Love my 24-70 what's next....

<p>Okay... I totally love my Nikkor 24-70 and my 105 for portraits....<br /> Here are my lenses... I need some input on what next to add to my collection I am working on meeting the goal of a new lens shortly and love the fact I get all the pros and cons right here in one place and a resourceful knowledge filled one at that.<br /> Eventually I hoping to be upgrading to a full frame... but, I don't see that happening anytime real soon.<br /> Nikkor 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, Macro 105 f2.8, 18-105 f3.5, 55-200<br />f4-5.6, 70-300 f4.5-5.6, 24-70 f2.8<br>

I am running these on a D7000 by the way.</p>

<p>Thank you all once again!</p>

<p>The main question would be: what do you photograph, and what are you finding about your current lenses that's not handling what you're photographing, or the light you're in, etc?</p>

<p>"<em>what's next....?" - </em>sell some of consumer grade lenses you have.</p>

<p>Agree (Edit: with Matt`s answer I mean). What about flash heads? They are a must to me. Tripod? Cable release?<br /> I see you`re very well assorted, with the only exception in the wide angle area; anyway, it could be more interesting to priorize the tripod/illumination area. Don`t know about you, but not everybody need ultra wide angles, mine are currently stored...</p>

<p>Okay... I do portrait and nature... I LOVE boken !!!!<br>

I have a SB600 and 800<br>

I have promaster softboxes W/ promaster remote which I can slave my flashes (something that is still a work in progress).<br>

Tripod<br>

I do need to obtain a relector... I determined that this week. I have been using a car sun shade and white foam core... I think they need to be replaced.<br>

Frank... that is my question... I sell them and what would I add to the mix?</p>

<p>You like bokeh and nature then a fast tele would fill those needs. What is your budget. If you travel much keeping small light zooms could come in handy.</p>

<p>I don't really have a budget... I am still working to fund it. I want to make the decision by November.<br>

Carl... I would like to keep it light but, I am not seeing that is much of a option. I do portrait and nature... I use mainly my 105 for nature and macro and I use my 24-70 at lot for portrait because I don't have to be on top of someone and I love the fact that I can run it pretty much wide open with no problems.<br>

I also dabble in old school night club work....ergo, I would want it to be a fast lens. When I do those types of events I run my 50mm and my 24-70.</p>

<p>Cynthia, after trying <strong>many</strong> lenses, I find that all I need are the following:</p>

<p>10-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400, 1.4x, 2x, 200 micro, plus a fish-eye. This range just about covers everything I need to do, from macro, to landscape, to portrait, to wildlife.</p>

<p>It would be good to add a 28-300 to the mix when you are in the mood to carry only one lens.</p>

<p>I can sell all the other things that I don't need.</p>

<p>Cynthia,<br>

Maybe an 85/1.4 could be the answer. Any version it is good but my recommendation is for Sigma. The best bokeh, fast and precise AF, cheaper than Nikon 85/1.4 G and not inferior to it at any point. For portraiture on my D300 and D700 works as a charm.</p>

<p>Mihai...<br>

I tried the Tamaron 24-70 and hated it ... night and day difference in quality vs. Nikons. <br>

Can you say the same or more of the 85 1.4 of Sigmas? I like the idea of saving a couple of bucks but I want quality also so which would be the right choice?</p>

<p>Well, IMHO this is the best lens ever produced by Sigma. The build quality is much improved than of the former lenses (much, much better than any Tamron) and the IQ is on par with Nikkor if not better. I tested first a copy of Nikon 85/1.4 G... and I was very disappointed... at least the copy I purchased was not sharp wide open and the AF was slow... I mean SLOW. Then I tested Sigma version and I was overwhelmed. The only 'bad' part is that Sigma is a bit bulkier and heavier... but I used it intensively in the meantime and I could not be happier. It shines between f1.4 and f2.8.<br>

You better rent it for a test or eventually order it from a shop with a good return policy. Many people consider third-party lenses as inferior, complaining abut reverse engineering, lack of quality control, etc... but in the field the reality is that Sigma provides some exceptional primes... 85/1.4 is one of them... 150/2.8 macro is the other... Who's testing them ends by purchasing them...</p>

<p>While you have DX the 50/1.4 pretty much takes the place of the 85/1.4. Don't get any more DX lenses since I see an FX in your future. I'd start with one of the many xx-200/2.8 options. A used 80-200/2.8 AF-S is an exceptional lens and very affordable. Next up from that is the 70-200/2.8 VR 1 and then of course the ultra-overkill 70-200/2.8 VR 2. If you don't want one of these extremely heavy zooms then perhaps wait for Nikon to come out with the 70-200/4. </p>

<p>Once you switch to, or add, full frame consider the 14-24/2.8, 85/1.4 and 16/2.8. You will have to carefully consider if you have a real use for the 200-400 to justify the cost. If you like bokeh and have lots of room for portraits the 200/2 is very special!</p>

<p>replacing the 55-200 and 70-300 would be my druthers. a 70-200 or 80-200 would be the obvious telephoto upgrade. if you need a fast lens for club shooting the most obvious is an 85/1.4. beyond that, there's the 24/1.4, but that's super-pricey for a prime. i'd also maybe consider the OS version of the sigma 150/1.8 macro which could double as a portrait lens, albeit a longish one on DX. and, you don't have anything wider than 18mm, so an 8-16 would be awesome if you like to go wide.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I tried the Tamaron 24-70 and hated it ... night and day difference in quality vs. Nikons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i also have the tammy 28-75 in addition to the 24-70, and i disagree slightly. for a $450 lens it's excellent, so comparing it to a $1700 lens isnt fair. it stays in my arsenal because it has its uses: it's better for FF walkarounds than the 24-70, for one thing -- due to its compactness and though its slightly soft @2.8, it's dead sharp @f/4. i would say there's not a huge difference in optical quality between the two, more like the nikon wins for build quality, focus speed and performance @2.8. also bokeh. that might sound like a lot of criteria, but in real-world terms, the tammy is sharp and contrasty and capable of making just as good images. kind of a moot point anyway, as mihai was talking about a different lens altogether.</p>

 

<p>can't go wrong with a fast 35mm</p>

<p>A 24-70 is a great lens, but not very wide on a P7000. Depending on your anticipated needs, something on the order of 17mm covers the wide end pretty well. If you expect to graduate to a full frame camera, a 17-35/2.8 or 14-24/2.8 would be a good companion lens for the 24-70. If you plan to make some money shooting weddings and events, a 17-55/2.8 DX is a good choice for now, because you don't have to switch lenses as often.</p>

<p>The ideal "long" lens is probably a 70-200/2.8 VR or VRII. The VR function allows you to shoot as slow as 1/15 second and get a good percentage of pictures without camera shake. It's an FX lens, so won't be obsolete any time soon. If you don't shoot much at the long end, keep what you've got, or buy a cheaper, third-party lens.</p>

<p>Since you're not going to go full-frame anytime soon (even though I'd rething that - with the new Nikon announcements just around the corner about the D700 and D3 upgrades, there will be a slew of used D700s and D3s in the market, so I'd hunt arount for those!), I would seriously look into getting a used 12-24 (wide lens, specifically made for DX) or a used 70-200 f/2.8 VR I (there are quite a few around for 1/2 the price of the new version, and for a DX camera like yours, it'll be amazing...!</p>

<p>The 12-24 will cover pretty much ANY landscape need you may have, while the 70-200 will give you amazing bokeh...;-) Not the cheapest of solutions, true, but relatively future-proof and solid, good and proven Nikon glass...;-)</p>

<p>What do you find you can NOT do at present? In which way are your good lenses holding you back?<br>

Without understanding if they do, and how they do, there is no clear reason to get a new lens really.<br>

____<br>

(<em>I love bokeh</em> - just an anal correction: bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the out of focus areas, not the amount of it. Bokeh is either good or bad, but not a lot or little, or just being bokeh. So, effectively, you like shooting with wide open apertures)</p>

<p>I agree with Frank above. I would sell these significantly overlapping slow lenses: 18-105 f3.5, 55-200<br />f4-5.6, 70-300 f4.5-5.6<br>

and purchase the 70-200 f2.8 VII lens and/or an 85 f1.4 lens.<br>

I do mostly portrait and wedding work and I use the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8 VII for 95% of my work. I have a few examples on my website (www.e2photo.net)</p>

<p>Cynthia, <br>

I do believe the best Nikon lens for portraits is the 24-70, 70-200 and on the top of those, the legendary Nikon 300 mm f/2.8, but this is very expensive lens. Actually, this is the lens professionals use to shoot models from a distance. If you can not afford it, I will get the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II. Nikon 105, 85 f/1.4 and all of those are very good but none of them better than the 300 mm f/2.8 and the other two mentioned above. This is my humble opinion. I don't think you need any prime if you have that combo. If I would have the money, I would buy the Nikon 300 mm f/2.8 which is the best lens out there for everything you need. Happy shooting. </p>

<p>70-200 2.8</p>

<p>Cynthia,<br>

It looks like you shoot the same subjects that my wife and I do. We upgraded our kit lens to a Nikkor 18-200 3.5-4.6 for an all-around, general-purpose shooting lens. Since then I have decided that I would ONLY buy a lens with an aperture 2.8 or faster.<br>

Here's my perfect set of lenses: Zooms: 14-24mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8; Primes all 1.8 (or 1.4 if you can afford it): 35mm or 50mm, and 85mm or 105mm. Add a fisheye for fun. If you need more length, consider a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter before another lens. If you HAVE to get another lens, (and have adequate fundage) try a 400mm F4. All that remains are maybe a PC-E lens or some other sort of specialty lenses (like a Lensbaby).</p>

<p>After looking over your shots, I'm going to suggest: Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 (used,) Sigma 50-150mm f2.8, Nikon ringlight flash system, small softboxes for your flash, reflector set, and a translucent panel to put between harsh sunlight and your flowers. The newer Sigma lenses are good to excellent.</p>

<p>Kent in SD </p>

<p>Thank you Kent for looking however, I am ashamed to admit I have neglected updating it. I believe I am behind about 6 months worth which is huge when it comes to the learning curve I am trying to achieve (it's hard to try to catch up to technology when you've been away from it all for so long). Been so busy shooting and my granddaughter. LOL</p>

<p>Cynthia, if you like portrait should think of buying Nikon DC 105mm or 135 mm F/2 DC is the shortage of Defocus Control, this lens is super sharp and you can control your Bokeh to be in front or rear.</p>