Re-aligning my primes...am I nuts?

[roman_thorn1]

<p>Hi folks...just want your thoughts on something that has been eating away at me. Currently I shoot Dx format and rely heavily on certain primes that in my opinion, r kind of an odd fit. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer here, I'm sure it's just a matter of preference. My main primes are: 35 1.8/60 2.8 micro/and 85 1.8 Af-D. I shoot mostly events, public speeches and do portrait work. So here is my thought process: When light gets bad or I want to get creative I most often reach for my 35 1.8, but find it just a too tight. I know the cost for a 24 1.4 Af-s is ridiculous but I know for me...this would be my go to, with out a doubt. The 60 is a great lens, but since I don't have a good tele, I have been thinking of swapping it over for the 105 Vr micro. You have no idea how many times I have been at an event and wished for a 105 when all I've had in my bag was an 85. Not to mention, it would do double duty is a micro. On that note, as much as I love my 85, on DX I find that focal length a bit off/odd. Too long indoors, say in someone's home and too short in the field, outdoors or when shooting speeches from a distance. So what I thought was to replace it with a fast 50. So essentially I now would have a 24/50/105. Interesting that the focal lengths most usful to me are doubling. Keep in mind, I do have a standard zoom for general use. Is this just a case of the grass is always greener thing or is my thought process valid. Please don't tell me to get the 70-200, just not interested nor am I interested in the Sigma 30. for me, it's still not enough breathing room. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Instead of spending the kind of money that a 24/1.4 costs (and suffering with the very shallow DoF that you get when shooting that wide open - especially while trying to do event coverage), I'd just put the money into a body that you can shoot to your satisfaction at higher ISOs. That way you can use the standard zoom you have (you don't mention which one ... a 17-55/2.8-ish sort of thing?). What camera are you using?</p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>Hi! I have a couple of D300's. No I don't have the 17 - 55, I have the cheap street sweeper 18 105. the IQ on it is quite good and when I shoot events, I mostly use it between 18 - 30mm wich makes it a good constant 4.5...with flash it's fine. If I need longer or faster out come the 35/60/85. To be honest though, I kind of shy away from zooms. Nothing wrong with them just that they don't inspire or bring out my creativity in me the way good primes do. I o love VR on my 18 - 105 for creative reasons though.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>It's a good kit if you like primes. I'd just add something wider. 24mm on a DX camera is not very wide. In primes that would be the 14mm f/2.8 or 16mm f/2.8, both of which are very expensive. If you were to consider a zoom the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is very good but very expensive. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with or without VC or the new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM are very good lower cost alternatives.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>The 24/50/105 combo on DX is exactly what I have used for weddings and other events.<br /> I also throw in the Tokina 11-16/2.8 in the mix and have it gaffa taped to 13mm.</p>

<p>It's not stupid as these are close to a classic photojournalism setup on film and that is for a reason. The late Al Kaplan recommended me the 35mm and 85mm as the go to focal lengths followed by a 20mm for wide and sometimes a long lens like a 180mm. He shot Leicas and film of course but the principle is the same applied for DX.</p>

<p> </p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>Hi Pete! Thanks, I was considering the tokina but thought maybe a 12 - 24 nikon might be better for reportage style work. I guess that would make it a 12-24/24 1.4/50 1.8/105 For me this just makes sense, it's how I view the world around me. I just wanted some feed back. Glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels this way...not that it should matter.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Hi Roman!<br>

I have the Nikon 12-24/4 and it's great but f/4 is sometimes too slow (subject motion). The 11-16 is f/2.8 and actually a decent performer at f/2.8. F/2.8 is so much better when you need it.</p>

<p>The AF on the Tokina it is regular screw drive so not as good as the AF-S on the Nikon. But the Tokina is also sharper at f/4. At smaller apertures they are about the same though.</p>

<p> </p>

[errol young]

<p>I used the 24, 35, 85 combo in the '70s and still have them. They have a nice look but their IQ is not up to today's computerized glass.<br>

Now using 16-85, 50 1.8, and 105VR. they seem to cover the range the I need for the jobs that I do, weddings portraits etc.</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>There is also a 24/2.8 D lens that is much less expensive than the 1.4 version. I have this lens and find it is a good performer on DX, but I must admit that 24mm is not very wide on DX. The 36mm equivalence is more in the normal lens territory. There is also a 20mm 2.8 D, but I've never used one. You might try to borrow/rent one of these lenses before dropping a bunch of cash on the 1.4 unless you plan on doing a lot of low light work with it.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Hi Roman,<br>

For the wide end you might also be intrested in the Sigma 20mm and 24 mm both f1.8, those you could have both for half the price of the nikn 24/1.4 ,<br>

The same goes for for the Nikons 20 and 34 f2.8 ....<br>

On the long end / micro the Sigma 150mm f2.8 is also real gem ( i think) ..</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I would keep the 35 next to a 24. They are not close enough, and the 50 is quite long on DX. Maybe your style is different, but I would dearly miss that gap.<br>

My standard go-to kit is a 24mm / 35mm / 105mm (all MF lenses). For me, it does most of what I want; the 24 is the weak one in the kit. Corners aren't very sharp till f/5.6, on a DX camera.<br>

If I know I need wider, I take the Tokina 12-24 along; or the 16-85 if I want more flexibility. Makes for a nice portable high quality kit. I'd love to have a wider prime (16mm or 14mm) but they are too expensive. The Tokina is larger than I'd like, but otherwise a lovely piece at a good price.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sorry, so that's the Ai 24 f/2.8 on a DX camera (D300). Still a nice lens: small, light and centre is plenty sharp for me. For most of my uses, corner sharpness is not the biggest issue anyway.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>

<p>For shooting the type of events you described, the 35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and 180mm f/2.8 are my favorite three lenses when shooting with 35mm film cameras. When I started shooting DX digital, I tried to get the same angle-of-view coverage by using the 24mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, and 105mm f/2.5 (or the 105mm f/2.8 macro). This three lens combo is very similar to the 24/50/105 that you are considering.<br>

　<br>

With the exception of the 50mm, all my lenses were manual focus and I found it too difficult to accurately focus manually on my DX bodies. Therefore, I eventually ended up getting auto focus lenses.</p>

<br>

.</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>Along the lines of what people have said, my Tokina 12-24 is my thrifty man's version of the 24 1.4. I'm not getting that 1.4 aperture, but hey, I saved *a lot* of money, and I can zoom even wider.</p>

<p>Speed in wide angles isn't as big of a problem as it is in telephotos. If your hand moves 1 degree, the shift in your framing isn't as severe as it is at say... 300mm. So if you can live with f/4 or what not, a Tokina/Nikon/Tamron/Sigma wide angle would be a good place to start on the wide end. If you still need speed: Tokina 11-16 2.8. Still a fraction of the cost of the 24 1.4... (which is soft in the corners until f/4 anyways).</p>

<p>If the 85 is too long indoors and too short out doors, then get 2 lenses, 1 longer and 1 shorter... it's really that simple. 105 and 50 (or keep the 60).</p>

<p>FWIW, I have a Tokina 12-24, a 35 1.8, a 50 1.4 (Sigma), and the 60 micro. I don't have the 105, but I find the 50 or 60 is plenty long for outdoor portraits, and I find the 105 too short for bugs. I'm forgoing the 105 and I'm waiting for the Sigma 150 OS to hit the shelves. Indoors/events, I think the 12-24 and 35 1.8 combo are awesome, and this is the usual 2 lens combo I carry around the city. Between the 50 and 60: it's a tossup. I need both because when taking pics of my baby kid's hands, the 50 won't focus close enough. But the 60 isn't fast enough for those dim rooms and bokeh on the 50: wow. I think you'll face a similar decision between the 50 and the 60. It's not a 60/105 decision... those are two very different lenses. Get the 105 because you need a longer telephoto, and then figure out how you want to cover 50-60 territory.</p>

[chris_leck]

<p>When shooting events on DX, I go for the 17-55mm f/2.8. If lighting is really bad, I use a 50 f/1.8. I'd like to have a wider fast prime, but don't. I really don't think that event photography and primes mix well, except for emergency low-light use. YMMV.</p>

<p>If you're at an event and need over 70mm, you're not close enough. Of course there are exceptions. Recently I had to rent a 200-400mm to shoot a classical concert from the rear (FX).</p>

<p>Portraits are another matter. For DX and FX, I tend to use the older 28-70mm f/2.8. (It also works great for concerts when you're near the front row -- DX.) I really like the 105mm f/2 DC when I can fit it in. That said, I'm more of an event/concert/stage shooter.</p>