Help with lense options

[liamc1]

<p>Hi everyone, I'm looking for some advice. I moved to Nikon fairly recently, to cut a long story short I have a D700, 50 f/1.4 and the much-hyped 14-24 f/2.8. Having used these lenses for the past 6 months or so I discovered the hard way what folks on this forum have been saying all along: the 14-24 is definitely not for everyone. I know now that it's not for me. (I love the 50 f/1.4)<br>

So, I've sold the 14-24 and have about $ 1600 to spend on glass. My primary interests are landscape, portraits / candids and travel with most emphasis on the first two. The lense options I'm considering are:<br>

35 f/2, 24 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.4.<br>

or<br>

24-70 f/2.8<br>

or<br>

17-35 f/2.8 and 85 f/1.8</p>

<p>The first option would leave me with all primes. I've really enjoyed the 50, don't mind changing lenses and really like the fact that the primes are so small (fast is nice too). The second option gives me a great zoom, but limits me to keeping the 50 mounted when I'm hiking - I can't walk all day with the camera around my neck with such a monster hanging off the front. The final option would stretch my budget a bit.<br>

<br /> Any suggestions / things I'm not considering ?</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>I love the all prime idea. What you listed is what I normally keep in one of my camera bags.<br>

Other options you may consider is the 35 to 70 f2.8 on the used market. Very inexpensive and excellent image quality. <br>

Another prime that I really love is the Nikkor 105 mm f2.8G VR AF-S. Since I always carry a 50 mm f1.4 I substitute the 85 with my 105 sometimes.<br>

It really depends on whether you are a wide angle photographer or a telephoto photographer. I found out I am more a mild telephoto photographer (portrait). So I don't pay much attention to wide angle lenses. I do have the 14 to 24 that I hardly use also. I really should think about selling it one day.<br>

If you like wide angle I would get a good wide angle prime and forget about the 35 and 24. A lot of times I just carry a 28 mm and be done with the wide side.</p>

 

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>How about the 17-35 & the 35-70 - both f/2.8 - -<br>

Personally I own the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 currently being used on a D300, but next week a D700 is arriving....<br>

I just can't ever have too many toys. :-D</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'd get the 24-70 while you have the cash for a Big Hit. you can always add primes as you go.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Liam,</p>

<p>I shoot D700 too. If you indeed say your first priorities are landscapes / portraits then I think your final option is best considering you have the 50mm f/1.4 already. I have found my 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor at least as sharp as the 24mm, 28mm and 35mm primes. </p>

<p>I'd also look to vary that final option by replacing the 85mm f/1.8 with one of the 105mm micro Nikkors- not necessarily the newer AF-S model, the D model might suit just as well and it will again double as a longer landscape tele / portrait lens. <br>

I think you need something longer on FX so why not replace 85mm with 105mm? This, of course, will depend upon if you are happy with a max. focal length of 85mm. </p>

<p>If you are indeed happy with shorter focal lengths then you might want to consider a mint 2nd hand copy of a Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D lens. I opted to buy one of these in favour of the huge and expensive (but excellent performer) 24-70mm f/2.8. I do not regret the compromise of purchasing this older model and saving a lot of cash.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>>> "My primary interests are landscape, portraits / candids and travel with most emphasis on the first two."</p>

<p>Typical traditional portraits are done with a short/mid telephoto. Although some will prefer the compressed perspective of a supertele, which is often used for fashion/modeling shots. Of course, many candid/environmental portraits are done with wider lenses (including ultra-wide when used appropriately). Fast lenses are ideal/often preferred due to their usability in low light (including the AF benefits), their ability to freeze motion, and their ability to isolate subjects. Landscape is tricky. You usually don't need a fast lens for landscape. But the FL required for this is usually Dependent on your subject/location and style. So you may need the availability of various FLs in your lenses. </p>

<p>Liam, you should experiment and see what FL you would like to have.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Why did you rule out the very good 28-70mm f2.8?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>I think the 24-70 sounds like the standard zoom on FX. Just like a 17-55 range on DX. I agree with Erik, you can add primes later on if you think you need them coz they are not that expensive. the 17-35 might be too wide and too short, depending on what you like and the 28-70 maybe not wide enough and a bit older. Just my opinion! Good luck!</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>The 28-70 f/2.8 has already been discontinued. But it should be available used. Though due to its pro-grade status, the resale price is not cheap enough to make it a feasible alternative to the 24-70.</p>

[paul_b.1]

" I can't walk all day with the camera around my neck with such a monster hanging off the front."

 

 

The 24-70/2,8 G is trully a monster....I'll consider instead the 20/2,8D, 35/2 and 85/1,8 or 1,4. I also agree with Matthew Brennan thinking that 85mm will be to short on FF. I'm an old school portret photog who like to use 105-135 mm range, for this kinda of work.

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Go with a few select primes and remember you do not have to carry them all. 24 35 50 85/105 get most people through. I use mostly primes, but got a 35/70 2.8 for when I do not want to change lenses. It is heavy, but not large like the 24/70. Reports are the 24/70 is not that good at 24 in the corners anyway, just where a landscape guy needs it. It turns my D700 + 35/70 into a pretty heavy rig.</p>

<p>28/105 is supposed to be a decent consumer grade full frame lens.</p>

[petr_klapper]

<p>As I see it, the obvious is that you need something much wider than 50mm for landscapes and something considerably longer for portraits. You haven't mentioned why the 14-24 was not working for you, which might be key information for what to buy for landscapes - 17-35 seems as a good bet, but maybe you don't like/need that wide and 24-70 would be wide enough for you.<br>

As for portrait glass, on FX the 70mm is not enough for tighter (head)shots and I'd skip the 85mm completely, picking lens around 105mm - some of the 105mm macros or Nikon 105/2 DC which is a great lens.<br>

Basically the 24-70 is a great lens, but it's not the best for landscapes and portraits. It's a great party/event lens, for basic walkaround, etc., but there's a reason many photographers skip this range almost completely, having only 50/1.4/1.8 if needed in the middle.</p>

[gary payne]

<p>I have the D700 and a 14-24m f/2.8, the 24-70m f/2.8, and the 50m f/1.4. I will agree that the 14-24m is somewhat specalized, but I still find it very useful. The 24-70m is on the camera all the time, my "walking around" lens if you will. I find it a great choice for most situations. The 50m f/1.4 is a lens I love and always carry, but truthfully, don't use that much after acquiring the 24-70m. The extra stop, however, makes it invaluable for the times it is needed. So, I would recommend the 24-70, but realize that it is no small lens, heavy and it's hard to be inconspictious with it and a D700.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>If you did not like the 14-24 then I doubt you'd need the 17-35. I too like the prime lens idea, I have six from 14 to 400. I have always found 35mm and 50mm too close together. Photographers who use/used primes generally prefer one over the other for their "normal" lens, but not both. I recommend starting with the 28/2.8 for your wideangle lens. I do like your idea of the 85/1.4 since it's reputation is stellar and for awhile I had a Zeiss 85/1.4 which I really enjoyed. Again I sometimes found it too close in focal length to the 50 but for the quality of the 85/1.4 I think I would overlook this. Your only other options to consider would be the 105/2 DC or 105/2.8 Macro but I do not know much about these or how they would perform for portraiture.</p>

<p>I would shoot with the 28, 50, and whatever telephoto you choose, for awhile and if you do develop a taste for superwide angle photography you could get the 20/2.8 which is not as challenging to compose shots with as the 14mm or 17mm focal lengths. Or, perhaps you will want something longer like 180/2.8 or 70/80-200/2.8 zoom. </p>

<p>If you develop a keen interest in photography you should consider a simple backpack for hking so you can take 2 or 3 lenses with you. I have gone overboard in the past taking a 4x5, 35mm, and medium format on 10km hikes with eight lenses. That is just silly! I currently generally hike with a DSLR and 4 lenses and when desired, with a 4x5 and 3 lenses as well. </p>

[liamc1]

<p>Thanks so much for all of the responses. You've all given me quite a bit to think about. I have a couple of specific questions for those with experience.</p>

<p>Regarding the 105 Micro: what is the bokeh like for portrait work ? Also is the autofocus generally fast enough in a candid type situation ? (I'm finding the idea of the 105 over the 85 quite interesting, it would give me a little more reach as well as a macro lense which could come in useful.)</p>

<p>Regarding the wider primes 20, 24, 28 etc vs the 17-35. How do they compare in terms of image quality ?</p>

<p>Thanks again for all the help.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>stretch the budget a bit. the 50mm mounted and the 17-35mm on your belt pouch or bag (or vice versa). you'll never know when you'll need that wide. there is not always room walking back the zoom. the 85mm can stay at home for controlled portraits. outside of its specialty, the 50mm is also very good for portraits on the road...............i can't afford that combo but that would be a dream for me to have.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>The bokeh on the 105 is surprisingly beautiful. I have not used the 17 to 35 so I really can't comment. I do like the 20, 24 and 28 though.;-)</p>

[duncan_m1]

<p>Think I'd look at getting the 17-55mm f2.8 AF-S and a used 85mm f1.4 AF-D. That would give you a wee bit more range on the zoom and a really stellar portrait lens to boot.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Liam,</p>

<p>Bokeh can be a highly subjective concept. I remember the AF-D 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor had more pleasing bokeh than the 50mm f/1.4. To best describe it I'd say both the 50mm and the 105 produce disc like or sequin like bokeh but the 105mm has a more rounded edge to the discs where as the 50mm has harsher, squarer edges to the discs - quite a nebulous description - but that's how I see it. I suggest you perform a p.net in-site search on the 105mm Micro d lens and see what comes up.</p>

<p>Liam, the 17-35mm zoom has a major advantage over the primes in having ED treated elements, none of the 20mm, 24mm,28mm or 35mm primes have the ED glass which assists to curb CA on digital backs. The zoom in my opinion is equally as sharp as the primes mentioned - i have both the zoom and the primes. (I do not have the 20mm f/2.8 prime) the zoom also has the benefit of...............zoom. That said it is quite expensive, heavier than any one prime lens although at 745grams, the zoom will weigh close to equal as a trio of primes.</p>

<p>Keep researching a bit more, think about what you want from your gear and you will come to a clearer conclusion.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I have the D700 with 17-35, 28-70 and 80-200. That pretty much covers it all, except super-tele. I guy like you would probably pony-up for the 24-70 and ad 70-200VR. I'm guessing you would use the 24-70 for the most part. All primes is fine, but with the D700 high-ISO performance being so good, you'll rarely need the extra stop or two. The convenience of zooms very quickly overtakes the extra speed of primes when you find yourself changing lenses frequently. And bokeh, as a primary lens selection criteria, is way overrated, IMHO.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>24 mm is a real good choise, 135mm is close to 85mm but more universal</p>

[robertbody]

<p>I don't like the 35-70mm lens personally, it is push-pull and I owned it in 1999, not for very long, i think it was the range that was the main issue, it just didn't suit me then, and i don't think it would suit me now either.<br>

I use 17-35mm a lot but that's on D300 where it becomes 25mm-52mm.<br>

For most variety for you, 17-35mm would spend all your budget and all you get is wideangle to ultra-wide.<br>

The prime idea could be fun, I am almost prime with my setup 17-35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 105mm f/2.8, those are definately significant steps in focal lengths, but when i need the 105mm, then 50mm is not useful... until i get a new idea, or for variety :-).<br>

Plus it's fun with a lightweight lens, you can carry it around more, and it makes you think more... just like tripod would... the "slowdowns" can be a very good thing. <br>

85mm f/1.4 I owned for a while too in 2008, had to hesitantly let it go [for money reasons] but it's a sweet lens, but in your case, if you want variety, i would instead suggest 105mm f/2.8 VR macro because 1) you get macro and you never know when that's handy and 2) 105mm longer focal length and you have a "real telephoto" where 85mm is just a "medium telephoto", and that 85mm is a sweet lens but you can feel it's an expensive lens, and it's great for portraits, but what else? if it was a money maker then yes, but then you might think about 105mm f/2.0 DC lens which is a little cheaper than 85mm f/1.4 - which could be getting AF-S replacement model.<br>

24mm f/2.8 doesn't have the best reputation, 35mm f/2 is ok.......<br>

i would say for $1600:<br>

105mm f/2.8.. $770<br>

35mm f/2.0... $300 i think.... but maybe in mint condition used<br>

20mm f/2.8... $500 (used to be)... but i wouldn't buy it new, i would get it in Mint condition<br>

FLASH....... SB-800 if you can find it used, someone getting SB-900 might want to sell this flash, and also a cord to go off camera<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/animals09/images/2009-01-25-gilbert-rip-geese-79869.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

I wanted to include this picture from today to show how i used my 105mm, but instead it's 300mm f/4... oops, but the picture is cool. The geese got too close for 300mm so i was using 105mm.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>Actually i want to increase your budget :-) so that instead of monkeying around with 20mm which could be ok and 35mm f/2.0 which is good but not awesome:<br>

$1200........ 17-35mm f/2.8 used<br>

$770........ 105mm f/2.8 VR macro<br>

$200 or so ...... SB-800 flash<br>

-------<br>

$2200..... case closed :-). With my previous suggestion the money wasn't all spent and you weren't getting a "GEM AF-S" lens with it, well 105mm VR macro kind of is, but you still need the 17-35mm... just because<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/cities09/images/2009-01-08-tempe-lake-sunset-74220.jpg" alt="" /><br>

And this picture is with 17-35mm f/2.8 at 17mm... on D300, so you can go wider with your D700... and it's a zoom!!! a very good thing for wideangles, hard to say something bad about the lens........... so money well spent :-)</p>

[duncan_m1]

<p>What makes people recommend the 17-35mm as opposed to the 17-55mm. I chose the latter because of the extra range, having previously owned and used the 28-70. The 17-55mm is excellent in all respects and for me a better alround zoom than the 17-35. Just wondered why so few (no-one except me) has recommended that one?</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>One more quick point. Keep an eye on the used market, with the tough economic conditions out there, there are lots of "keen" amateurs selling off gear. I got my 17-35/2.8 in Ex+ condition for $900.</p>

<p>The OP has a D700, so the 17-55 is not a suitable lens.</p><div></div>