make it a bad lens. I would consider it still if it fits your needs and wants. The 24-85VR is indeed also good to consider, but it's not better than the 24-120.<br>

If you want primes instead, the 50 f/1.8G and 85 f/1.8G would be no-brainers to me. For both, I would not get the older "D" versions. Depending on how much is left, either the 28 f/1.8G or a 24 f/2.8D; the latter is not as good but quite a bit cheaper. And if AF is not that important to you, you could check for older MF lenses (i.e. the 105mm f/2.5 is a great portrait lens, and can be found frequently for around $250).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was thinking about the 24-120 f4 but have read some nasty stuff about sharpness and distortion</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR is on my D800 and D700 a lot. As far as I am concerned, its sharpness is excellent. It does have its share of distortion, but so do the 24-70mm/f2.8, which is among Nikon's best zoom lenses, and the new 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR. Most zoom lenses have some distortion. Unless you shoot a lot of architecture and landscape with the horizon near the edge of a frame, even a huge amount of distortion is a non issue in 95+% of my photography, and in these days it is not difficult to correct most of it in post processing, usually automatically.</p>

<p>It is up to you to read, and believe, all the nonsense on the web (including this forum), but I think the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR is an excellent lens. I prefer it over the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S due to the extended range on the long end. Whether f4 is fast enough is up to you to decide. IMO it is a bit slow indoors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>$3000 for a body, $1200 for the lenses. To me, not the best way to divide the budget. I'd strongly consider a D600 instead, and have more budget for lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely. I feel bad that people have $6000 to spend on a D4, $3000 for a D800 and then tell us they have no budget for lenses. Those people are doing something very wrong.</p>

<p>If you have a total of $4200, spending about 50% on the body makes sense. The remaining $2100 can get you the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S plus maybe a couple of f1.8 AF-S lenses. I have both the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S and 50mm/f1.8 AF-S; both are quite good.</p>

<p>There is also the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR at $600. If you get it with the D600, you can get $100 off. That is a fine lens too but also slower.</p>

<p>The new trio AF-S primes at f/1.8 from Nikon is a no brainer: 28-50-85. This is my daily kit on D800. Only on special situations I go to f/1.4 arsenal but the IQ of those f/1.8 primes is amazing and I can live only with this kit.<br>

Later on you can add a magic tele/macro lens: Sigma 150/2.8 and you are settled for most kind of applications.</p>

<p>I'll back up what everyone else said, and really drive it in that you're doing something seriously wrong if you're building a new camera system, and the body is over 2/3 of your budget. It should be the other way around. If you have $3,000 to spend on a body, you should have well over double that to spend on lenses. If I only had a $4,500 to spend on camera gear, I wouldn't even be spending $2,000 on a body. Which brings me to my second point: You need to have a VERY good reason to jump brands. It is a serious investment in which the gains usually aren't worth the cost, and it's usually a case of the grass being greener on the other side, as the gains are not as great as envisioned. What kind of photography do you do, what Canon cameras and gear do you have now, and what are your perceived benefits of the D800 over your current gear, and perhaps a less expensive upgrade option of just filling holes in your Canon setup?</p>

<p>Easy: 28/1.8G, 50/1.4G and 85/1.8G</p>

<p>Add the 24-85 VR and the 70-300 VR, and your got a heck of the versatile kit.</p>

Depends on what/how you like to shoot. I like MF lenses and have purchased great used Nikkor lenses from adorama

and keh. But once I tried the zeiss 100mm f2 macro planar, I had a hard time going back.

 

If you want/need autofocus, you're much better off buying new and only new lenses. I've found the price differntial

between new and used to be so small, it's not worth the risk. My six month old 70-200 vr2 is being repaired under

warranty right now.

<p>Tilden, far be it from me to dissuade you from joining our elite Nikon owner's circle, but if you're already a Canon shooter surely it makes more economic sense to stick with Canon? It's not as if Canon don't have excellent full-frame bodies on offer.</p>

<p>Although the lens I use most is the 50 1.4G, the first AF Nikkor that I bought was the 60 f2.8 D. It's one of my sharpest lenses (The other being the 70-200 VR II). I chose that initially for its versatility - a standard lens that also does macro. But if I were buying now I'd probably opt for the new AFS G version.</p>

<p>Sigma is the brand I'd buy. No-brainer.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Re. RJ's comment, speaking as someone who also came from Canon (300D) to Nikon (D700), I'd say that it can <i>sometimes</i> make sense - in that if, like I was, you're about to upgrade from a crop sensor to full frame, if you're thinking about buying your first expensive lenses, and - in my case - if there's a time pressure on getting a device with certain capabilities (I was going on a holiday that I didn't expect to replicate for a decade or two, the D700 came out just before, the 5D2 came out just after). I'd look at the whole range, though, not just one camera: for example, Canon have the autofocus f/1.2 primes (which I decided I didn't care about); Nikon have the 14-24 and defocus control lenses (which I thought I cared about more than I do). Since I switched system, Canon have produced what may be a nicer macro in the 100mm than Nikon's 105 VR, and they've continued their tilt-shift advantage. Nikon may still do flash better, although the new wireless support on the Canons is interesting; Nikon have filled in some gaps, and the f/1.4 AF-S updates are generally pretty good.<br />

<br />

I'd suggest that switching to Nikon just to get a D800 <i>if</i> you have an extensive Canon selection already might be short-sighted, not that full-frame cameras (usually) turn up very often. I'm sure Canon will consider a similar high-resolution model before long, although given how much trouble people have making the most of 36MP I think they'll have issues going much higher. I'd hope Canon might close the D800's dynamic range advantage over time, too. If your choice is between replacing your low-end Canon kit with high-end Canon kit or with high-end Nikon kit, there's not such an argument to sticking with a system - especially since low-end cameras from both manufacturers handle very differently from the high-end ones anyway.<br />

<br />

That said, I still maintain that a 5D3 is probably a better all-purpose camera than the D800 (whereas there aren't many ways in which the 6D is superior to the D600). The D800 is the better specialist camera, though - if you want what it's good at, particularly resolution and dynamic range, it's <i>very</i> good, and I have no Canon envy when using mine, so don't let us put you off. Come to the dark side, no looking back. (Although I might still pick up an Eos 3 for comedy value, now they're cheap...)</p>

<blockquote>Sigma is the brand I'd buy. No-brainer.</blockquote>

 

<p>Times have changed. :-) Actually, my latest lens is a Sigma (150mm macro), but if we're talking the 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses, there <i>is</i> a trade-off. The bokeh is lovely, but I believe neither (especially the 50mm) is as sharp as the AF-S f/1.4 Nikkors at wide apertures in the corner of a full frame. I chose none of the above, and decided that there was only so much money I wanted to send at a lens with optical compromises that bother me - so I have the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D, the equivalent AF-S (bought shortly after my D800) and an 85mm f/1.4 Samyang (bought before the f/1.8 85mm AF-S was launched) - although the Zeiss 55mm has my attention in a few pay cheques' time. For my style of photography, I stand by my decisions, but I will also stand by the right of others to decide differently. All these lenses have their benefits, and none are perfect for all customers. I'm afraid you have to look at review details and sample images, and make your own choice.</p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>Sigma is the brand I'd buy. No-brainer.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

Y U mad, bro??

<blockquote>

<p>“So what lenses would you buy?”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I switched from another manufacturer to my current Nikon system, I too had a limited budget for lenses. Over a period of time, here is what I purchased and the order in which I purchased them:</p>

<p>1. 35mm<br>

2. 85mm<br>

3. 180mm<br>

4. 24mm</p>

<p>I had to switch manufacturers because my old camera proved to be unreliable. However, since Canon makes very reliable cameras, I also suggest that you stick with Canon.</p>

<p>If you must switch, based on the lenses you mention, here is what I would buy and the order in which I would buy them: </p>

<p>1. 50mm<br>

2. 105mm (85mm is just too close to 50mm for my shooting style)<br>

3. 28mm</p>

<p>If I did not have enough money for all three lenses, I would buy what I could and wait until I accumulated more money for the remainder.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>if we're talking the [sigma] 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses, there <em>is</em> a trade-off. The bokeh is lovely, but I believe neither (especially the 50mm) is as sharp as the AF-S f/1.4 Nikkors at wide apertures in the corner of a full frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the sigma 50/1.4 is a pretty sweet lens. however, for my uses, it rarely sees 5.6,let alone f/4. i generally use it for large aperture shots, where it shines. the sharpness at f/2 is amazing. but i don't shoot landscapes with it, generally. i dont really buy 1.4 lenses for corner performance stopped down.</p>

<p>i also have the sigma 85/1.4. the bokeh s sweet, but mainly got it for the faster AF over the nikon D, although DxO says it has higher IQ. couldn't afford the G version. if i was buying today i might get the nikon 85/1.8 G.</p>

<p>+1 for Dan Brown's lens recommendations. The f/1.8 primes, the 24-85, and the 70-300 sound like great pieces to put around a D600.</p>

<p>Be careful with the 24-120 f/4 VR. I have it, and it is sharp in the center...very sharp. But the distortion in the corners is pretty severe. And the distortion persists in some form throughout the focal range except around 35mm. It's good for travel and snapshots, I like the range and the issues can be fixed quite easily in post, but I picked up a used 24-70 to use for more critical work. If I could go back, I would have probably picked up the less expensive and much lighter 24-85 VR for traveling and snapshots instead. Like others have said, the 24-120 is not bad, but I thought it would be much better so that I could avoid the 24-70. Try it out for yourself. But I'm considering trading the 24-120 for a combo of the 24-85 and the 70-300 for travel.</p>

<p>Just a contributing question: Tamron has a decent price on their 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8s. They come with stabilizers and are quite a bit smaller than their Nikon counterparts. Any idea how they'd perform on a D600 or D800?</p>

<p>The new Tamron 24-70/2.8 according the guys from the Canon side of photozone is on par or better than the latest and greatest Canon 24-70/2.8 USM II. But uses 82mm filters...</p>

The lenses should dictate what body you buy, not the other way around. If you're looking for good boke, and that's really

what you pay for in a lens, you won't find it with a current 50mm Nikon. The 1.4/85mm is a good lens, not sure about the

24's or 35's. perhaps look to Zeiss for the 50.

<blockquote>the sigma 50/1.4 is a pretty sweet lens. however, for my uses, it rarely sees 5.6,let alone f/4. i generally use it for large aperture shots, where it shines. the sharpness at f/2 is amazing. but i don't shoot landscapes with it, generally. i dont really buy 1.4 lenses for corner performance stopped down.</blockquote>

 

<p>I agree, the Sigma is a lovely lens, and I've used one happily - it does have nice bokeh, and it's sharp in the middle of the frame. I just wanted to say that it's not a "no brainer", because I specifically didn't get one because the corners aren't remotely sharp (at any aperture, especially wide open) on FX - I see it as an FX lens optimized for DX coverage, like the Nikon 70-200 VR mark 1. This wasn't just my experience - see Photozone's analysis of the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/616-sigma5014ff?start=1">Sigma</a> and <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/441-nikkor_afs_50_14_ff?start=1">Nikkor</a>. Corner performance may or may not matter to any particular shooter; it <i>does</i> matter to me. Since it's sharp within the DX frame, I do think it's a more convincing no-brainer on DX cameras (for people wanting a fast 50mm). It still has LoCA problems, though, which I'm vaguely hoping that the extortionate Zeiss might fix.</p>

 

<blockquote>i also have the sigma 85/1.4. the bokeh s sweet, but mainly got it for the faster AF over the nikon D, although DxO says it has higher IQ. couldn't afford the G version. if i was buying today i might get the nikon 85/1.8 G.</blockquote>

 

<p>The price put me off the 85 f/1.4 AF-S as well, given how much LoCA that lens has (though it's impressively sharp). If I were buying today, I'd also consider the 85 f/1.8. I've found the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 to be exceptional for the money (half the price of the Sigma and optically at least as good), but since the new 85mm f/1.8 has better bokeh than the AF-D version, I'd now consider the loss of part of a stop to be worth it for autofocus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since it's sharp within the DX frame, I do think it's a more convincing no-brainer on DX cameras (for people wanting a fast 50mm). It still has LoCA problems, though, which I'm vaguely hoping that the extortionate Zeiss might fix.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i don't know that <em>any</em> lens is a no-brainer; there are compromises with just about everything that's out there; it's just a matter of what trade-offs you are willing to accept. for me the Zeiss (and the samyang) would be out of the question as i need AF, and in that regard the sigma 50 is pretty snappy (on D3s) -- fast enough for indoor concert shots. interestingly, i rarely use it on DX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the new 85mm f/1.8 has better bokeh than the AF-D version,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you do realize that's sacrilege, right? the AF-D was known as the "cream machine." </p><div></div>

<blockquote>i don't know that any lens is a no-brainer</blockquote>

 

<p>True - I was humouring Kent. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote><blockquote>the new 85mm f/1.8 has better bokeh than the AF-D version,</blockquote>

 

you do realize that's sacrilege, right? the AF-D was known as the "cream machine."</blockquote>

 

<p>The 85mm <i>f/1.4</i> AF-D is a "cream machine" (although also not very sharp away from the centre) and has nice bokeh. The 85mm <i>f/1.8</i> AF-D is impressively sharp across the frame, but known for ugly bokeh, at least wide open. The 85mm AF-S f/1.4 has nice bokeh and is decently sharp, but for the (unsurprising for an f/1.4 lens) amount of LoCA it has, it wasn't worth the extortionate cost to me. The Samyang is reasonably sharp and has decent bokeh, and was cheap. The 85mm f/1.8 AF-S has good bokeh while still being cheap(ish) and sharp across the frame, but it wasn't out when I got my Samyang.</p>

<p>Here's an example of the 'cream machine' (85 1.4 D). This is a portrait at F4 and ISO 800 on a D800</p><div></div>