Help me pick a bag of primes

[robert_meyers]

Hey all,

 

With the release of the D700, I consider Nikon to be doing some major changes to the photographys world... and so

they now have my attention. I am considering a jump to Nikon with the new D700. I shoot portraits (70%), weddings

(20%) and occasionally dirt oval auto racing (10%, anywhere from 135 to 250mm actually does this fine, longer is

nearly unusable).

 

So now you know what I shoot, I am asking people what they would grab for a bag of primes. Here are the budgets i

am looking at for lenses: $2000, $3000 and $5000. New or used does not matter. And I don't mind manual focus for

wides. Goal would be to try no flash or storbes with a wedding... not using film (which is what I normally need to do

for that).

 

I know Canon and I know Olympus. I only know one lens I really like among Nikon. If I can't find the lenses... no

reason to jump systems. That lens is the 135mm DC AF. As an aside, how fast do people think that lens will focus

on the D700. I have read a lot about bodies effecting speed with older Nikon lenses.

 

Thanks all!

[ellis_vener_photography]

18mm f/3.5 AI-S, 14-24mm f/2.8G (really ,with the exception of the 18mm afrementioned it is at least as good if

not better than the other primes of any make (with the possible exception of Leica R) in that range); 28mm f/2

AI-S, 50mm f/1.4D, 60mm f/2,8 G Micro-Nikkor (the newest one); 24-70mm f/2.8G; 85mm f/1.4D; 105mm f/4 AI-S

Micro-Nikkor; 180mm f/2.8D; the new 85mm f/2.8 PC-E; 200mm f/2G.

[joe_a2]

Put the 35mm f/2 AF-D, the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D, and the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D lens in all three of your budget/lists. About $1600 new for all at B&H. Perhaps $1000-1100 on theBay from reputable Sellers.

[jose_angel]

For weddings, I cannot imagine other than an AFS 24-70/2.8.

 

For portraits, AFD 85/1.4, AFD180/2.8. I`m currently using a Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 VR althought I think it is a sweet&sour lens for portraits.

 

I have read good things about the AFS 200/2 VR.

[photo5]

28mm f2.8 AIS, 35mm f2 AI or AIS, 50mm f1.8 AF-D, 85mm f1.4 AIS or AF-D, 105mm f2.5 AI or AIS are my favorites.

[Ed_Ingold]

Prime lenses are a waste of time except for the long lenses - 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, etc. If you have a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 VR you are covered for weddings and dirt track racing. AFS lenses focus about 3x as fast as the lenses you are drooling over. F/2.8 is fast enough for a DSLR, especially outdoors. Even indoors, with or without flash, ISO 400 is sufficient for 90% of your shooting.

[david_king11]

"I`m currently using a Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 VR althought I think it is a sweet&sour lens for portraits. "

 

 

What does this mean? Sometimes good and sometime bad?

[joseph_smith3]

Since you are exploring options and will consider manual focus lenses, look at the Zeiss lenses with the F mount:

The ones for Nikon are the ZF lenses. The last link is info about a new 18mm lens coming this fall.

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/858dbbbbd2fb78a6c125711800592377

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3535

 

While I have primes, I ageee that if I were buying today, I would start with good zooms like the ones already mentioned above and use primes for the 300mm and longer tele needs. One exception might be the 200mm f 2.0 AFS VR which is reported to be an outstanding lens.

 

This link will give you excellent info on current and mf Nikon lenses: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating

 

Joe Smith

[robert_meyers]

"Prime lenses are a waste of time except for the long lenses - 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, etc. If you have a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 VR you are covered for weddings and dirt track racing. AFS lenses focus about 3x as fast as the lenses you are drooling over. F/2.8 is fast enough for a DSLR, especially outdoors. Even indoors, with or without flash, ISO 400 is sufficient for 90% of your shooting."

 

Er, drooling over? Excuse me? Being I often have had to go well past ISO 400 at F/2.8 indoors, not sure where you get that. And for weddings... DoF is nice to have a little more control over.

 

There are those who prefer primes, and those who prefer zooms. I currently use 3 zooms. I more often use nine primes. It has to do with the way you like to shoot. I consider zooms to steal time from contemplating the right shot. I will use em, and I might buy some, but I prefer primes.

[joseph_smith3]

Hi Robert, one of my favorite primes is the mf 55mm f 2.8 macro lens that I use mostly for landscape work. It is very sharp and I bought it used for about $100. One of my friends has the 85mm f 1.8 AF lens that produces great results and is lighter and less expensive than the f 1.4 version. I also use my 20mm f 2.8 AF lens a lot on my D 300. If I had a D 3 or a D 700, I would use my 24mm f 2.8 AF lens. Check out the new mf lenses you can still get from Nikon at www.nikonusa.com. Joe Smith

[oskar_ojala]

For weddings having at least one zoom is very useful. For dirt racing I also imagine a zoom would be useful, though I haven't tried. For portraits I can live without zooms. Now on to the primes, pick your favorite focal lengths:

 

Wide: The good ones happen to be manual focus. The new Zeiss 18/3.5 looks very tempting, though haven't seen tests yet. 28/2 definitely, good all-rounder. 35/1.4.

 

Normal: 50/1.4 AF-D. 50/1.2 MF if you're more adventurous.

 

Short/medium tele: 85/1.4 (or possibly 85/1.8), 105/2 DC, 135/2 DC.

 

Longish tele: if you want lighter and cheaper, 180/2.8. If you don't mind weight and price, then 200/2 AF-S VR.

 

I skipped macros since you didn't mention those. I think the portrait lenses are very strong performers, they don't have AF-S but shouldn't be too much of a problem...

[ronald_moravec1]

Don`t discount zooms because of poor optics. They are no longer poor. Use primes only for speed like 2.0 and 1.4.

 

The new 14/24 and 24/70 are great lenses. Corners on the 70/200 at 200mm and 2.8 are regularly complained about. If

important to you, get an old 80/200 made for film bodies or the 180 2.8. which is better than either.

[eric_arnold]

have to agree with ronald here. if you can afford the 14-24 and 24-70, IQ is prime-like (primal?) with the added versatility of a focal range and the convenience of not having to change lenses. but since you specifically asked about low light, i'd go with joe a's suggestions: 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4. none of these are AF-S, but they should work just fine on a D700.

[photo5]

The reason I like primes over zooms is that it simplifies my photography, and it's a lot less to carry around. I like having to look through one lens, to have one view of things.

 

Quality is usually better. The pro zooms can equal primes most of the time, but personally I don't want to carry around a huge lens when I'm out casually shooting. If I were working, that's different, but my photography is 100 percent for me, I don't work for hire anymore (I could but I choose not to).

 

The 55mm f2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor is, some say, the sharpest lens Nikon ever made. Certainly this is up for debate! But I agree it's one gorgeous lens, and it's a staple in my bag. I don't use it when walking around though, I tend to prefer a faster lens for manually focusing. And at infinity it really doesn't beat other 50mm lenses in my experience having tested a bunch one time. In fact, the 50mm f2 AI is about the best at infinity according to my tests.

[dave_weber1]

Like you, I usually prefer primes.

 

On the telephoto side I can highly recommmend the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D! Insane quality images, very rugged, and relatively lightweight!

 

On the wide side, I don't like any of the autofocus Nikkor primes, but I do like most of the 28mm manual focus Nikkors (f/2.8 AIS, f/2 AIS, f/3.5 all versions). I've owned two of the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 autofocus zooms. This zoom is as good as any of the Nikkor primes in it's range, but as you would expect, is heavier than the primes.

 

I have no experience with the new 14-24 or 24-70. But I doubt that I would be interested in the 14-24 as it's just too wide for me. The 24-70 might be a lens I would consider in the future though.

[ben__evans]

85mm f1.4, 50mm 1.8/ 1.4, and definitely the 180mm, which is a phenomenal lens as Dave says. You'll need steady hands though.

[robert_meyers]

An extra question... does VR work well on panning? My EFL in racing shots is ussually 135 - 200mm, but the shots are often 1/60 - 1/30s.

 

Oh and why on the zoom = bad for dirt oval racing (IMHO). I, like many others have missed a wreck because of trying to zoom into it. Figure you only react in time for 20%, and you lose another 50% of that to recomposing. Skip recomposing and you get all 20%, don't and you MIGHT get 10%. But of those you are going to have some weird effects.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I will also have a normal zoom. This is a given. Though honestly I lean towards the 28-75/2.8 tamron, as the quality on a good sample is great. I compared it, the 24-70 and 28-70 on canon. It was right between the two, and costs next to nothing. So it seems like a good saftey lens. But I want a bit better quality... and primes are best for that normally. And I have heard a LOT of bad on the 24-70 on Nikon (which may or may not be true, but unknown).

 

My first thoughts were one of the 85s, the 135, the 180, and one of the 50s. But I did want to hear about everyones oppinions on the primes with this system. I will say I trust Zeiss a bit more. So I really am looking at their wides.

 

And as an aside, I never, ever, seem to shoot a macro. Know Idea why, but I just don't seem to. Weird.

[wj_lee]

I get a sneaky feeling that Nikon will update few prime lenses quite soon possibly with release of D3x. You might wanna wait a little while.

[Two23]

Not sure why you aren't interested in something like the new Nikon 14-24mm f2.8. It blows away any single focal lens in terms of image quality. With exception of some newer macros, all of Nikon's single focal lenses are old designs using older type coatings. I don't think ANY have ED elements either. Might take that into account.

 

 

Kent in SD

[scott_warn]

Lets just break it down. BTW, the following prices came from B & H.

 

First, 70% of your work is shooting portraits. Which means that you'll want the holy trinity of protrait lenses. Which are 85mm, 105mm and 135mm focal lengths. BTW, don't be concerned about AF speed with these lenses because people sitting for a formal portrait just don't move that fast. However, all of Nikon's classic protrait lenses use rear element group focusing and I know for a fact that both the 85mm lenses are quite quick. Now for some prices.

 

the 85mm f1.8 is 400 USD, the 85mm f1.4 is 1025 USD, the 105mm f2 DC is 925 USD, and the 135 f2 DC is 1070 USD. Assuming you want giant front elements to impress your clients and want the slightly better bokeh of the 85mm f1.4, the total cost comes to 3020 USD. If your mature enough that there are things that are more important than the soft look of an 85mm f1.4 used wide open, you can cut that cost to 2395 USD. BTW, both of Nikon's 85mm lenses feature superb sharpness when stopped down to f2.8 or beyond. As for the 2 DC lenses, the sharpness is partially dependent on how the De-Focus control is adjusted. At neutral DC both lenses have an excellent reputation for sharpness.

 

Now for your wedding shooting. For that you'll need more Primes. Assuming you need 24 to 50mm coverage, that would mean a 24mm, 35mm and 50mm lenses. For the longer shots you'll have the Portrait lenses you previously purchased. Just in case you want to go really wide I'll list the cost of the 20mm f2.8 but I won't include it in the total.

 

the 20mm f2.8 is 460.00 USD, the 24mm f2.8 is 310 USD, the 35mm f2 is 320 USD, and the 50mm f1.4 is 290 USD. Total up the 24, 25, and 50mm lenses and you have a total of 920 USD.

 

So far, your Prime based system is up to either 3940 or 3315 depening on your choice at the 85mm focal length.

 

Now you need a couple of lenses for the racing pics. Those would be the 180mm f2.8 EDIF for 750 USD and the AF-S 300mm f4 for 1200 USD. For an additional total of 1950 USD.

 

So, the total amount of your Prime based system is either 5890 USD or 5265 USD.

 

Now lets take a look at the total cost of a zoom based system that covers the same range. If your not aware of it by now, Nikon's recent consumer level zoom can match or even outclass many of Nikon's older Primes in terms of image quality and their Pro level zooms are even better. About the only thing that you'll give up is a slight loss in speed and bokeh that is just slighly harsher that the 3 premium Portrait lenses.

 

So the cost for the AF-S 24-70mm f2.8 is 1700 USD and the AF-S VR 70-200mm f2.8 is 1625 USD. Thow in a TC-14E teleconverter to get you to 280mm at 410 USD and the full total for a system that covers everything you are doing is 3735 USD. Add to that the simple truth is that your lens swapping will be greatly reduced, meaning fewer oppurtunities missed due to lens changes, and you now know why so many pros are now using Zoom lenses. Because it costs less and they can concentrate on taking pictures instead of picking out, and mounting, a lens for a particular shot.

 

So, now you have everything you need to know to make your decision. If it were me, I would go with the 24-70 because it's a great wedding lens, the 70-200 f2.8 VR because it's great for longer shooting, and the 105mm f2 DC for shooting portraits. I would pass on the teleconverter because the 70-200 will crop quite well. The total for that would be 4250.

[ned1]

Go manual!

 

28/2.0 AIS

 

50/1.2 AIS

 

105/1.8 AIS:

 

 

Three of the best Nikon lenses ever made. The 50/1.2 may be THE best.

 

All three together will run you about $1100 (or less)

 

Then get yourself the 85/1.4 AF-D. That's the best AF prime Nikon ever made. Use it for weddings.

 

Total will be only slightly over 2K.

[bill_dewberry]

I stopped by a portrait studio here in newport beach ca. today, they shoot children and families, only use 35mm, only use B & W film, printed on fiber. This is a small privately owned chain of studios. Their equipment is a canon elan body and the mid price 28-105 zoom lens, 3,5 - 4.6 or so, thats it. The images on the wall were enlarged to some 30x40 and looked very good. The customers are happy. Most of the shooters in this company are women.

My realization is we guys get all caught up in the " stuff", me especially, L lenses, primes, 1.4, yada yada, and then there are people like this studio who just go shoot and print. maybe life can be simple.

[Andrew Garrard]

May I chime in to continue the debate? I'm in a similar situation - switching from Canon crop sensor to Nikon for the D700 (waited too long for a 5D2), although with a probably more limited budget.

 

To get the zooms out of the way, I'm definitely getting a 14-24 f/2.8 (it being the main reason I wanted to switch - I'd have got one to manual focus on a 5D anyway) - not that this is relevant to the original request. To match the range of my 70-300 IS on Canon when used on the D700's full frame, my best bet seems to be the 150-500 OS Sigma (for silent focus, image stabilising so that I can frame at the far end, and the fact that I can't afford a 500mm prime; the 80-400 Nikkor is loud, slow to focus, and I'm told a little fuzzy at the long end). I'll get something cheap to cover the gap - the 28-200G is allegedly sharp, if slow.

 

Now to the point. I'd been looking at a 135 DC for portraits (I wanted one even on Canon). The focus might be a bit loud, but I hope it's otherwise uncontentious.

 

I *had* been assuming that I should get the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 (the latter being cheaper than Canon's), but lens tests seem to imply that - away from the centre of the frame - both these lenses are much worse than the EF 50mm f/1.8 that I have on Canon. Spending f/1.4 money for a lens that needs to be stopped down to f/2.8 to be anything like as sharp as my existing f/1.8 seems wasteful. I appreciate that lens tests aren't everything, but I really don't frame everything dead centre. Cue outrage? I'm not in the market for a Noct lens; I'm vaguely hopeful that Nikon might get around to some AF-S versions with aspherical optics. I'm waiting for someone to review the Sigma f/1.4 50mm, which could well turn out to be superior.

 

Next up, a 105 f/2.8 Micro, because it's supposed to be sharper across the frame than the 50mms, I need a macro lens, it has VR, and the autofocus should be silent (AF-S). For macro, longer is better (for me).

 

I have future plans to pad this selection with a 35D f/2 and an 85mm (probably f/1.8) at some point, but I use the mid range less than the ends.

 

For full frame, I'm deeply underwhelmed by the apparent performance of the 70-300VR and 70-200 f/2.8VR. It seems Nikon have been designing for DX sensors, and have scuppered themselves a bit for full frame. Canon have been more full-frame aware, although possibly less sharp in the middle. I feel a bit embarrassed, given that Nikon is known as a lens company, that I seem to be considering a lot of Sigma lenses.

 

Thanks to the contributors to this thread for mentioning the 180 f/2.8, though. I'll seriously consider that.

 

I should stress that I have none of the above yet, so I base this only on reviews. This is where people with practical experience of the above lenses shoot me down.

[John Crowe]

I highly doubt that the D700 will be worth twice what the 5D is selling for. You will pay dearly for better high ISO performance, and that's about it. When there is a 5D II it will outperform the D700 and likely at a cheaper price. Canon has lenses that Nikon does not and vice versa so there will always be trade offs there. Try to avoid the mega zooms. ie 28-200 and xx-500. Why go to the quality of full frame just to bog it down with poor optics. May as well stay with crop and get shorter better lenses. Perhaps keep your crop body and set of lenses for appropriate subjects and go full frame for other specific subjects/lens combos. I now use a crop body primarily for sports and full frame for landscapes...that sort of idea.

[dan_brown4]

When I was shooting with an F3HP, found the 28/2.0 + 50/1.4 + 105/1.8 to be very good all around. Plenty of speed, and the 105 is a

really good portrait lens. However, this was film, and I'm not sure how they perform with the digital sensor. I'd want to test the wide

angle lenses before I bought them. For example Bjorn's site trashes the 18/3.5, while it was widely regarded as a film lens.