What in your opinion is missing?

<p>Got some freetime and lately been musing about what my next lens should be.<br>

I take a lot of portraits but also love Documentary photagraphy and take snapshots when i bring my camera along.<br>

I currently own: nikon AF180 mm f2,8 Nikon AF85mm f1,4 Nikon AF18-35mm f3,5 nikon AF50 f1,8<br>

Nikon AF24-85mm f3,5 AF-s <br>

Im contemplating getting another wideangle lens, either a better zoom or a great prime lens.<br>

Anyone have any good suggestion for upgrades?<br>

On my wishlist is also a 24-70 of course. But currently i dont have that amount of cash!<br>

/Martin.</p>

 

<p>In that case I'd say, your next leans should be the 24-70. Keep saving, don't buy anything now. Biy only what you need (says the guy with far too many lenses).</p>

<p>Perhaps some prime in your wide angle department?</p>

<p>@Mark, heheh....yeh i know. I keep selling and trading to get new lenses all the time. Yeh it is probably a good suggestion. I might get it as a 40 year old gift in 2 years. Guess il have to wait hehe.<br>

/Regards Martin.</p>

<p>@BeBu I did have a nikon 24 mm f2,8 but wasnt overly impressed with it. Any other prime you could reccomend?<br>

/Martin.</p>

<p>You might want to check out the new Sigma 35 mm f/1.4. I've been using it for indoor natural light shots of family happenings, cranking up the ISO to 1600-3200; a lot handier than using the 24-70 mm indoors with a flash</p>

<p><a href="/equipment/sigma/35mm-f14/"><strong>Here is Shun's recent PN review of that 35/1.4</strong></a>, which I agree is a terrific lens and might do very well in your line up.</p>

<p>If you can't take the photo with what you have, it probably can't be taken. I assume you have full-frame FX or film...?</p>

<p>I think I'd want a 70-300 or some such if I had that assortment.</p>

<p>1: What Camera ?<br>

2: Fish Eye ?</p>

<p>What does your lighting system look like for portraits? What light modifiers do you have?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I agree with Peter. Your longest lens is the 180 macro(?) and focusing is very slow on macro lenses by design. The 70-300 VR is good on DX and excellent on FX. I can also say from experience that the Sigma 35 f/1.4 is fantastic on both DX (D7100) and FX (D700), but some people don't like 35mm and you already have the 50 1.8. If that's you, the 28mm f/1.8 is also a nice choice.<br>

<br />Then there's the photo vacation and renting something ...</p>

<p>The 24-70 is mechanically and optically superb with great rendering, but truly awful bokeh. It's a good workhorse lens, and best used stopped-down. If you want aesthetic blur in a mid-to-wide lens, you would want to avoid it. The 28/1.8 is a great optical performer at a very reasonable price, especially right now with lens rebates being offered.</p>

<p>The 14-24 is the criterion ultrawide. I personally don't mind the large front element, and the performance is exceptional across the frame at all apertures. </p>

<p>Why get anything at all? What does your photography lack that another lens will resolve? If you can definitely answer that than you know what's available. If you want to upgrade to the 24-70 why not just save your money now and then get that when you have it? You have a lot of focal lengths covered and some pretty nice lenses now.</p>

<p>If you desire decent wide angle....I'd suggest Zeiss 21/2.8 or 25/2. Ooops, you can't afford 24-70, so that becomes a bogus suggestion.</p>

<p>Les</p>

thanks for the responses:).The 35 seems like a nice option actually.To clarify i have a nikon D700.

I use mainly natural light but also sb 900 and 800. And the 180 is not the macro.

/martin.

<p>the obvious choices are nikon 14-24 or tokina 16-28 for w/a, and sigma 35/1.4 as a fast prime. i'd get one of those before the 24-70 unless you are doing event work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why get anything at all?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why Not ? Every serious Nikon shooter has NAS once in a while, and this can only be cured by getting something new ...</p>

<p>I've never really wanted a 24-70, but each to his own. If you don't currently have a macro, they're awfully handy. I have a 150mm Sigma, if you have the money to throw at it; something like a 90mm Tamron (the old one) is much cheaper and still very good. Much shorter and the working distance is an issue for many uses.<br />

<br />

While I never went there myself, the 70-300 suggestion is a good one. Or a 300 f/4 if you want more quality at the long end and want to pay for it; going longer than 300mm with decent quality is expensive (and/or inconvenient). An 8mm fish-eye is fun. One of the knock-off tilt-shifts? Lensbaby? DC lens (though I have reservations about mine)?<br />

<br />

I've always bought a lens when I thought "I want to take <i>this</i> style of photo". Buying a lens first and then finding a use is <i>bad</i> NAS.</p>

<p>If you are doing actual portraits, which I define as careful and intentional photos of (usually) people, the light is what defines them. If you are using those flash "bare," i.e. with no modifiers, then that is what's "missing." The flash heads on the little SB flash are very small, and the smaller the light source the more harsh the light is. I would suggest you buy some mini-softboxes or even something like a 30" umbrella and a swivel bracket. For light stands, you generally want at least an 8 ft. one. I use 13 ft. If you take photos in a studio setting any stand will do, but if outdoors you might consider lighter weight ones. They don't have to be heavy duty to hold an SB-900. They do need to be weighted down though. Your biggest gain is going to come from your lighting system.</p>

<p>I'll now go into what the regulars here might think of as "Kent's rant #3." Keep in mind I'm not being personal, but trying to give you good information. Going on an internet forum, listing a bunch of stuff, and then asking what else to buy is exactly BACKwards. The question is too general to be meaningful. If you buy gear this way what will happen is you'll end up with a lot of expensive stuff that is useful, but only to someone ELSE, not so much for you. The right way to decide what (if any) gear you need is to look at your photos and think it through. The question to ask is something like this, "I want to take portraits of individuals in dark churches. My current little on-camera SB-400 and Nikon 500mm f4 lens isn't working so well for this." From thinking about your actual needs, you will end up with specific items that will actually allow you to make the photos you want. Just asking people on the internet "here's what I have, what else should I buy?" will likely do nothing for you. It's a big mistake to start buying camera gear willy-nilly without an overall plan. Put together a SYSTEM that will do what you need. Every piece of the system works with the others, and every piece has a "job." The alternative is you will end up with thousands of dollars worth of gear you never use sitting in your closet. From the list you give, myself, I'd sell a lot of it and replace it with many fewer pieces but higher quality. I now mostly use three lenses--Nikons 17-55m f2.8 & 70-200mm f2.8 VR, and on trips I leave the 70-200mm home and take a Nikon 80-400mm VR (for it's flexibility and compactness.) As I've become more experienced, I find I need less and less gear.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I was going to post something here but I will simply say.....read Kent's post again. It is wise. </p>

<p>Maybe something on the longer end: 70-300 VR (more reach) or the new 70-200 f/4 VR (faster, but more expensive).</p>

<p>Thanks again for the respons. Some good suggestions and that is all i was after. As i said i had some freetime and was thinking ahead on what i need or dont need in the future and sometimes you get a good suggestion or get inspired by someone else that might have similar gear or take similar shots to get something and try it out.<br>

For Kent: No problems, i dont take it personal at all. My post was like making casual conversation about something you love. I love photography and also like everyting you are passionate about you like discussing gear and technique around that subject. So sometimes i throw something like this out there to get a little feel about what other people like or think about stuff.<br>

Puting it out there on the internet i expect ALL kinds of responses, both positive and negative. That goes with the territory hehe. My post was a bit vague and might give you the idea that i dont really know much and was shooting straight into the air to get help about my future photography.<br>

I have a pretty good idea of what i want these days when it comes to my photos and what to use. And like you said, most of the time i end up using the same lens or lenses all the time.<br>

I am most satisfied with my portrait lenses though and find i get the pictures i want the most with those.<br>

What i feel i get disappointed in from time to time is my wide angle department. And sometimes i would like to take something with macro but lack a lens with that thus far.<br>

I do all sorts of stuff so its hard to sell all my stuff and only keep the two lenses though as i want to be prepared to be able to take other kind of photos as well. I work and sell pictures from time to time and then i need those extra lenses although i seldom use them when doing the stuff i like myself.<br>

In my opinion posts like these doesnt have to be useless and backwards cause sometimes you DO get a few good suggestions and good conversations out of them:)<br>

About the lighting i misunderstood your question a bit. I do have umbrellas as well as stands for those. I could use a softbox though. Mainly i use natural light but with a reflector or minimal flashlight as i preferr that kind of lighting.<br>

/Martin.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why Not ? Every serious Nikon shooter has NAS once in a while, and this can only be cured by getting something new ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, anyone can do anything they want to with their own money. But I thought I read that the OP would really like to have the 24-70 but can't afford it now. Seems to me it would make good sense to forego something now and save a bit and get one of Nikon's best and probably the most used lens by so called "serious" Nikon shooters.</p>

<p>Pretend you are as good as Galen Rowell and get:<br>

20/f4,3.5,2.8 AI (all sharp as)<br>

24/f2.8AI<br>

28/f2.8 AIs<br>

You don't need AF for landscapes, nor a particularly fast lens, but the 20/4 Ai and the 28/2.8 AIs are arguably the sharpest lenses Nikon ever made. None should cost you more than $300 each.</p>

<p>There are some whole trips that Galen made into the Eastern Sierras with just the 24.</p>

 

<p>From your list, I would sell all but the 180mm. Replace with Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR, Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR. Simplify, and at the same time add flexibility.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>