D600 @ 50 1.8G

<p>Recently purchased the D600 @ 50mm G,looking to add 2 more primes 1 wide and 1 tele,what do you folks recommend thanks very much...</p>

<p>Budget?</p>

<p>Budget?</p>

<p>$1200.00</p>

<p>Best option if you can stretch your budget is to add 28/1.8G and 85/1.8G. </p>

<p>I think Mihai is spot on. A tad pricey but you will not regret it. I might also give some thought to the 105 VR.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Best option if you can stretch your budget is to add 28/1.8G and 85/1.8G.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+2</p>

<p>I assume the D600 works with non G lenses. There a few options there like a 85 1.8 AFD used or even a 35 1.4 but manual focus. Assuming if the D600 can meter with a manual lens. Haven't looked into the D600 myself thou ... in detail. Bit too expensive for me lol.</p>

<p>Mihai suggest the most logical ones... but how wide, how tele?<br>

As Ray said, you can use non-G lenses as well, and also non AF lenses. If AF is not very important to you, you can get a truckload of nice lenses within your budget. The classic 105 f/2.5 sure is great, I much like the AiS 35mm f/1.4 (but it's not that cheap, and not to the taste of everybody), but also options like a 24 f/2.8, 200mm f/4, 135 f/2.8 etc. can easily be found well within your budget.<br>

That all said, that trio of recent f/1.8G primes is great value, seriously good lenses.</p>

<p>I'd question whether an f/1.8 aperture is needed at 28mm. Unless you're into low-light candid stuff Alan, you'll probably find you hardly ever use that maximum aperture. You'll be paying quite dearly for a feature you may never need or miss. The 24 or 28mm f/2.8 D versions might be more suitable for your needs and help keep you within your budget. I'd also consider the 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor as your tele option. True it'll bite fairly deep into your $1200, but it'll serve double duty as both a portrait and macro lens, which may save you money in the long run.</p>

<p>I see that Nikon have now copied Tamron in having an <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/">angle-of-view simulator app</a> on their website. This might be of help in deciding what focal length of tele and wideangle to go for.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd question whether an f/1.8 aperture is needed at 28mm. Unless you're into low-light candid stuff Alan, you'll probably find you hardly ever use that maximum aperture. You'll be paying quite dearly for a feature you may never need or miss. The 24 or 28mm f/2.8 D versions might be more suitable for your needs and help keep you within your budget.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Joe, is not about the aperture. The IQ of 28/1.8 AF-S is way better at any aperture than any of the AF-D lenses. I tested each AF-D lens between 20mm and 35mm and none are "enough good" for D600. There are old AI-S lenses that are better on D600 / D800. Both 28/2.8 AI-S (CRC version) and 28/2 AI-S are much better than 28/2.8 AF-D. I love old glass and I have and use some really old Nikon lenses... but these wide angle AF-D lenses are very long in tooth at this time. While I was shooting with D700 my 35/2 AF-D was a great little lens. Once I went to D800 and D600 it clearly shows limitations.<br>

IMHO Nikon did a great job offering these three f/1.8 primes (28/50/85) at an affordable price. If they will offer as well a 20/2.8 AF-S I'd be very happy.<br>

</p>

<p>On the D600 (and D800), I too would avoid most of the older AF-D type lenses, as they don't work that well with 24MP and up. With a $1200 buget, the newer 28mm/f1.8 AF-S and 85mm/f1.8 AF-S are a good combination.</p>

<p>However, I wonder why the OP wants "primes" only. Back in the 1970's and 1980's, you might need primes to get excellent qulity. Today's zooms are very good now. IMO having only 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm are quite limiting. If you can spend $2000 on a D600, hopefully you also have some budget for lenses, if not immediately, perhaps later on.</p>

<p>I must admit that the 28mm AF-D is a lens that I've never tried, but the 24mm f/2.8 AF-D has the exact same optical formula as the old MF Ai-S version, which isn't too bad a performer, even on a D800.</p>

<p>I agree with Shun that a modern zoom will probably equal the IQ of most available primes at like apertures, and be slightly more versatile and cost-effective. However, if you want to develop your eye for a picture, there's a lot to be said for using primes. With a bit of practise it's relatively easy to mentally crop and frame the angle-of-view of whatever prime lens is fitted to your camera, whereas a zoom doesn't constrain your mental framing. This constraint doesn't need to limit your pictorial opportunities, it just adds an extra dimension of discipline that can be turned into an advantage. I'm pretty sure that Cartier-Bresson wouldn't have taken better pictures with a zoom fitted to his Leica.</p>

<p>I have the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D. It is ok on the D700 but on the D600 and D800, it is no longer that sharp and corner performance is very mediocre. In comparison, the new 28mm/f1.8 AF-S is far better optically; however, I don't like that lens' manual focus ring, which IMO is way too loose.</p>

<p>I always find it strange that people keep referring to Cartier-Bresson's images. He has a distinct style and that is why one or two 35mm and 50mm lenses work for him very well. However, my photography style is totally different from his and I shoot all sorts of different subjects. Have you seen a lot of sports and wildlife images from Cartier-Bresson? Sorry to be blunt, but I don't care at all about what someone else uses; I need the equipment that works with my photography.</p>

<p>I will add my recommendation to buy the 85mm f/1.8. It's a great lens. The 28mm f/1.8 is decent, but not up to the quality of the 50 and 85, in my opinion. I will also agree the older 24mm and 35mm AFD lenses are not very good on the D800 (and I assume the D600). I would really like an update to the 35mm f/2 and 24mm f/2.8 AFD lenses. A 24mm f/2 AFS would be an excellent addition to my bag.<br>

I generally like prime lenses over zooms. I like the larger aperture, smaller size, and usually the way they draw. But I usually shoot slowly and can take the time to change lenses. But I agree there are times a good zoom is invaluable. That's why Nikon makes a range of primes and zooms. </p>

<p>"I'd question whether an f/1.8 aperture is needed at 28mm" Joe: Here's an example of exactly this application - although shot on DX :-)<br /><br />Returning to the OP's question: Someone who buys a D600 is probably not inexperienced in photography. In my book, this means that it should be possible for Alan (the OP) to say something about which focal lengths he has been using before, and if he has any likes or dislikes from doing so. And maybe he even has other lenses already ??<br /><br />One option could be to get a 14 and a 28 - I would consider that based on MY shooting style, subject matter, and preferences, but then again, it might make more sense to Alan to look into something else ?? I have no idea, unfortunately...<br /><br />So: More info to help us help you, please .-)<br /><br />Soeren</p><div></div>

<p>28/1.8G is <$700 at B&H, 85/1.8G is <$500, so with $1200 you can get both with a few cents to spare. If trying to keep the money tighter, then the 85/1.8 AF-D sacrifices AF-S and some sharpenss at large apertures, but is readily available used. I don't recommend a lower priced wide angle, since the 28/1.8G is a big step above Nikon's older offerings.<br>

If a zoom is needed, then quality-wise the only thing in any way comparable with these is the 24-70/2.8, costing $1900, 15 mm short on the long end and not being able to do f2, but being able to zoom.</p>

<p>I'd question whether an f/1.8 aperture is needed at 28mm. Unless you're into low-light candid stuff Alan, you'll probably find you ever use that maximum aperture.</p>

<p>I find this very strange. For photojournalism/documentary work the fast 35mm was the default lens on the camera for many decades. Just because Nikon chose to ignore this during the dark times doesn't mean the need has gone anywhere. I have a bunch of this kind of lenses (though not this specific 28mm) and the 35/1.4 in particular is among my most used lenses. What do I do with it? I capture people interacting with each other. People that I know spend most of their time indoors - it could be the cool climate in Finland or something else, but that's what they do nevertheless. Mostly outdoors is for transport, recreational activities and in the summer time there can be a lot of other stuff happening. I know the climate in California is different and so is the light, but it nevertheless is so that many of the most interesting communication and discussion between people in industrialized/high tech societies does take place in the home, office, restaurants and other interior spaces where the light is usually low. I find the 35/1.4 impeccable for this task. If one uses a longer lens such as the 85mm, one gets a more closed from the side perspective but when one uses a wide angle, both interacting faces with their expressions can be seen. Now, the light can be e.g. 1/125s, f/1.4, ISO 1600 or less. It is also extremely powerful to use the fast aperture to pin the main subject out of the group and blur background clutter though this isn't as effective with wide angle as it is with telephotos due to the angle of view (more is always included of the background). Personally this is the kind of photography which I find the most interesting - it is about my own species, after all and I do it all the time, at work, at home, in restaurants, parties, etc. also on the streets (it gets dark there in narrow streets of many European cities also) and I just love the possibilities of high ISO and large apertures with high quality afforded by the latest FX equipment. In the 90s as I was shooting ISO 100 to 400 film most of the things I wanted to photograph simply couldn't be photographed to any level of satisfaction without going to pushed black and white film. No, flash doesn't do the trick since I don't want to alter the atmosphere and I don't want photos to look too glossy or artificial or "made-up". D3 in 2007, followed by the fantastic f/1.4 AF-S Nikkors has been a dream come true for the kind of photography that I do. The f/1.8 triplet is just a hair's width below the f/1.4 in quality and 1/3 of the cost.</p>

<p>I can't even believe how obviously very knowledgeable people will question the use of the fast wide - to me it's like questioning the need for tires in a car. And very easy to answer at that. Just two days ago I was at a dinner discussing with some colleagues about future research that might take place and at the end of it I captured a few images of the interaction between the people. Finns normally don't use their hands in conversation and they are a bit on the quiet / reserved side, but scientists, when they get up to speed, all sorts of virtual drawings are made in the air and the expressions are something that the participants will look in wonder 20 years from now when I show the images. What modern technology has given us is unique opportunities to document life visually into memories. IMO the wide apertures are an essential tool to bring clarity to this documentary which might otherwise be quite chaotic.</p>

<p><em>With a bit of practise it's relatively easy to mentally crop and frame the angle-of-view of whatever prime lens is fitted to your camera, whereas a zoom doesn't constrain your mental framing. This constraint doesn't need to limit your pictorial opportunities, it just adds an extra dimension of discipline that can be turned into an advantage</em></p>

<p>I absolutely agree with that. </p>

<p>Although I have a few zooms, and I use those when needed (such as when photographing a wedding ceremony or another high-pressure event where I cannot waste a second of the subject's time), when I want to enjoy photography I take out the primes. It frees my mind of the burden of thinking about everything that could be photographed (with an unlimited range zoom) and limits what I can do so that I can work effectively and in a concentrated fashion and have fun. It also lets me create more three-dimensional looking images where the main subject just "pops" out in clarity. </p>

<p> </p>