FX lens combo

<p>I'm considering these three lenses on an FX body to cover two situations.</p>

<ul>

<li>17-35/2.8 + 85/1.8G (+ flash) for indoor use</li>

<li>17-35/2.8 + 70-300mm VR (+ polarizer) for outdoor use</li>

</ul>

<p>What do you think, will I miss 50mm?</p>

<p>Also, is the wide zoom too heavy for hiking? <br />The 70-200/2.8 is more bulk than I'm willing to carry.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the 85mm f1.8g and it is a great lens. Indoors it is quite long, fine for particular situations where it is appropriate, but not for general shooting. Great for portraiture, not good for events.</p>

<p>Your outdoor combo sounds good and it's often what I take (20-35mm in my case).</p>

<p>To me a more appropriate setup would be:<br>

17-35/2.8<br>

50/1.8G<br>

70-200/4</p>

<p>Either package mentioned above would work, but if I had to pick from the two, I'd take the 17-35mm, Sigma 50mm f1.4, and 70-200mm f4.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>+1 Kent's choice.</p>

<p>I already have the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. Here in the UK, the F2.8 is £1650 @1540g <strong>v</strong> £999 @ 850g for the F4</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What do you think, will I miss 50mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't tell whether or not YOU will miss the 50 - I certainly would not! For FX, I carry 16-35/4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.8G. And then add either a 150/2.8 or a 180/3.4. If longer is needed, then I add the 300/4 AF-S. For DX I carry 10.5 fisheye, 11-16, 16-85, 80-400 and either the 35/1.8G DX or 50/1.8G. Possibly replace the 80-400 in the bag with the 70-200/2.8 VR, depending on what I expect to shoot.</p>

<p>If it turns out that you indeed miss the 50mm focal length, it doesn't cost a whole lot of add a 50mm lens. If you miss the 58mm focal length, that is a different story. :-)</p>

<p>Dieter +1. For me, neither combination would really work; I would miss a 50mm, pretty much and I'd hardly have use for the 17-35 (a fixed 35 would do).<br>

It's impossible to tell which combo works for you without knowing your style of photography and what kind of stuff you actually plan to shoot indoors, or outdoors. So I see no use in recommending any kit as it might actually be that a 70-200 f/4 is still too slow and the 17-35/85 combo better covered by a 24-85VR with a flash... all depends on what you really want to achieve with the gear.</p>

<p>The 50mm f/1.8 or so lenses are relatively so inexpensive (especially in good, used condition) and so easy to pop into a pocket, why miss it at all?</p>

<p>I see little use for an f/4 lens. Indoors f/4 is too slow. Outdoors the 70-300 does the same thing at half the price.</p>

<p>Also, 35mm + 50mm + 70 or 85mm seems a little crowded to me. Just my opinion.</p>

 

<p>With ISO going ever higher, you can simply ramp that up with an f4 lens. The 70-200mm outperforms the 70-300mm, except at 300mm. ;-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>As was said- hard to say not knowing what you shoot. I have those lenses. I am mostly outdoors. I retired the 70-300 in favor of the 70-200 f4VR. The 24-70 f2.8 is better for most landscapes. I use the 17-35 for the other 10%. last trip to Zion I carried the 17-35 f2.8, the 24-70 f2.8, and the 70-200 f4. If picking 2 it would be the shorter 2. In that case I can slip in the 75-150 f3.5 series e manual focus since it is so small but so nice.</p>

<p>It seems like you want the really fast apertures. It depends how you are hiking, would you be out for an hour and a bit and then back into a comfy home or hotel or would you be sleeping in a hut carrying food / sleeping bag or in a city hostel after walking and hiking? The 70-200 F4 I guess would be a better lens having not used it myself. It is longer physically than the others. It's a personal take. Some may want zooms only, some may want primes only. For myself my biase would be choose 2 primes and make do / adapt to the equipment. Or two zooms or like you say 1 zoom and 1 prime. I actually chose my 18-35 and 85 when I went to EU once. Fits in a shoulder bag nicely. Tripod needed for sunset/sunrise?</p>

<p>For indoors, I prefer a mid zoom myself. 17-35 might be too wide. Portraits etc right at a cafe, someone's home. Group shots to a single portrait. For my lot, changing lenses can be a disruption for informal stuff. If it was a wedding etc .. then I guess it would be ideal a mid zoom 2.8 and a tele zoom 2.8, 2 camera bodies. For informal stuff I find that a point and shoot might be more preferable. You can enjoy the venue and just take a few snaps. Something like a Fuji X100s or a Ricoh GR or the Nikon 1/J series isn't it .. or even a Sony RX 100. My 2c. With my lot, it's not like they would be requesting 8x12 plus prints.</p>

<p>I at least factor in how much of it do I really do. I don't do much of these family friends stuff and when they do they just want online images so for me, I get away with a mid zoom lens for them so when I do outdoor stuff landscapes I am ok with slow apertures b/c it's F8 or F11 anyway on tripod. Less pain int he wallet and on my back ... I hope to pick up a used X100s or a Ricoh GR maybe in some yrs when second hand, just so much hassle doing social stuff when they don't want pro results a zoom lens over each of your shoulder like an infantry warrior .... for that family picnic lunch (hehehe)..</p>

<p>I would not miss 50mm (I have both recent 50mm f/1.8s but don't use them that much), and on FX I'd have far more use for the 85mm as a portrait lens. I'm not really one for mid-range zooms either, but YMMV - I prefer either to be unusually wide or unusually long focus. I wanted to express some reservations about the Sigma f/1.4 50mm (at least, the current one) on FX - it's a fine lens on DX, but the edges are extremely soft at wider apertures on FX. This may or may not bother you depending on your shooting style (and it probably does have nicer bokeh than the AF-S version). HTH.</p>

<p>I own three 50mm Nikkors, and hardly ever use any of them. For hiking in Kauai last summer, this is what I took with me while hiking with my Nikon D800E:</p>

<p>• AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4.0G VR<br /> • AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF VR</p>

<p>I also had a 50mm f/1.4, but only used it for a few available-light shots at the hotel (which is why I brought it). The 70-300mm is slow but light--I didn't even <em>think</em> about bringing the 70-200mm f/2.8--way too heavy for travel, let alone hiking. All of our activities were in the daytime, so I really didn't need the speed. I kept the 70-300mm in a belt-worn ThinkTank Skin50 lens pouch, and the camera with the 16-35mm mounted around my shoulder. The 16-35mm was a tad heavy, but I liked the versatile focal range and VR capability. I like your 17-35mm/85mm combo. The 85mm is great for singles, and the 17-35mm is great for scenics.</p>

<p>Not saying anyone's wrong, far from it, but it's interesting to see that with the ability to crop images and still retain pretty good IQ, that a whole section of zoom lenses has been written out!</p>

<p>The whole 28-80mm or 35-70mm mid-range zoom has GONE from a carry kit....or maybe it was never there?</p>

<p>I've never tried*, but I'm guessing a 16-35mm lens shot @ 35mm @ 5.6 and then cropped to 50mm is 'worse' than the same scene taken with a 50mm 1.8G @ f5.6??</p>

<p>* I have neither lens!</p>

<p><em>with the ability to crop images and still retain pretty good IQ, that a whole section of zoom lenses has been written out!</em></p>

<p>Well, no. The 24-70/2.8 is Nikon's most popular high end lens. 24-70+70-200 is also a very commonly used pair of lenses. The 17-35 has been discontinued long ago in many parts (not USA though) and the 14-24 while it is popular, at least for me it sits in a closet for months unused. I pick the 14-24 up when I need to help market an apartment, for which it is extremely effective. This happens maybe once in six months. By contrast, 24-70 is easily the most important lens I own.</p>

<p><em>I'm guessing a 16-35mm lens shot @ 35mm @ 5.6 and then cropped to 50mm is 'worse' than the same scene taken with a 50mm 1.8G @ f5.6??</em></p>

<p>Of course. A good (or even just half decent) lens of a longer focal length will easily reproduce more detail than a significantly shorter lens from the same vantage point. The idea behind the 17-35 + 70-200 combination is to cover a broad variety of shots with high image quality using a minimum number of lenses. Personally there is no way I'd choose such a pair for my own use; the 35mm to 105mm range is the most important for my photography and if there is a gap between two zooms it's not going to occupy a significant part of that range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>that a whole section of zoom lenses has been written out!</em><br>

<strong>Well, no.</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, fully agreed! That's what I meant...but equally, no-one has suggested one to the OP have they?</p>

<p>Ilkka: We all have our own ways of shooting. I don't own a fast mid-zoom, and I don't use the slow mid-zoom I do own. My 28-200 was used a lot on my D700, but mostly at the 28mm or 100mm+ ends. I suspect if I owned a 24-70, I'd mostly use it at one end or the other - and I have a 14-24 (which I do use at the 24mm end commonly enough that it's not just a 14mm with an integrated teleconverter). 70mm is neither that long (arguably a bit short for portraits) nor, at f/2.8, that good at background isolation - hence I'd sooner use an 85mm prime or a 70-200. I would (and do) use a 50mm prime in preference to a 24-70, largely because they're light and cheap (mostly), but the 35mm f/1.4 Sigma is a contender in that range. Add to this, the 24-70 is not <i>that</i> good - see comparisons against the (newer) Canon; it keeps the stabilized third-party version honest, but not by much. The D800 launch samples shot with a 24-70 show softness due to field curvature even at f/8. It's just never been a lens that justified its cost to me. It's also a lens that - mostly because it's outdone by the competition and, as you say, a pro staple - I wouldn't be astonished to see Nikon update at some point.<br />

<br />

This isn't to say that the 24-70 is a bad lens, or that it's not useful. But it's definitely a compromise in many ways, despite costing a lot of money. There are reasons some of us aren't lusting over it. (But then, my "most important" lens is probably my 200 f/2, and I'm not going to suggest that everyone needs one of them... As I said, we each have our own priorities.)</p>

<p>For the price of a 24-70/2.8 I can get a 20/2.8 + 35/2 + 50/1.4 + 105/2.8 micro, each being better than the zoom: wider, longer, faster, closer-focusing...</p>

<p>What about that for a modest multi purpose kit?</p>

<p>@OP, I am just relaying the info. The 24-70 is action sport lens. A lot of the primes are not from what I heard. They are slower in AF. Some of those might be 10+ years old and I guess technically not as good as the 24-70 like the 35 F2 and the 20 F2.8. Including the 50mm unless you are getting the G newer model ...</p>

<p>Seems like budget is on your mind. IMO if you want a big fast zoom it is the 24-70 or whatever replaces it in the near future, historically it is due for an upgrade. One moment you are taking a group family photo, next moment maybe a couple then maybe you are wanting a picture of a young child by her/himself and then later you might want a group shot of 50 people. If I am photographing people they would simply get hacked off when I am constantly changing lenses. For me as a cheap skate, I use a 20yr old 35-70 F2.8 not fast AF but does the job and I don't do much people photo's. For my own landscapes I just use a 18-35mm F3.5-4.5 b/c I stop the lens down to F11. My tele not sorted out but looking at a 70-200 F4 simply b/c it is better optical quality however there are second hand F2.8 copies too for the same price (not the current model but you can get the current model 2nd hand for a somewhat lesser price). But I do mainly landscapes on tripod I am looking at a $200 Bronica ETRSi full body kit with a lens - wooo...</p>

<p>But like you say sure, if have the freedom go primes or even manual focus ones. Maybe away from people when not too rushed. But when I travel do I want to bring that many lenses. I mean for me - 18-35 is a good option b/c it is lighter and smaller than some of the 14mm or 18mm primes, LOL. So it is a 18-35, like you I have used a 85 in the past and I could chuck in a 180mm if I wanted cheap and that is like $300, way cheaper than any 70-200mm F2.8 or F4. Instead of that 24-70 for my stuff are fine, my 35-70 F2.8 was $180. I guess the option could have been 35mm F2, and a 50mm and a 85mm and it would still be less than a 24-70 or even the 28-70mm. While those primes older, they might be ok for many users.</p>

<p>I got the 35-70mm for a cheap F2.8 b/c our peers do stuff in dark cafes, homes at night, churches etc .. If you don't do that much dark stuff you can get something else than a F2,8. I am just guessing what sorta stuff you shoot in but it seems that you want fast and faster lenses. For a reason I guess (most) wedding professionals use the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm both F2.8. For a low light scene, fast paced event photography style. Don't miss a shot. Since I just do these stuff out of favou for them .. and they don't look for albums etc ... I can get away by not having a 70-200mm but I find that the mid zoom is the stable diet lens.... If it was a Christmas function or New Yrs and they wanted a group shot of everyone I could then just grab my 18-35 if the 35-70 isn't wide enough and take a few shots of that ONE image up the ISO to ISO 3200 with a F3.5 lens. Wide angle you can get away with a slower shutter speed. And they aren't looking for poster prints.</p>

<p>For the record, to counter Real's suggestion, I'm not saying that there's no benefit to a 24-70 pro zoom. If you're switching your field of view a lot, no matter how good the primes are (and a 35 f/1.4 Sigma and 85 f/1.8 AF-S Nikkor are very good) you're going to miss shots fiddling with the camera.<br />

<br />

For a macro, if I was looking at the 105mm Nikkor, I'd also think carefully about the 150mm Sigma - which gives you a lot more working distance (good if you like shooting insects, not quite so good if you shoot straight down) and doubles as a very nice way to lose the background. The Nikkor is a fine lens, but so are the cheaper third-party macros in the 90-105mm range. That said, while not 70-200 big, the 150mm Sigma is quite a bit heavier (about 50%) than the 105mm Nikkor. Lovely lens, though.<br />

<br />

Whether the 20mm is good enough probably depends how much you use it. (The Zeiss 21mm is exceptional, but that's another matter...) It depends how much you go wider than the 28mm f/1.8 AF-S, and whether the - somewhat less modern - 20mm would suffice. The Sigma 35mm really does seem to be appreciably better than anything else at that length, especially for the money, though I need to calibrate mine. I'm not blown away by anything in the 50mm range, which is why I stuck to f/1.8 options - though I'm still hoping to learn more about Sigma's Otus competitor.<br />

<br />

I'd really contemplate the 35mm f/1.4 Sigma before looking too hard at an f/1.4 Nikkor 50mm; I suspect you'll find you're wasting your camera a bit with a 35mm f/2 unless you're really weight-sensitive. So that's 20mm, 35mm Sigma, 85mm f/1.8, possibly a 105mm-150mm macro, add a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S if you're so inclined. I have an iffy experience with the 135 f/2 DC by the way; my 150mm is my long portrait substitute when my 200 f/2 isn't doing its thing.<br />

<br />

If you're really on a budget (if only for weight), the manual 135 f/2.8 AI-S is at least good enough to justify its small cost. If you want macro with those requirements, the non-stabilized 90mm Tamron is featherweight and cheapish.<br />

<br />

Disclaimer: Of these, I don't have an ultrawide prime option (though I'm tempted to get a 20mm for when I don't want to carry my 14-24), I do have the 35mm Sigma but only recently, I have the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S and AF-D, I don't have the 85 f/1.8 Nikkor but only because the AF-S wasn't out when I bought the Samyang, I have the 90mm Tamron, I didn't try the 105mm micro-Nikkor, I tried and discarded the 135mm Nikkor, and I have the 150mm Sigma. Please take my advice with an appropriate pinch of salt, but I hope it helps.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For the price of a 24-70/2.8 I can get a 20/2.8 + 35/2 + 50/1.4 + 105/2.8 micro, <em>each being better than the zoom</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>now this is just silly. and subjective. a 24-70 is obviously going to be better in situations where one doesnt have time to switch lenses and high performance is needed. and primes are obviously going to be better in situations where more specialized lenses are appropriate. as a do it all lens, though, the 24-70 is pretty good. the only lens on that list which is capable of smoking it optically is the 105/2.8, which is no speed demon when it comes to AF.</p>