Choosing a lenses ... for FX Camera

So, basically I am at loss:(

 

Want to buy a prime lens for D750... but can't decide on what is more optimal solution

Money wise - one lens for now. Maybe later on, I get more, but for now - it is only one.

 

My dilemma:

I have a Nikon 24-120/f4

I like shooting (a) concerts (b) outdoors - nature, landscapes, etc.. and © Sometimes when I get a chance - portraits, model, fashion. (not in a studio but ... twice, I went to the studio with the friend, and I am starting to like it. Though, this move is not in immediate plans. I just go out with models in various settings and take pictures on streets, outdoors again, or bar settings

 

The help I need with 2 things.

First, - what is a better focus distance for the first prime:

a) - 28-35mm

b) - 45-50-55mm (60??)

d) - 85-90mm?

 

I already own Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm from my DX-format days. I kind of can use it on my D750.. but I get win-getting ...

But if someone can suggest a solution for that ... I understand that this lens may become a 50mm on the FX,,, So still .. any advice, please ?

 

Second dilema that I have, is that in the attached images, I try to compare models and do not understand if the difference worth the price. I group them by categories.

 

I understand that the G lens is ultimately a D lens, and that an AF lens will auto focus on the D750 camera that I have as much as AF-S lens. Question is

Is the ED lens so much better to justify the $200 difference in price (on a 35mm category in pictures bellow) ?

Is the f1.4 so much better than 1.8 in a 50mm category?

And .. what is the real difference in the 85mm category? I think the $1.6K is also an ED lens...

 

- I can make myself afford the 50mm for a $400, but is it worth, given I already have the 35mm DX?

- I can stretch and save some lunch money to go the the 35mm ED lens for $600, or

- with cheaper version of 85mm .. (unfortunately no $1.6K) ..

 

- And given my interests I mentioned above, what would be the more optimal choice ?

Now, I do not limit myself to Nikon, ... if you think Tamron or Sigma in a certain focus distance category is better for the same price .. please do advise.

 

35mm DX won't work in full frame. The 35mm DX is equiv to a 50mm in full frame.

 

My 2c. Moving forward I would look at the newer versions rather than the AF-D lenses, the glass it quite a bit improved ... I would personally go with the AF-S F1.8 versions better bang for dollar than the F1.4.

The 50 1.8 is an excellent performer and value. It is also worth your time to look at some of the older FX AF lenses. Check the used selection - both AF and AIS at any of the major online camera sales sites. I have both types of Nikon lenses and they work beautifully on my D 750 - my 180 2.8 AI is absolutely superb as is the 135 2.8 AI, and either can be had for very little.

35mm DX won't work in full frame. The 35mm DX is equiv to a 50mm in full frame.

 

My 2c. Moving forward I would look at the newer versions rather than the AF-D lenses, the glass it quite a bit improved ... I would personally go with the AF-S F1.8 versions better bang for dollar than the F1.4.

 

It works, that's what I meant. It becomes 50mm (or so) and so I question if it is worth buying a 50mm, and forgetting the existing 35mm dx? Or would it be better to buy, le's say - an 85mm... or a FX-35mm ?

The 85mm/f1.8 G AF-S lens is a good choice for portrait. Perhaps add a 24mm/f1.8 AF-S also.

35 mm is always 35 mm, whether FX or DX. A DX lens has a smaller image circle, and will vignette badly if used on an FX camera. Due to the cropping factor of the smaller sensor, a 35 mm lens will have roughly the same field of view as a 50 mm lens on an FX camera.

 

Any lens in the range of 24 mm to 90 mm is useful for landscapes, in fact I find I use a focal length of 50 mm for half of my shots. I have lenses covering 16 mm to 400 mm, but these aren't used as much as the range I cited.

 

I suggest you consider a 24-70 zoom with an f/4 aperture. It's smaller, lighter and half the cost of an f/2.8 lens, and in fact, than a set of prime lenses to cover the same range, F/4 is more than adequate for routine photography. Your second lens might be a 70-200, also f/4 for the same reasons.

35 mm is always 35 mm, whether FX or DX. A DX lens has a smaller image circle, and will vignette badly if used on an FX camera. Due to the cropping factor of the smaller sensor, a 35 mm lens will have roughly the same field of view as a 50 mm lens on an FX camera.

 

Any lens in the range of 24 mm to 90 mm is useful for landscapes, in fact I find I use a focal length of 50 mm for half of my shots. I have lenses covering 16 mm to 400 mm, but these aren't used as much as the range I cited.

 

I suggest you consider a 24-70 zoom with an f/4 aperture. It's smaller, lighter and half the cost of an f/2.8 lens, and in fact, than a set of prime lenses to cover the same range, F/4 is more than adequate for routine photography. Your second lens might be a 70-200, also f/4 for the same reasons.

 

Thank you, for the reply.

I do have the Nikon 24-120 f/4 - done that. Great, sharp lens, I love it. It is not suitable for me in the concert settings ... a bit dark. I can use, but I am limited to certain type of photos that I get. Want to expand on that. Hence, were the questions.

70-200 would come later, though .. money wise, I am not ready yet.

 

About 35mm, I understand about vignetting, and hence the questions were .. should I keep the 35mm, with its limited use, and what I can from it, and not buy the 50mm ? and go with some other instead ? Or is 50mm would be so good, that I should forget about that 35mm (DX) that I have ?

Would an FX 35mm be better and more suitable ?

The 85mm/f1.8 G AF-S lens is a good choice for portrait. Perhaps add a 24mm/f1.8 AF-S also.

 

Thank you. But given, I can only afford one, would it not keep limited ?

So, for example: Would it be perfect for portraits, and very useful for concerts? Or will I be limited in concert settings with it, and would need something shorter?

I do concert probably more often than portraiture ...

If 85mm works for you for concerts, the 85mm/f1.8 should be just fine.

 

You have a nice D750. Don't skim on lenses. Those 85mm and 24mm f1.8 lenses are fairly reasonably priced. Get them one at a time.

Forget the 35 DX lens. On your D750, you would be giving up a lot. Your D750 would be operating in DX mode.

If you want that "normal lens" look then get the 50/1.8.

 

I personally would go for the 35/1.8 AF-S lens to complement your 24-120/4.

However the 35 is not a portrait lens nor a concert lens, it is a fast wide angle lens.

 

However, even the 85 may not be a portrait lens. The lens used for portrature depends on several variables; how tight or loose do you want the shot, how far are you from the subject, how far is the subject from the background, etc. In the old days, the 105 was considered the standard portrait lens. But the 105 is not as FAST as the 85/1.8 for LOW light concert pics.

 

But, you need to think about what you want your final prime kit to be.

Example1, if you want a 24 + 50 + 105 kit, then getting the 35 would be a waste.

Example2, if you want a 35 +85 kit, then the 35 makes sense.

 

When I say "final prime kit," as Shun said, you won't get them all NOW, but one at a time over several years. That is how many of us built our lens kits, over many years.

 

The problem with the AF and AF-D lenses is the new Z cameras. The current FtoZ adapter will NOT autofocus the AF and AF-D lenses. So you would have to manually focus these lenses on the Z cameras. If you do NOT intend to get a Z camera, then the lack of AF/AF-D autofocus on the Z isn't an issue.

Forget the 35 DX lens. On your D750, you would be giving up a lot. Your D750 would be operating in DX mode.

If you want that "normal lens" look then get the 50/1.8.

 

I personally would go for the 35/1.8 AF-S lens to complement your 24-120/4.

However the 35 is not a portrait lens nor a concert lens, it is a fast wide angle lens.

 

However, even the 85 may not be a portrait lens. The lens used for portrature depends on several variables; how tight or loose do you want the shot, how far are you from the subject, how far is the subject from the background, etc. In the old days, the 105 was considered the standard portrait lens. But the 105 is not as FAST as the 85/1.8 for LOW light concert pics.

 

But, you need to think about what you want your final prime kit to be.

Example1, if you want a 24 + 50 + 105 kit, then getting the 35 would be a waste.

Example2, if you want a 35 +85 kit, then the 35 makes sense.

 

When I say "final prime kit," as Shun said, you won't get them all NOW, but one at a time over several years. That is how many of us built our lens kits, over many years.

 

The problem with the AF and AF-D lenses is the new Z cameras. The current FtoZ adapter will NOT autofocus the AF and AF-D lenses. So you would have to manually focus these lenses on the Z cameras. If you do NOT intend to get a Z camera, then the lack of AF/AF-D autofocus on the Z isn't an issue.

 

Thank you. As i mentioned, portraiture occurs less often then concerts. Using 24-120/f4, for portraits i feel i can do better with lower f-stop, but for concert, i feel it is not usable at all.

A fast 85mm will work well for both portraits and concerts. The recommendations above for the 85mm f/1.8g agree with many reviews of this lens.What I use for portraits, when I want this focal length, is the older 85mm f/1.4D. It's lovely, even if it doesn't autofocus as quickly as the current version, and it may be available used at a reasonable price. If you're happy with your 24-120mm for landscapes, you would not need a wide lens. Don't use your nice D750 with a DX lens, it's a waste of good pixels.

I agree that 85mm is a sensible place to put your attention. The f/1.8 AF-S is a decent performer at reasonable money, whose biggest problem is slightly extreme LoCA at wider apertures (you might get some funny colours around transitions). I'd not touch the 85mm AF-S f/1.4 with a barge pole unless you specifically like its rendering - it's more expensive than the Sigma Art version, which is an extremely good lens (but still quite a lot more than the f/1.8 Nikkor). Longer focal lengths make more of a difference for isolating the subject from the background, and have a greater need for shorter shutter speed, both of which gain more from larger apertures, so if you're looking at a fast prime, that's where I'd start. It'll be the most motion-blur sensitive focal length with no VR, though. (This might bring the 85mm f/1.8 Tamron VC into consideration.)

 

Another argument is that the 24-120 is weaker at the long end, and you could reasonably get a bigger sharpness improvement from an 85mm prime than comparing with a good 24mm prime, for example.

 

The biggest argument against an 85mm prime is that it's arguably the pair of a 135mm, and a 105mm splits the difference - but while the Sigma and Nikon 105mm f/1.4 lenses are both exceptional, they're neither cheap nor portable. I went through the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 (not at all bad for the price, but manual focus is tedious), the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S (good but I got tired of green backgrounds) and landed on the Sigma; take your pick.

 

The 50mm f/1.8 AF-S is an okay performer (and a lot better wide open than the AF-D). It's also reasonably small, and cheap. It's the prime I'd carry if I wanted a low light option and didn't know what I was going to shoot, but I find 50mm to be neither wide nor long enough to be interesting; you (and Cartier-Bresson) may disagree. I was put off the 50mm f/1.4 lenses by price/performance until finally settling on the Sigma Art, but it's big (although not as big as the 85mm) and relatively pricey.

 

The same applies to the 35mm Sigma, although it's given me more trouble with focus shift. Again there's the Samyang manual focus option. I use 35mm f/1.4 lenses when I'm shooting a group in dim lighting (usually a pub); otherwise you're often using it by getting very close to the subject and deliberately emphasising perspective.

 

One warning is that shooting portraits at very wide apertures may leave you with the problem that the eyes are in focus but the nose isn't. Stop down to f/4 to reduce this and you've thrown away some of the aperture you paid for. If that bothers you, you might want to consider something like a 90mm Tamron f/2.8 macro - which is still a stop faster than the zoom you've got. The VC version is very good wide open; the older (cheaper, non VC) one is very good for the money stopped down, if a little soft wide open. Not a brilliant option for low light reach (compared with, say, a 70-200), but you get a macro out of it.

 

In fact, the Tamron G2 70-200 is probably something to think about, since if you don't actually need faster, it's very very good (as is the expensive Nikkor FL). That's another anti-85mm argument - if you might have a 70-200 in your future, it might make the prime less appealing.

 

Other than the macro thought, an 85mm won't offer you much for landscapes (which are typically small aperture) that your 24-120 won't, except maybe a little sharpness. I don't think anything else will help much either - you're perhaps looking at wider lenses if you want to differentiate yourself from the 24-120 there. Any of this is a bit short for most nature unless you're very lucky - I'd give the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-P a look there, or jump to the 200-500 (or a 300mm f/4). A fast 85mm should help with concerts and portraits, though.

 

I hope that's more food for thought!

If you need a fast portrait lens with VR, you could do a lot worse than get the Tamron SP 85mm f1.8 Di VC USD.

 

f1.8 and VR would be good for both portraits and concerts,

(This might bring the 85mm f/1.8 Tamron VC into consideration.)

+1

 

I quite like the look of all the Tamron primes with VC ( VR), the 35, 45 and 85mm.

Thank you. As i mentioned, portraiture occurs less often then concerts. Using 24-120/f4, for portraits i feel i can do better with lower f-stop, but for concert, i feel it is not usable at all.

 

I hope you realize that a f/1.8 lens has a very shallow Depth of Field.

So you will get one person in focus, but not the person behind.

And if you are CLOSE, doing a tight head shot, you could have his close eye in focus but his far eye and nose out of focus.

The 50 1.8 is an excellent performer and value.

 

YES! Furthermore, such a lens, if got in the right mount, will never cease to be a keeper, even if you upgrade to newer, fancier lenses.

70-200 would come later, though .. money wise, I am not ready yet.

 

You might consider the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2. I have the slightly older version that works very well indeed on my D750. The Tamron is about half the price of the Nikon lens and according to most posts and reviews I have seen gives up very little from the Nikon.

My two cents -- I've recently been reviewing the past decade of concert shots and for the type of concert stuff I do most of my favorite shots have come from a 35mm lens. That said, I've gotten plenty of good concert shots with my longer manual focus and AF-D lenses (58 - 105 mm). The sorts of venues I frequent won't necessarily have the room to use such long lenses. If you're not sure what focal length you want I would start by doing two things: 1.) reviewing your photos and see where you set your zoom lens at and 2.) renting a few candidates and see what suits you.

 

As Shun pointed out, getting good glass for the D750 is a really good idea (otherwise why buy such an expensive camera). I skimmed the responses but didn't see focus speed mentioned. Nikon's ƒ/1.4 primes simply do not focus quickly. Even though the extra light capturing capability is a win, the lower cost ƒ/1.8 primes may be a much better proposition here simply because you'll be more likely to nail the focus.

 

I cheaped out and went with the Sigma 35/1.4 ART. It's quite sharp wide open and much better built than earlier Sigma lenses, but like any ƒ/1.4 lens it's bulky and slow to focus. The Nikon 35/2 really only has the size/weight advantage in its favor. I can't think of a single good reason to pay $400 for a new one as there are plenty of used copies around. While your D750 will focus the AF-D lenses, the newer lenses with built-in motors (S/G/E lenes) will typically focus faster. If you care about video, the built-in motors are much quieter while focusing.

 

Focus shift is typically more of a problem with the ƒ/1.4 vs ƒ/1.8 lenses, and the worst in my bag has been Nikon's 85/1.4 AF-D. For concerts you probably won't care too much, for everything else it'll probably drive you nuts. But if you're shooting something where you can take your time using live view will sidestep that problem.