Help me pick a bag of primes

[sven_felsby]

My 105/2.5AIS is razor sharp. An absolute gem. Lots to buy used at modest prices. The 45/2.8P is another favorite of mine, with high contrast and nice bokeh, but some might want a faster normal lens.

For wides, I would get the 14-24 any time. My 20/3.5AIS is nothing to write about.

[robert_meyers]

You know, we have a few comments in here suggesting a wait for a 5d2. Thing is, the d700 compares to both the 5d and the 1d3. The ability to shoot at super high ISO at 8 fps? Insane in a $3000 dslr. Otherwise... I wouldn't be planning a change.

 

Quality and speedwise, how would you all compare the 180 with kenko pro 1.4 vs the 300/4 afs? I have read it is horridly slow.

[davemoss]

Prime lenses are a waste of time except for the long lenses

 

you'd have to search far and wide to find a more ignorant statement than that one. for what you want, get the 85mm 1.4, and maybe the 35mm and 50mm (as already mentioned). yes, zoom lenses are ok for weddings, but if you are used to primes, you won't like them. 2.8 is not really all that fast, and since you really need to open the lens up at least a stop, you are looking at lenses that are pretty slow. i know the new sensors are better for low light, but still, the look of the primes is much better than any zoom.

[oskar_ojala]

Realistically, I don't think one needs 85, 105 and 135. I never pack all of these at once, usually going for 85, then 135 for portraits. 105 is very popular, but it has never been my favorite.

 

The 14-24 should be better than Nikon's primes (let's leave the 24/3.5 PC out of the comparison). But in one test the classic Zeiss 21 beat the 14-24, so I'd say that the 18 mm Zeiss has a fair chance of competing. The real question is, how wide do you need? Ultrawides are often overused for the sake of the effect...

[robert_meyers]

So which do you all think is a better lens the 85 1.4 or 1.8? A half stop isn't going to kill me... But bad bokeh and handling might:)

 

Same question on the 50s. I know is canon the 1.8 is better than 1.4 in optical quality. Speaking of the AF. The 1.2 sounds great... But I would prefer AF on a normal lens.

 

Also, how does the 14-24 compare with the zeiss primes or the older 17-35? Or even the fast super wides by tamron or sigma?

 

Thanks all!

[jose_angel]

To David King:

 

The 105VR is plenty sharp and with a reasonable good bokeh for portraiture to my liking; I miss on it a constant and faster aperture. Actually, the variable maximum aperture doesn`t disturb at all, it is f3 on head portraits, even f3.2 if you go closer, but I`d prefer f2.

 

The AFD 105/2 DC is definitely the portraiture lens specialist, equally sized, althought it lacks AFS, VR (and close-up ability).

[ilkka_nissila]

The 105VR might be nominally f/3, but the corners are more like f/4-f/4.5. The 105 DC is two stops faster in the corners

according to my tests. As far as I am concerned this makes the 105 VR an f/4 lens. Not very good for available light,

though if you do shoot with the aperture set at f/4, it's very good.

 

I seem to have a fairly densely packed set of primes. It really depends on what I am shooting, which lenses I'll pack. If I

had to pick a favorite set for a reasonable cost, it'd be 28/2 Ai-S (or 28/2.8 Ai-S), 50/1.8 AF-D, 105 VR, and the 180/2.8

AF-D. I think these would work well, they certainly do for me. For available light weddings and portraits I would pick the

105/2 DC over the VR, but either would do ok. The 85/1.4 is a lens I like a lot, but then you'd be spending more money

and probably need a 135 instead of the 180, then the whole set would be 28/50/85/135/300 instead of 28/50/105/180.

[ilkka_nissila]

BTW all my AF-D lenses autofocus really nicely on the D3, I assume this to be the case for the D700 which has the same

AF sensor AFAIK.

 

But the DC Nikkors aren't among the fastest in terms of autofocus. I really like the 135/2 too, but if you're following

someone moving towards the camera at high speed, I think the 105 VR AF-S would do a bit better than the DC 135 in

tracking the subject.

[Andrew Garrard]

Re. superzooms, the 28-200 is flimsy, slow (in aperture and focus) and has some distortion. However, for sharpness and the price, I've heard only good things, which is more than I can say for most more professional mid-range zooms (I'm not just buying an expensive camera and shoddly glass); it's there to fill gaps in my range. I'll supplement it with 30, 50 and 85 primes at some point, although I remain nervous about the off-centre performance of some of those. The 150-500 Sigma also seems to be seen favourably. I'm sure it's not in the league of a super-telephoto prime, but decent cheap ones (with image stabilising so I can hand-hold) don't exist. Believe me, I'll save for a 400 f/2.8 VR. Decent medium telephoto is the best I can afford for now - which probably means 135DC, 105 micro, and possibly 185 f/2.8.

 

Re. us switchers from Canon, the D700 has a better LCD than any current Canon (I want to focus a tilt lens), probably better metering, better autofocus than anything below the 1-series Canons (at least), and trap focus (missing from Canon since the 1D3 refresh, AFAICT). I was lusting after the 135DC and 14-24 anyway. The 5D2 is rumoured to add mexapixels (don't care), and has been due "real soon now" for over a year. I'm sure it *will* appear, but I've lost patience in Canon deciding no to refresh the 5D just because it's had no competition. Actually, I *would* wait, but the D700 arrives in time for a month holidaying in scenic places. Unless Canon build in a time travel feature, I'll not get the same shots.

 

Canon's unique lenses are mostly (as I see them) very fast primes in the mid range (50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2 spring to mind) - but the more conservative lenses focus faster, and a D700's ISO performance means I doubt I'll need the speed. The 100-400L IS is better than the Nikon equivalent, but extortionately expensive. Canon got T/S, USM and IS working sooner, but Nikon now have all three to some extent. Nikon's unique lenses happen to tempt me more, and there are no huge holes in the range any more. Not that I'd object to some lenses getting an AF-S makeover.

 

Thanks for the suggestions (and sorry for diverting the thread off-topic).

[robert_meyers]

In essence, as the OP, was a lens suggestion thread for people switch to nikon over the D700... So it is ALL of interest.

 

So far I am aiming at one 50, 85 and the 135. Considering primes versus zooms on the wides (35/2 and a fast 28 or 24 and a 21 or the nikkor 14-24 or 17-35). And arguing in my head 180/300 or sigma 120-300/2.8 (as all I have heard is good). And a 28-75/2.8 tamron as a cheap but optically great standard zoom.

 

Granted I probably have a month to argue, but I like solid plans.

[Andrew Garrard]

Thanks, Robert - I feel less self-conscious.

 

I'd assumed I was going to get a 50 and possibly 85 prime, on the basis that everyone assumes these are the cheap and decent lenses that everyone should own (cheap in f/1.8 form, anyway). I certainly have no regrets about my 50 f/1.8 on Canon. I'm just nervous that the edge performance seems to be substantally less good at anything approaching wide open than I might expect with the 50mm Nikons and the 85 f/1.4 (the 85 f/1.8 looks better, at least on one review site) - although some review sites suggest the 50 f/1.4 Canon is none too clever either, so I may have been spoiled by my cheap plastic wonder. Given that there's a lot more "edge" to a full frame camera, this worries me - hence settling on the cheap zoom so I have *something* in that range (allegedly half decent, although its speed probably rules it out for you), and spending my money on the 105/135/185 length. It may be that my concerns about edge sharpness on the 50 and 85 primes is completely unfounded; I'd value more opinions from owners. I know they're sharp in the centre, but a D700 isn't that picky; I'd trade full frame sharpness for centre sharpness. I'd really like to know whether Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 is better.

 

The Tamron is a good suggestion, too. I'll check my budget.

 

The 14-24 has had universally glowing reviews. If you can use the range and it's fast enough (and Canon possibly have the better fast primes on the middle-wide-angle end), it seems to be the lens to have. Personally, I find myself either up close and wanting a wide angle or unable to get near and needing a telephoto, and rarely in the middle with a normal lens - but it's down to your style. (Also, I'm an amateur out of my depth here, so I wouldn't presume to tell you what range you need.)

 

Incidentally, if I wasn't after a macro lens and silent autofocus and therefore the 105 f/2.8 VR, I'd probably save money and take the 105DC. I'm looking at the premium for the 135DC because I may as well not duplicate focal lengths. Also, a bonus few mm in the front element if I use it for astronomy! Since you need autofocus speed and I suspect silent autofocus would be appreciated in a church, I'd still be considering the 105 VR in your case (again, not having used it), but the DC lenses ought to give you something special for your wedding shots. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 may solve the silent focus problem for you rather more flexibly, although it's the famous "*how* much for a polariser?" lens. :-)

 

Best of luck.

[joe_a2]

Robert asked: "So which do you all think is a better lens the 85 1.4 or 1.8? A half stop isn't going to kill me... But

bad bokeh and handling might:) ..... Same question on the 50s. I know is canon the 1.8 is better than 1.4 in optical

quality. Speaking of the AF. The 1.2 sounds great... But I would prefer AF on a normal lens. ..... Also, how does the

14-24 compare with the zeiss primes or the older 17-35? Or even the fast super wides by tamron or sigma?"

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

I would definitely suggest going for the 85mm f/1.4D. The 1.8's bokeh isn't bad, but the 1.4 is magical. I cannot

imagine how amazing D3/D700 files must be with the 85 1.4 I have shot the 1.4 a lot and currently have the 1.8, but

I'll go back to the 1.4 some day (I tend to "move" my Nikon money back and forth). The 85mm f/1.4 and the 180mm

f/2.8 are a close one-two for my favorite Nikkors.

 

In the 50mms I actually prefer the 1.8 lens. I do have both and take the 1.4 when I need the shallow depth of field or

extra 2/3rds stop, but the 50mm f/1.8 has few peers.

 

I have no experience with the 14-24, but I do shoot the 17-35. It is probably my most-used lens (D300, so DX).

Although I am not interested in the D700, I have thought ahead to when I shoot FX. Apparently-amazing-optics

aside, the thing that concerns me on the 14-24 is the front element. I like to shoot with no protective filter, but I do

like the option for certain conditions. The 17-35 has 77mm threads. The bulging 14-24 front element allows no

filters. Plus, it's a huge lens.

 

As I said above, I really enjoy shooting with the 180mm AF f/2.8D lens, too. If you need a longer tele, consider that

lens a must in my opinion.

[Andrew Garrard]

...and I missed the actual question. Re. the 14-24, here's a review, testing it against other lenses including the 12-24 Sigma. Tests are manual focus, on a 1DsIII with an adaptor.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

 

It's not quite as sharp as a 21mm Zeiss Distagon, but it's pretty close, and the 14-24 is sharper at its wider end. It's a world ahead of the 14mm primes.

 

I've played with a Sigma 12-24, which is supposedly pretty good optically (but not as good as the Nikon). For some reason, f/4.5 feels much darker to me on a wide angle than it does on a zoom; I was really squinting at it in a dimly-lit shop. It also needs stopping down to be sharper; the 14-24 is pretty sharp wide open. Of course, if you need the extra 2mm, there's no option.

 

The 14-24 is actually not as huge as I was worried it was. Sure, it dwarfs a 50 f/1.8, but it's not as unwieldy as my 70-300IS (certainly not as big as my 65mm super-rotator), and wasn't as bulky as the D3 I tried it on. Although the front element is a bit exposed, the hood looks pretty protective; it'd probably be difficult to knock it on something (compared with my Peleng 8mm fish eye). The 150-500 OS Sigma, by contrast, is enormous - by the standards of someone who doesn't own a pro telephoto lens, anyway.

 

Incidentally, I'd mean to respond to John Crowe's suggestion of keeping the crop body for sports. Sadly, I have a problem with sports in low light; I need larger photosites (well, strictly I need a larger lens objective), and my crop body is ancient and due for replacement anyway. Since I'm switching systems, it's the 150-500 OS or a 70-300VR and a D300 (and even then, the 70-300 is supposed to be a bit weak at the long end). Besides, the 150-500 will be useful for hitting muggers with. Good point to make, though.