Buying a New Lens

Hi Guys,

I currently own Nikon D810 and have Nikon 24-70 & 70-200 lenses with me, I am looking to buy one out of the three: Nikon 14-24 F 2.8G ED or Nikon 85mm F 1.8G or Nikon 105mm AF-S, F 2.8G IF-ED, I know 85mm and 105mm are in a different league altogether but this is something I am not able to decide upon.

 

Since I have 70-200, does it really make any sense buying the 105 or 85 as it should very much settle in that zoom range?

 

I am not willing to buy Tamaron or Sigma even though they might be good lenses as I am in china and the after sales is just shitty (incase I need to use), so Nikon is the only option. Me and my wife are about to have a baby in the next couple of months and I want to be prepared with a lens which could help take me some decent portraits and can be used for doing some Macro Photography.

 

If you have guys have any other recommendation within Nikon, please kindly let me know.

 

Tks

 

Sajeev

At least to me, it sounds like the two lenses you already have are sufficient for the time being. My suggestion is to wait until there is a compelling reason to add more lenses.

At least to me, it sounds like the two lenses you already have are sufficient for the time being. My suggestion is to wait until there is a compelling reason to add more lenses.

OK, Tks man.

I believe the 105mm Nikon is a Micro (macro) lens capable of 1:1 reproduction. Neither of the zooms is capable of getting that close to the subject. If you are interested in close ups of insects, flowers, etc. the 105 would be an excellent lens. I understand it is also a very good portrait lens.

I believe the 105mm Nikon is a Micro (macro) lens capable of 1:1 reproduction. Neither of the zooms is capable of getting that close to the subject. If you are interested in close ups of insects, flowers, etc. the 105 would be an excellent lens. I understand it is also a very good portrait lens.

Tks Man for the reply, I did rather prefer 85MM 1.8G too as I don't want to spend a lot on 1.4G, however as @ShunCheung mentioned probably my 70-200 has this covered, what do you think?

I'm with bgefand, the 105mm micro / macro gives you both portraiture and macro in 1 lens so it fullfills both whishes ..

 

The 14-24 is a good lens but it is neither usefoul for portraiture nor for macro so it does not cover those whishes., and it costs a whole lot more money. I would have expected a new version from nikon some time ago too, because it is still a "D" lens ..

The 14-24 is a good lens but it is neither usefoul for portraiture nor for macro so it does not cover those whishes., and it costs a whole lot more money. I would have expected a new version from nikon some time ago too, because it is still a "D" lens ..

The 14-24mm f2.8 is an AF-S G lens that was introduced along with the D3 on August 23, 2007. To me, 14mm is too wide so that I rarely use mine. Nikon will introduce a new version in the Z mount.

Which 70-200 Nikkor lens do you have? The current 2.8E FL version is much better than the first 2.8 version. For close-ups, my 2.8G VRII (version 2) is not ideal due to its focus breathing (@200 mm and minimum focus distance it is more like 135 mm than 200 mm).

 

If your 24mm is not wide enough, the 14-24 makes sense. I went for the AF-S 16-35/4 VR which was cheaper but still gets the job done well on my D850.

 

I currently have 85 mm in three lenses; 70-200/2.8 VRII, 24-120/4 VR and Micro-Nikkor PC-E 85/2.8D. I sold the 85/1.8G before I got the PC-E. I have since considered an 85/1.4 but could not really justify getting a fourth lens in the same focal lenght. It may be the excuse I ”need” to justify getting a 105/1.4G...

 

The 85/1.8G is very good. I did not care much for reviewers’ complaints about chromatic aberration as that is easily fixable in post. It really is excellent value for money.

 

How serious about macro are you? Would a high quality close-up filter (B+W or Canon) be enough or could a second hand hand 105/2.8 VR be an alternative?

 

I am with Shun; wait a while untill you know what you will have the most use for.

The 14-24mm f2.8 is an AF-S G lens that was introduced along with the D3 on August 23, 2007.

Your're right of course, my bad, a bit confused today ... sorry for that ..

The 14-24mm f2.8 is an AF-S G lens that was introduced along with the D3 on August 23, 2007. To me, 14mm is too wide so that I rarely use mine. Nikon will introduce a new version in the Z mount.

Hey Man I was looking for two lenses at the same time, one for portrait and the other one for a little bit wide angle as I love to photograph landscapes, architecture and landscapes but 24-70 even though a great lens cuts out a lot of detail area, so was thinking to spend some money on a wider lens.

 

Rgds

Sajeev

Which 70-200 Nikkor lens do you have? The current 2.8E FL version is much better than the first 2.8 version. For close-ups, my 2.8G VRII (version 2) is not ideal due to its focus breathing (@200 mm and minimum focus distance it is more like 135 mm than 200 mm).

 

If your 24mm is not wide enough, the 14-24 makes sense. I went for the AF-S 16-35/4 VR which was cheaper but still gets the job done well on my D850.

 

I currently have 85 mm in three lenses; 70-200/2.8 VRII, 24-120/4 VR and Micro-Nikkor PC-E 85/2.8D. I sold the 85/1.8G before I got the PC-E. I have since considered an 85/1.4 but could not really justify getting a fourth lens in the same focal lenght. It may be the excuse I ”need” to justify getting a 105/1.4G...

 

The 85/1.8G is very good. I did not care much for reviewers’ complaints about chromatic aberration as that is easily fixable in post. It really is excellent value for money.

 

How serious about macro are you? Would a high quality close-up filter (B+W or Canon) be enough or could a second hand hand 105/2.8 VR be an alternative?

 

I am with Shun; wait a while untill you know what you will have the most use for.

Well regarding macro I am not too much into it but yes portrait is definitely on the main cards, I happen to have Nikor AF-S 70-200/2.8 ED VRII F2.8 G. Even though here the warranty for Tamaron is shitty but some of my local contacts are advising me to buy Tamron SP 15-30 mm F2.8 Di VC USD [A012]. What do you think?

 

Rgds

Sajeev

Hey Man I was looking for two lenses at the same time, one for portrait and the other one for a little bit wide angle as I love to photograph landscapes, architecture and landscapes but 24-70 even though a great lens cuts out a lot of detail area, so was thinking to spend some money on a wider lens.

Sorry Sajeev, your thread title is "Buying a New Lens." If you are actually getting a wide angle and a portrait lens, for the wide, I would recommend my favorite:

• The 18-35mm AF-S AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED | NIKKOR D-SLR interchangeable lens from Nikon
  

• The 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR | High Performance Wide Angle Lens for DSLRs
  

The 18-35mm AF-S has a plastic barrel so that it is light, but optically it is fine.

If you are in the US, currently there is $100 off the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR.

 

For portraits, IMO you should be able to wait. The 85mm/f1.8 AF-S is very good and there is also a small discount in the US right now.

 

It is just me, of course, since I already have many F-mount lenses. At this point I am a bit reluctant to add more lenses until the dust for mirrorless settles a bit. If mirrorless becomes mainstream in a few years, I would rather not add a lot of lenses that I'll need to use adapters down the road. However, if you have immediate needs, by all means get the lenses you really need.

Sorry Sajeev, your thread title is "Buying a New Lens." If you are actually getting a wide angle and a portrait lens, for the wide, I would recommend my favorite:

• The 18-35mm AF-S AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED | NIKKOR D-SLR interchangeable lens from Nikon
  

Or

• The 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR | High Performance Wide Angle Lens for DSLRs
  

The 18-35mm AF-S has a plastic barrel so that it is light, but optically it is fine.

If you are in the US, currently there is $100 off the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR.

 

For portraits, IMO you should be able to wait. The 85mm/f1.8 AF-S is very good and there is also a small discount in the US right now.

 

It is just me, of course, since I already have many F-mount lenses. At this point I am a bit reluctant to add more lenses until the dust for mirrorless settles a bit. If mirrorless becomes mainstream in a few years, I would rather not add a lot of lenses that I'll need to use adapters down the road. However, if you have immediate needs, by all means get the lenses you really need.

Hey man Thanks, yes as described in my title I do need lenses as a new edition as I do not have any in my bag for the specific purposes I had mentioned. I want to shoot a lot of portraits and landscapes/Architectures but my current setup doesn't give me freedom to extend myself or holds me back on various grounds.

 

Just FYI I am in china and it is difficult to get hands on stuffs which are cheap in US.

 

Rgds

Sajeev

sufficient for the time being

+1

 

OF course, if buying a new lens will please you and you have the money to spend, then that's another matter altogether.:rolleyes:

Belated agreement.

 

The 14-24 is a decently sharp lens (exceptionally so for something a decade old), but you need very specific reasons for that wide an angle (I use mine for architecture interiors and some landscapes); the edges of the frame are extremely stretched at a typical output viewing distance. It also has a fair bit of barrel distortion (non-rectilinearity) and a fair bit of field curvature (the focal plane is farther from the lens in the middle than at the edges). The latter I work around by shooting at f/7.1 most of the time if I want sharp detail; the former correction adds a bit of softness. I do like the lens, but it's not perfect, it's expensive, and I'd only get it if you keep using the 24-70 at 24mm and thinking "I wish this were wider". You might also consider the 20mm f/1.8 prime (which I believe is a lot better than the old Sigma version) which is way more affordable. Deliberate wide angle distortion in a portrait does work, but it's going to be pretty extreme if the 24mm you can already reach won't suffice.

 

The 85mm f/1.8 AF-S is decently sharp and has nice bokeh - but it also has some fairly extreme LoCA at wider apertures, so the backgrounds tend to get a lot of green fringes. I doubt in practical use it'll do much for you that a 70-200 won't. The Sigma 85mm Art is, in my experience, scarily sharp even wide open, has less objectionable bokeh, and gives you two full stops over an f/2.8 zoom. I'd take it over any of the Nikkors, even if I were worried about brands. But it sounds as though the 70-200 has you covered.

 

Just to be clear... which 70-200? And I guess which 24-70? The 70-200 VR has awful corners at 200mm on full frame; the 70-200 VR II is decent but has a lot of focus breathing; the latest FL version is, to my mind, much better at f/2.8 (the mk2 is pretty decent as an f/4 lens) and has vastly improved VR. There's also the f/4. I upgraded to the latest 70-200, although the 70-200 G2 Tamron seems to be most of the lens for half the price; Sigma have a 70-200 Sport coming out too; I chose the Tamron 24-70 over either Nikon version. I appreciate your concerns about brands, but you could buy two for the price of the Nikkor. :-)

 

The 105mm macro... Well, it's got a bit of LoCA (colour fringing) and it's not really the best macro, let alone best in its range. If you have the mk2 70-200, it'll get you a lot closer; the FL 70-200 gets quite close on its own. It certainly won't do anything for you except give you a macro. Even so, a Tamron, Tokina or Sigma in the same range is probably better. I quite like the 150mm Sigma, for working distance. If you want to stick to Nikon, the 105mm is going to be a lot easier to use than the 200mm, and have more useful working distance than the 60mm (which is more of a copy lens), but Nikon hasn't given macro much love recently. It doesn't even have the trick stabilisation scheme of the Canon 100mm. Macro portraits are definitely a thing, especially with offspring, but it's quite a lot of money for that.

 

So I'd stand by "use what you've got until you're sure you need something it can't do".

I agree with the others that the 14-24 2.8 is an excellent lens, and I would not part with mine.

 

14mm is a difficult focal length to use well, though, and in many cases an 18mm or even 20mm is a lot more tame.

 

I’ll throw in a bit of a dark horse in the ultra-wide world though-the DX-Nikkor 10-20mm AF-P VR. This is a $300 lens that, despite being a DX lens, will cover a full frame at 14mm. It will go down to 13mm if you can tolerate a bit of vignetting(I’ve used that to my advantage before with UW lenses since it can draw your eye to the subject). The big catch with it is that you it will only focus(both auto and manual) on fairly recent DSLRs-both my D600 and D800 needed the latest firmware to work at all with the lens.