Lens purchasing revelation

[cwphoto]

I was very interested in buying the 24-70 f2.8 Nikon for my D700.

So I checked the cost of individual prime lenses to see what I could buy for the $1584 cost of a 24-70.

We can buy a current 24 f2.8, 35 f2, 50 1.8, and the 85 1.8 for $1339.75 this is from Adorama.

All but the 24mm lens is faster than 24-70. So here we have a slightly greater focal range and faster glass for $240

less. And you could substitute a 50 1.4 for the 50 1.8 if you wanted & still come in under the 24-70 cost. The

convenience of zooming is gone of course. Fast glass vs zoom??

[Ian Rance]

I was wondering about this just today. I get the feeling that with the zoom you are paying more for all the complex parts - silent wave motor, internal focus and special coatings. Also, you will be paying for all the R&D that Nikon have to do to to give us all these new lenses.

 

Ian

[commtrd]

This is a very valid argument. One consideration is the necessity of having to constantly change lenses to get the

desired focal length for constantly changing compositions. This may even mean missed shots due to changing

lenses constantly. Then again this may not be a problem depending on how a person shoots. And there are definite

benefits to using primes, especially faster lenses for low-light. Another thing is the ambient weather conditions

present and how that relates to constantly changing lenses. Originally I was going to go the route of all fast primes

but when I got my 24-70 and found out how much more convenient a zoom is in a lot of situations plus how darned

good the IQ of the lens is I changed my mind. Now for the longer focal lengths I think primes are the way to go. I now

have the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 (use on D300) and I am really happy with this coverage from wide to telephoto.

The 85 1.4 and 50 1.8 provide for low-light, and macro lenses for close-up etc. I don't like changing lenses constantly

and I still change lenses fairly frequently even with the zooms. Some will complain about the 24-70 but I have found it

to be a great tool and a very versatile lens. Everything is going to be a compromise one way or another. As usual,

every photographer has to decide for him / her self exactly what their needs are and fill them the best they can with

what's available. My plan is to someday acquire a D700 and use the wider lenses on that and the longer telephoto

lenses (macro?) on the D300 to fully use the different formats available and utilize their strengths with two bodies.

Carrying two bodies with appropriate lenses at the same time means having the right tools available instantly to be

ready for almost anything that comes up without having to constantly change lenses. In this way primes only would

be a great solution. Of course carrying two bodies / lenses would weigh considrably more, so there is the tradeoff

thing again...

[photobiscuits]

Convenience of zooming, not having to change lenses, not having to carry around 4 lenses =$240.

[landon wright photography]

I've heard the old argument that; "I zoom with my feet" so many times. I have sold all my primes and now carry the 14-24 24-

70 and 80-200. I can't imagine not having the ability to zoom. I did a typical take a 50mm out for a day/week and I hated not

having a wide option. I am spoiled and the only spot for a prime in my bag is taken by my great uncle's 50 1.8 that might be

older than me.

 

How many sensor cleanings would one have whilst using primes vs zooms? would that = $240?

[eric friedemann]

I think it depends on what you're shooting. If you're shooting a landscape, the camera's on a tripod and you have all the time you could want to make the photograph, you might benefit from switching around between fixed focal length lenses in terms of maybe a little added sharpness or lower distortion at a given aperture. If you're a press or wedding shooter, the 24-70mm f/2.8's intended constituency, you may not have time to switch from lens to lens and the zoom may be the hot ticket.

 

 

I'll tell you, I tried out the 24-70mm on a D700 and it is spectacular. Also, on the D300 and the D700, the higher ISO performance is so good, an f/2.8 pro zoom would be unlikely to inhibit your photographing abilities.

 

 

That isn't to say I'd sell my 28mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.4 AFD lenses, which I long to use on full frame bodies. But if I get a D700, I'll get a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens sooner or later.

[seismiccwave]

Human beings are generally lazy. That is why we rely on technology to give us more convenience in life. We prefer to

driving a car versus walking. We prefer a cordless phone versus a corded phone. We prefer a zoom lens over a prime

lens. Zoom lens gave the masses a little more convenience to create acceptable images. If you look at the majority of

the older great photographs most are made from a prime lens. I do prefer to zoom with my feet.

 

My dislike for zooms: they are heavy and conspicuous. They are a lot slower to use. By the time I finish framing the

image with the zoom I have lost the shot.

 

So when I walk around with a camera, I always carry the camera with a prime lens instead of a zoom. I only use zoom

lens when I am shooting an event or wedding.

[ronald_moravec1]

Changing lenses on a digital camera is for the most dedicated. Unless you like to clean dirt from inside the camera.

 

There is no way to decide to go light with a 35 or 50 mm lens, All those are big heavy zooms.

 

Wide open performance of Nikkors is not the greatest. I own all the auto focus ones you mention except for the 85 1.4.

I have used the 85 1.8. It is ok , but not great. So the trade off for speed is a question. That leaves weight. and

distortion.

They all have barrel distortion. Small for the 85, shade more for the 50, 35 gets more yet, 24 is pretty bad.

 

That leaves weight. You can add it up, but the primes will be more.

 

The biggest advantage to me is I like to use a prime. Small and light on the camera so it handles decently. Go to a

store and handle a camera with the 24/70. I can not imagine shooting portraits with a 70/200 zoom. Way too big

 

I guess it comes down to what you like. Most are picking zooms today.

[lightsmith1]

You also have lower image quality and less flexibility and need to keep changing lens continually which leads to missed shots and more dust inside the camera. If cost is your primary concern you would be better served getting a lens like the excellent Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 for under $500. You could get the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 for $800 and still be dollars ahead as compared to the 24-70mm lens and with better IQ than with the f1.8 primes you mentioned.

[Matt Laur]

For me? I'm out banging around a lot in areas where there are burrs, stones, twigs, does, mud, and even birdshot flying around, being kicked up by horses, and caused by my own Sasquatch-like grace in the field. So, lens long or short, zoom or not, all need filters. If I can cover the same sort of work with two lenses (instead of four), I'm two $100 filters ahead of the game, too. Though... the convenience of not changing glass all day is, realistically, a more serious consideration. A less fiddly pack or bag full of gear is nice, too.<div></div>

[dave wyman]

For the photography I enjoy - nature and travel - I'm down to one lens: the 18-200mm VR. Despite the nay-sayers,

I find the lens - mine, at any rate - to be quite sharp.

 

Yes, I have a bag full of extra lenses and I always carry a backup camera or two. Of late, though, I find myself

leaving everything but a spare battery in my car or van or lodgings, and wandering off wherever.

 

It's not just a matter of weight or not wanting to change lenses. It's about not losing time changing lenses and

losing a shot. When I think I might need something besides the 18-200, I'll attach that other lens to my backup

body and carry both cameras (my neck and/or shoulder won't take a third).

 

It would be nice to have every prime lens Nikon makes. But for me, that would be like a dog chasing its own tail

- a never ending, and never satisfying effort (except in the chase itself). As I've grown older, I've decided

that less can sometimes be more.

 

But that's just me. Or, as my father used to say, "There's a paddle for every fanny."<div></div>

[pablito_pistola]

I love prime lenses & use them when I can BUT:

 

1. There is no such thing as "zooming with your feet". Zooming changes the focal length, not the distance. Different focal lengths render the space differently. If, f'rinstance, you "see" the scene as shot by a long lens, then walking closer will not give the desired effect, it will only bring you closer. Duhhh.....Nuff said.

 

2. Anyone work out in the field and change lenses a lot? Your sensor will be dirty in no time, thank goodness the D300 has that self cleaning feature which shakes the dirt off very nicely most of the time.

[roman_thorn1]

Two camera's.... D300 with 85 1.4, D700 with 35 f2. Now you have total fexibililty. Now switch...D300 with 35 and D700 with the 85. I just took two lenses that went from wide to portait to standard and short tele. For me, that is getting best of both worlds. Conveniece and speed!

[spanky]

I've read on more then one occasion that primes are better optically all other things being equal. Of course this was several years ago so this may not really be the case if it ever was to begin with. Myself, I'm a prime guy. Overall, one just has to find out what works best for himself/herself. When I bought my F2 I chose the 28mm F2.8 AI-S. I briefly thought about picking up one of the fast 50mm lenses, but quickly found out that the 28mm serves me very well. I intended this to be a very simple bare bones kit and am now astonished at how one body and one prime lens can do so much.

 

I'm reminded of a couple weeks ago when a student photographer opened his huge Lowpro backpack to such an assortment of bodies and lenses that I had never seen so many in one place that wasn't spread out on a table at a camera swap meet. All I could think was "Am I missing something with my one body and one lens"?

[dave wyman]

Roman - that's a pretty cool - if not expensive - idea!

[elyone]

I recently joined the (now old) 18-200 club. I love it. I have a Sigma 30 1.4, and a Micro 105 AF-D for those special occasions, but the freedom of such a huge range is, for me, worth it.

 

The only lens I still want to get is a 12-14 tokina.

[Two23]

I am an outdoor photographer and just don't want to be changing lenses out in the dust and blowing snow any more than I have to. I went from consumer zooms to so-called "primes" and have now gotten away from those and bought three pro level f2.8 zooms. I don't miss fast breaking shots, don't worry about a bunch of lenses falling out of my bag, and I am getting better image quality than I was with the older designed lenses that have no ED elements or modern digital optimized coatings. I can't see me going back to so-called "primes" as general purpose lenses now that the quality of the zooms has matched or exceeded them. The speed and convenience is just overwhelming.

 

 

Kent in SD

[craig_shearman1]

I think weight and bulk for travel are also considerations. I own close to 15 primes and they simply can't all fit in one bag. And if they didn't I wouldn't be able to carry it -- I've had two professional photographer friends who have had to undergo back surgery directly related to carrying 20-30 pounds of gear on their shoulders. And if you're traveling by air, you may not have the option of carrying two camera bags given airline restrictions on carry-on luggage these days. I'm gradaully switching over the zooms and look forward to having replaced 15 primes with three or four 2.8 zooms.

[photo5]

I'll take the zoom. I love being able to "dial in" the lens of my choice. I used to carry 3-4 primes with me when I traveled. I also carried four cameras' two 35mm Nikon SLR's, one black and white and one color slide), a Canon rangefinder with infrared, and a Rolleiflex twin lens with black and white film. It was a lot of work, but I enjoyed it. Then I bought a Nikon zoom lens in 2000 and traveled with only two cameras, an N70 with the 28-105mm Nikon with color slide film, and a small Nikon 35Ti with color slide film. Nowadays I travel with the D300 and a tiny little Panasonic pocket digital camera.

[andre_noble5]

The 35 f2 and 50 1.8 are rather chinsy in build - with play in the moving parts.

[dave wyman]

Interesting comments, Craig.

 

>I've had two professional photographer friends who have had to undergo back surgery directly related to carrying

20-30 pounds of gear on their shoulders.<

 

I'm older (OK, I'm old), and I've had some recurrent lower back pain the past few years. Most of the time I don't

feel it and I have no problem carrying a backpack to 14,000 feet. But a few weeks ago, getting off a plane with

my camera bag slung over one shoulder, and my messenger bag w/ laptop over the other, I reactivated the pain

before I reached the baggage counter. The human back can take only so much compressive force for so long and I've

apparently worn through my warranty period. I should have had those bags on wheels instead of on my shoulders.

 

>And if you're traveling by air, you may not have the option of carrying two camera bags given airline

restrictions on carry-on luggage these days.<

 

When I travel, I often have an extensive amount of gear, and I rely on Fed Ex in the U.S. Tripod, longest lens,

spotting scope, maps, reference guides, cold-weather clothes, Leatherman and Swiss Army Knife, Thermos, etc. - it

all goes in a box.

 

If I wanted to, I could ship all of my lenses, primes and zooms, in that box too, and be confident I'd retrieve

them. Considering how much I have to spend when I travel, another $30 to $100 seems not that much compared to the

convenience and safety of having my gear both waiting for me when I arrive at my destination, and arriving at my

home a few days after my trip ends.

 

Fed Ex Ground is cheap and fast. For example, shipping a box from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City costs $14 for 20

pounds, takes two days, and my package is waiting for me in the lobby or room of my lodgings when I arrive. Fed

Ex gives me a tracking number, I can follow the progress of my package on my computer, and Fed Ex has yet to lose

something of mine.

 

And when my trip is over, I usually ship back both the box and my suitcase, so that I can stroll onto the plane

with just my carry-on gear. I have enough clothes and an extra toothbrush at home to be able to await the arrival

of my shipment without worry.

 

On the other hand, when I've used the services of an airline, I've had stuff stolen from my luggage, and had my

luggage show up hours or even a day late. Which is to say there are two kinds of airline luggage - carry-on and

lost.

[craig_shearman1]

I haven't done it for a traveling photo shoot but certainly Fed Ex is highly reliable. Not sure if the average amateur going on vacation would do that, but if I were going off to shoot a paying job out of town that would certainly be the way to go. As for bag issues, I had one newspaper photographer friend probably around 60 who developed a bone spur that required surgery. He had carried a full Domke bag with 2-3 motorized Nikons and several primes over his shoulder every day for many years (and heavier gear before that). He ended up having to shoot for a while with one of those little Contax cameras where the lens folded down on the front. The other guy was a wedding photographer who for several months couldn't even pick up his Hasselblad and was out of work until he could. This can be a very serious issue.

[joshua_mortel]

Nikon primes are pretty outdated and, in my experience, more prone to flare.

 

But --for me-- the prime handles better, it simplifies my shooting, makes me 'think' more, and also it gives my legs a workout. I like it. I tend to be invisible with it too --you stick out like a sore thumb when you got a big honkin' zoom + lens bayonet on your camera. But, you get a lot of attention anyway if you're moving around all over the place.

 

But I still think large aperture primes on the wide end will always have a place in a photographer's camera bag. I've heard stories about photographers having a good experience with the 300mm f/4 + teleconverter, but I think it makes more sense to have a zoom for the telephoto focal length. To each his own!

[eric friedemann]

I would note Popular Photography's semi-objective testing of the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor produced A-A+ results at all apertures and all focal lengths, with fairly low distortion, through 11x14:

 

 

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5167/lens-test-nikon-24-70mm-f28g-ed-af-s.html

 

 

I shot the lens on a D700 primarily at 24mm, the 24-70mm's weakest focal length. And at 24mm, the lens produced very sharp images.

 

 

Beyond 11x14, the 24-70mm Nikkor starts going downhill. Then again, beyond 11x14 you'd have to start up-rezzing a D700 image anyway.

[brian_osterhout1]

I don't have a lot of experience, and I am not a pro, but I think that both primes and zooms have a time and place. If not, then this debate would not happen as often as it does. I like the 50/1.8 prime most of the time, but I really appreciate the zoom for the kids soccer games.