Which Nikon Lens?

[michael_dominic]

I'm going to but a Nikon f100 in the next 2 weeks. I was planning to buy the Nikon AF 24

-85mm f/2.8-4D IF, but I read two reviews that didn't really make it seem like a good

choice.

 

I hear that the Nikon AFS 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S ED-IF is better and cheaper, but I do

all available light stuff and f/3.5 is slow.

 

I shoot street stuff at all times of the day. I shoot inside in low light. I would like to have

the choice of focal length with out changing the lens.

 

Any suggestions?

[gaius1]

50mm f/1.4 AF-D.

[michael_dominic]

Why the 50mm f/1.4?

 

I like the option of going wider. Can't I get VERY sharp pics in a fast-ish zoom?

[low light]

Hi Michael, the 35mm F2 would be my choice, i have the AIS version on my F3hp and it takes great pictures. Apparently the 35/2 AFD is even sharper and it would be an excellent combination with your F100.

[ShunCheung]

Michael, the key question is what your budget is. If you don't want to change lenses often and therefore prefer a zoom, there are some very good ones such as the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, but at $1500 or so, they are pricy.

 

Otherwise, there are fast primes such as the 50mm/f1.4 mentioned above. One of my favorites in the past is the 35mm/f1.4 AI-S, but that is a manual-focus lens with no AF equivalent. And there is the 35mm/f2 AF-D mentioned above.

[gaius1]

The difference between a normal zoom and a normal prime is just a few steps back or forward. Why buy a nice pro body and stick a cheap consumer zoom on it?

 

Having said that, I do own a 28-70 f/2.8, but the 50mm f/1.4 gets used more.

[gary_watson]

The difference between f1.4 and f2.8, much less f4, isn't subtle, Michael, especially if you really want to shoot in available light. The 50/1.4AFD is your lens, along with an 85/1.8 or the 85/1.4 if you've money to burn. To paraphrase the old Dorothy Parker trope about the impossibility of being too rich or too thin, "you can never have lenses that are too fast."

[ShunCheung]

There are definitely lenses that are too fast. The now discontinued Canon 50mm/f1 is well known to be a poor performer and at $2500, it never attracted a lot of buyers. There are always price, weight, and quality issues that are associated with lens speed.

<P>

A lot of people feel that Nikon's 50mm/f1.8 is actually "better" than the 50mm/f1.4, and a lot cheaper too. I wouldn't buy a lens that is faster than what you need.

<P>

<I>The difference between a normal zoom and a normal prime is just a few steps back or forward.</I>

<P>

Assuming that you can and have time to move a few steps back or forward, that may be a correct statement. In some occasions your back may literally be against a wall. There may be a crowd around you so that it is not easy to move. And sometimes by the time you move, the shot can be gone. Zooms definitely have their advantages, and disadvantages.

<P>

However, if you are talking about hand-held, existing-light shooting conditions, don't stress too much about sharpness. Sharpness is by no means everything in photography and if you really want sharpness, use a tripod as much as possible, but that is not practical in "street" type photography.

[olivier_reichenbach]

Michael,

 

Why don't you look into Tamron's 28-75/2.8 Asph. XR? I know, Tamron, but this one really

belies Tamron's sometimes so-so reputation. IMHO, an excellent zoom, almost up there

with Nikon's 28-70/2.8, optically at least. Three times less expensive, less cumbersome

and less heavy. Give it a try. Very good value for the money.

[gaius1]

I'm with Gary, the faster the better. In extreme situations, pushing to ISO 6400, handheld at 1/30 I'm not getting fine detail anyway! F/2.8 is stopped down for me most of the time!

 

Tho' I recently did a shoot with a) ISO 100 film b) f/5.6 and c) triple-digit shutter speeds. Man, it was weird...<div></div>

[lee hamiel]

Get a 17-35 2.8 & you will never regret it nor will you take it off the F100 unless you need more distance.

 

Good Luck

[roland_vink]

The average speed through the zoom range of the AD 24-85/2.8-4 is about f3.5.

 

The average speed of the AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 is about f4, which is 1/2 stop slower.

 

If you really need to shoot in low light (I presume without flash) then even f2.8 is not especially fast. Your best options for low light photography are the AF 35/2, 50/1.8 or 1.4 and 85/1.8.

 

If you really need a zoom, consider the Nikon AF 35-70/2.8 or the Tamron 28-75/2.8.

[greg_seto]

Thank you for buying a film camera! I would recommend what many others have, a prime. If necessary, zoom with your feet.

 

I can't tell you why, I'm sure somebody here can, but the image quality of a fast prime is superior to a fast zoom. Of course, I'm referring to wider apertures, as most lenses start to look the same 'round about f8. But since you're shooting available light interiors, that is something you might want to consider. For instance, using a 50mm f1.4 at a good stop, say f2 at a handheld speed, say 1/30 with iso 100 versus f4 at 1/30 with iso 400. Its all about tradeoffs, everything has its ups and downs.

 

I would not recommend a ramped zoom (I think thats what its called), too confusing, and I do agree with not putting a cheapo zoom on a pro camera.

[raymond_petty1]

I'll second the 35-70/2.8 AFD as a very nice, reasonably priced choice. This is an underrated lens that can be had for a bargain on the used market. It's push-pull, which bothers some people (a shame because they are missing out on a great all around lens), but not me. I have often carried this around with my 24/2.8 and/or 50/1.4, depending on my needs. The lens is also noticeably smaller and easier to carry than the 28-70/2.8 AFS.

[tong_sun2]

The benifits of 24-85/2.4-4 D over the AFS-G is that it has a nice macro setting and you can get 1:2 at 85mm. If you only carry one lens, there is no other lens as versatile as this one in Nikon's lineup. Also it will work on manual focus body which is a big plus, just in case you get an FM2 in the future as a backup.

 

The benifit of AFS-G is that it focus faster. Some said it is slightly sharper and has better color due to the use of ED glass. But at 24-85 range, ED should not make too much of a difference.

[josephwalsh]

"The difference between a normal zoom and a normal prime is a few steps back or forward."

 

This common wisdom is just plain wrong. To see the difference between "zooming" and "moving" consult any primer on cinematography. A zoom and a tracking shot are diferent---very different---in terms of perspective., i.e., subject/background relationship.

[loreneidahl]

Moving forward or backward with your feet is called "dollying" not zooming. Big difference.

 

One changes perspective, one doesnt.

 

 

I shoot inside low-light action (rock concerts) . My main lenses are 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 , I also like the 135mm. Dont care for the 105 as its too close to the 85 and not fast enough.

 

I shoot both digital and film during the same event. The 24-85 is not fast enough for my type of shooting. I need to have at least F2.8 for my zooms. The zoom I use in that range is the 28-70 . I tried the 35-70 but , didnt like it as it didnt get wide enough on the digital side.

 

That said I prefer primes. So I carry more than one body , each mounted with a different lens.

 

The 50 1.4 is always present with me.

[jovan]

dear Dominic, <br>

If available light of f 3.5 is to slow for you, then don't even think <br> about any thing less then f 2.8. Second consideration is price, right!? <br>

<br>

For the price of one 28-70mm f2.8 (1.620,00 euro) you can buy: <br>

1. Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 SUPERB lens in term of sharpnes 728,00e (I have one)<br>

<br>

2. Nikon 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 Exelent every day lens, very good sharpnes 360,00e <br> (beter then any 24-120,24-85,28-80 ... f3...etc.) <br>

<br>

3. One incredibly shrarp "The sharpest" Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF or AFD for only 104,00e <br> or 1/2EV faster Nikon 50mm f1.4 AFD 272,00e. <br>

Or else some amazing "The fastest" Nikon 50mm f1.2 MF for 545,00e NEW or 200e used. <br>

F100 work* excelent with manual focus lenses don't hesitate to use them *(M,A - mode) <br>

<br>

<br>

4.One NEW Manual Nikkor 24mm f2.8 550,00e or Nikkor 24mm f2.0 784,00e <br> or even Nikkor 20mm f2.8 708,00e will work beter then any AUTO FOCUS <br>

Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AFD for 390,00e or Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AFD for 633,00e <br>

and can be found used for less then 200e.<br>

<br>

<br>

5. And for the dessert I recommend you on low price Tokina AFD193 19-35mm f3,5-4,5 as general use wide zoom lense . <br>

<br>

<br>

I think that this combination is real kiler for the money... :)

[ShunCheung]

<I>A zoom and a tracking shot are diferent---very different---in terms of perspective., i.e., subject/background relationship.</I>

<P>

<I>Moving forward or backward with your feet is called "dollying" not zooming. Big difference. One changes perspective, one doesnt.</I>

<P>

Very well said. I wish I would never see the so called "zoom with your feet" suggestion in this forum again because it makes absolutely no sense. Moving does change your perspective and is not always possible because of time and space limitations. In a crowded place, if you move away from your subject to get a wider view, people can quickly get in front of you and block your shot.

<P>

Photography involves compromises. There is no one right answer. A number of possible answers have been presented here; it all depends on how you want to compromise.

[gaius1]

What I'd <i>really</i> like is a 35-85mm f/2 AF-S VR lens, but until Nikon makes me one, I'll stick to the 50mm f/1.4 with occasional forays into 28-70 f/2.8 territory...

[grant_bridenbaugh]

Agree with many of the others above -- "zoom with your feet" is a poor auto-response to just peel off to anyone who asks about zooms. In some cases, it's appropriate, but often times not.

 

The key factor is, how/when/where will the person asking the question be doing his shooting? Circumstances are everything.

 

If one's photography is primarily scenic, portraiture, or other type where shots can be planned out, set up, examined, re-composed, etc -- then "zooming with the feet", or changing to a different fixed lens if one doesn't want to change perspective, is perfectly feasible and will likely result in some marginally higher level of image sharpness and available exposure options (due to faster lens).

 

If, on the other hand, one shoots primarily active subjects, candid shots, walking around type stuff, the zoom is invaluable, and more than worth the slight speed and sharpness tradeoffs. Two guys together at the place/party/event/street/whatever, going for the same shots of the same 'moments' -- the shots obtained by the guy using a quality zoom will look much better than the perhaps slightly sharper, but often poorly-framed/composed ones obtained by the fixed user, and will look worlds better than the shots that the fixed user simply didn't get at all.

 

If you don't know when and where someone intends to shoot, or what they want to do with the images, or similar information, your advice is as likely to be detrimental as helpful -- however well intentioned it is -- IMO.

[erick_lamontagne]

Grant, I disagree. A main aspect of scenic photography composition is the point of view (where the photographer stands). Moving around simply destroys the composition, and cropping after the fact reduces image quality, which is often important to render details. I don't do street photography but it seems many who do are quite happy with the faster prime lenses and cropping if needed, even if this means losing some sharpness.

 

Michael, for the price of the AFS 24-85, you can get a used 24/2.8 in excellent condition at keh.com and a new 50/1.8.

[alex_lofquist]

There is a way to "zoom with your feet", but it requires a lens similar to the 200-400 f/4 and, while lying on your back, adjust the focal length with your tootsies.

[grant_bridenbaugh]

Erick,

 

<p>If you'll notice, I mentioned 'zooming with the feet' OR changing lenses to preserve perspective as options available to the scenic, portrait, etc shooter.

 

<p>You're picking a nit (one that's not really even in my message) and skipping over the whole point.

 

<p>Shooting stuff that stays put and gives you time to carefully arrange and prepare -- be it changing lenses or changing location -- for optimal composition, is a much different critter than shooting 'here one second, gone the next' material.

 

<p><i>"I don't do street photography but it seems many who do are quite happy with the faster prime lenses and cropping if needed, even if this means losing some sharpness."</i>

 

<p>This would be OK, I suppose, if you're packing the 50/1.8 and run into a scene that frames best at 70mm. What about when you run into the shot you can't frame without going to 30 or 35mm? 'Reverse-crop'? If only there were such a thing...

 

<p>If you're willing to, as you say, "lose some sharpness", why not use a zoom that lets you compose those fleeting images the way you'd like to on the film (or sensor), instead of relying on post processing?

 

<p>Or, maybe I'm just nuts. :-)

[steve_muntz]

A couple of points:

 

Faster lenses focus better in low light; whether or not you choose to use them wide open is a different subject.

 

If you have a very fast prime (f1.4, f1.8), you have more options in low light. If f2.8 is only getting you 1/8 second, you're probably in trouble for hand-held shots. That smaller, lighter 50 f1.4 would give you 1/30 wide open.

 

There's not much depth of field at f1.4 so focus is very critical. But your subject will be sharp rather than having the whole frame be soft from camera shake.