orcama60 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>If it was you, what would you prefer to have : <br> - 3 primes : 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 ..... or <br> - medium zoom : 24-70mm f/2.8 ?</p> <p>With the price of that medium zoom, you can easily buy the 3 mentioned prime lenses. Only concern about them is that you must take them off anytime you want to switch from one to another, but the medium zoom, is not faster than the primes despite it is a superb lens. Any of those lenses would be use for portraits on the D300 and when apply, with the SB-800 either on and off the camera. What would you pick ?</p> <p>Best regards,<br> Maurice.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosekaka_lim Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>is the setup DX or FX?<br> FWIW, i use two bodies (both film) and i have a 24mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8, and a 70-300 VR zoom. normally the 24mm goes on one body and the zoom goes on the other. if i want a light walkabout i use the 50mm.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>well, since i already have the 50 and 35 and the 24-70, i'd have to go with...the big fat honking zoom.</p> <p>one thing you're sort of overlooking here is that the 24-70 is sharper wide open than the primes are @ 2.8, not to mention better bokeh. so you're getting additional light-gathering ability but not increased IQ--all of those primes need to be stopped down for best quality past 2.8.</p> <p>the other huge factor you are leaving out is focus speed. the 24-70 is blazingly fast across the entire focus range. to go from 35 to 50 to 85 you'd have to switch lenses three times, which would not set any land-speed records. now,if you said 50/1.4 AF-S (or HSM)+85/1.4 G+35/1.4 AF-S, you might have a better argument for the primes. But that would cost you more than 2k over the 24-70. and, if you said 24/1.4 AF-S, 35/1.4/AF-S, and 85/1.4 AF-S, i couldnt argue that the 24-70 would be superior in just about every way. but that would cost 3x as much. for that price, you could get a d700 + a 24-70 and still have enough left over for either a new 80-200 or a new 85/1.4 D.</p> <p>also, the 24-70 is better for portraits on DX than on FX, since it covers more of the portrait range, so it's hard to argue that the primes would be better at anything other than available light shots in dinly-lit conditions wide open or below 2.8. and even then, i'd likely opt for the convenience of the zoom, except in a studio setting.</p> <p>this is really kind of a no-brainer call, actually.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_zepeda Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>I guess I'll be the contrarian here. I don't like those primes terribly much. They just don't do anything for me. I don't know which 24-70 you're looking at. The Nikon's, what? $1700? For $1700 you could probably swing an 85/1.4D + 50/1.4G + 35/1.8G, and then I'd certainly be leaning very heavily towards the primes. Especially for portraits, an 85/1.4 is a big step up. Heck, for the money you could get a Sigma 50 instead of the Nikon 50/1.4G. If you get a good copy, it's a big step up from any of Nikon's AF 50s for portraits.</p> <p>OTOH, if you're talking about Sigma's $600 24-70/2.8, that's a bit tougher.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_crofts Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>The primes.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcama60 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>Of course, the 24-70 mm f/2.8 would be the Nikon lens. I forgot to mention that instead the 85 f/1.8 it could be the 85 f/1.4 AF-S which is a very expensive lens but an excellent prime lens. Having the 35 and 50 f/1.8 and getting the 85 f/1.4 would not be better than the medium zoom ? Exchanging lenses is not a great thing to do, but are not those primes best suited for low light and as sharp as the mentioned medium zoom ? Would this Nikon 24-70 mm f/2.8 have better bokeh than the 85 f/1.4 or even the f/1.8 ?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_zepeda Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>In which case, yeah, primes. All the way. The Nikon 24-70 is /huge/. I'd much rather swap lenses from time to time than lug around a two pound lens on my camera. I mentioned the 85/1.4D because it's an excellent portrait lens, and the savings could be used to step up to a nicer 50mm lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>Why not a combo? I don't get these all or nothing questions. I mean, that's why they made both zooms and primes...</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>I don't take many photos in between 24 and 70 even though I do have two primes that fall in there. In my opinion those three primes are just too close to each other in focal length so I would start by choosing only two. Even though you are only on a D300 the first lens I would be considering for portraits is the Nikon 85mm f1.4. The "D" would certainly save you a lot of money. I use lots of manual focus lenses and for this reason I would even consider a used 85/1.4 AIS, especially for portraits where you may want absolute control over where focus is.</p> <p>I had a Zeiss/Contax 85/1.4 T* and if the Nikon 85/1.4 is even close then this is the only reason I need not to buy the zoom.</p> <p>Your choice also greatly depends on what other lenses you have that you are trying to bridge between. </p> <p>As for bokeh I cannot imagine that an f2.8 zoom can isolate the subject better than any of the primes, discussed in this thread, set wide open (f1.4 to f1.8 depending on the lens). </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_crofts Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>Apart from the fact that it's not as fast as zooming, exchanging lenses isn't really a problem. I reckon I am often changing lenses perhaps 200 or 300 times a day, and never found it (dust) an issue. Changing lenses can also be done very quickly with practise.</p> <p>Personally, I dislike the 24-70mm as a lens. I tried it for a while, rejected it. It's too heavy, too slow, and too obtrusive. I couldn't live with f2.8 restriction on a small format camera. And personally (very subjective I know, but I believe it's right - you believe what you want) I don't like the method of thinking that a zoom promotes. Plus all the photographers I can think of at the mo that I admire also use primes - there has to be something in it.</p> <p>But of course as with anything in photography it's a personal thing, and there are no prizes for doing everything the same way as everyone else - try working with both, and see what you like.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Having the 35 and 50 f/1.8 and getting the 85 f/1.4 would not be better than the medium zoom ?</p> </blockquote> <p>the 85/1.4 G throws a wrench into it, sure. but there go the cost savings. plus you'd have to look at it this way: the 35/1.8 is NOT better than the 24-70@35mm and 2.8. the 50/1.8 is NOT better than the 24-70@50mm and 2.8. The 85 would be better for portraits on FX, but still useful on DX, while the 24-70 would go to 105mm equivalent on DX, which might be preferable to 127.5mm on DX in some cases.<br> IMO the 1.8s dont even really belong in this discussion. step up to 1.4 AF-S all the way around and you begin to have a better argument. but i'd still take the 24-70 as its better for what i do. YMMV.</p> <blockquote> <p>Exchanging lenses is not a great thing to do, but are not those primes best suited for low light and as sharp as the mentioned medium zoom ? Would this Nikon 24-70 mm f/2.8 have better bokeh than the 85 f/1.4 or even the f/1.8 ?</p> </blockquote> <p>the 1.8 35 and 50s have worse bokeh than the 24-70, as previously noted. so does the 85/1.8. the 24-70 is NOT better at bokeh than the 85/1.4 D, which is a pure portrait lens, while the 24-70 is a ridiculously capable all-rounder (which may focus better in low-light, btw). the 85/1.4 will be more proficient at the one thing it does best better than the multi-purpose pro zoom, but to really make this comparison favorable to the primes--which may have an advantage at 5.6 or so--you'd have to throw in the 24/1.4 AF-S--which has less distortion than the 24-70@24mm--plus 50/1.4 AF-S or HSM, which completely blows your budget.</p> <p>believe me, i didn't think the 24-70 could possibly be that good until i actually used one. don't believe me? fine. here's bjorn:</p> <blockquote> <p>"I consider the new 24-70/2.8 Nikkor to be the reference for all other midrange zoom lenses." <br> http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html<br> he rates it a 5 on both DX and FX, btw.</p> </blockquote> <p>the thing is, maurice, stacking primes against zooms is never an A/B comparison. it's apples and oranges. you've got to know the relative strengths and weaknesses of each, and decide what best suits your purposes. is the 85/1.4 optically superior to the 24-70? well at 85mm, certainly. but it can't touch it between 24mm and 70mm.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I reckon I am often changing lenses perhaps 200 or 300 times a day</p> </blockquote> <p>!!!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <blockquote> <p>!!!!</p> </blockquote> <p>It's not that bad, Eric. On a 12-hour shoot, working non-stop, that's only changing a lens every two and a half minutes, non-stop, for 12 hours. Who needs a zoom? Two and half minutes is, like, <em>forever</em>. :-)<br /><br />As for the OP's orginal quesiton ... sounds like we're shooting DX. I'd split the difference, and go with Nikon's 17-55/2.8 and Sigma's 85/1.4. Adds up to about the same amount, gets you that extra (and very useful) width on the wide end, while still having a killer portrait lens.<br /><br /></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mihai_ciuca Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>I am a prime guy but your prime selection is way behind the IQ of Nikon 24-70/2.8. If I'd be on a budget of $1700 and I'd have to pick primes my selection would be:<br> Nikon 35/2<br> Sigma 50/1.4<br> Sigma 85/1.4<br> I'm not sure if fit exactly in the budget but...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>While the 24-70 2.8 is stellar lens structurally and optically, It's got 2 or 3 marks against it. First, it is too freaking big and heavy. Second, it range isn't all that w/DX, one would have to supplement it with the 12-24 or 11-16mm. Lastly, the 17-50mm, sigma or tamron are both cheaper, smaller and have IS...</p> <p>Personally, I might consider it even with its weight issue but imo, 24mm is a little long on the short side, 70 is a bit short on the long end...</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>Although I have a couple of outstanding zooms in the stable, I'd pick the three primes in the blink of an eye.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>The zoom. To sell, buy all the primes, and still have several hundred $$$ to buy film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_narsuitus Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>I use the following three primes when shooting with my Nikon film and digital cameras:<br> 35mm f/1.4<br> 50mm f/1.4<br> 85mm f/1.8</p> <p>I use the following zoom lenses when shooting with my Nikon film and digital cameras::<br> 20-35mm f/2.8<br> 35-70mm f/2.8</p> <p>None of these lenses are G lenses.</p> <p>I would not buy a 24-70mm f/2.8 because it is a G lens that cannot be used on my older Nikon film cameras because the lens does not have an aperture ring.<br> .</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <blockquote> <p>On a 12-hour shoot, working non-stop, that's only changing a lens every two and a half minutes, non-stop, for 12 hours.</p> </blockquote> <p>oh ok, no problem, then ;)</p> <blockquote> <p>It's got 2 or 3 marks against it. First, it is too freaking big and heavy. Second, it range isn't all that w/DX, one would have to supplement it with the 12-24 or 11-16mm. Lastly, the 17-50mm, sigma or tamron are both cheaper, smaller and have IS...</p> </blockquote> <p>but leslie, the widest prime maurice was considering was the 35. so those marks not only apply to his prime selection as well, but put you at 52.5mm on DX, so add one or two more demerits to the prime category if that's the case. also, if your intended use is portraits, lack of W/A on DX isn't an issue--in fact it would be better than all the lenses you mention. few in their right mind would dare shoot portraits with an 11-16, btw, and the 12-24 is really only good for people from 18-24, unless you're doing a crowd shot from the stage or something...</p> <p>as for the weight, i'll say this: it's reassuring. nothing quite like making Rebel xti users with kit lenses flee in abject terror as you advance. really, it's not that bad on a D300s or even D3s, provided you have a good comfy neckstrap or holster case. for walkarounds, sure, the tamron 28-75 or 17-50 would be easier to carry for several hours, but nothing in its class touches the 24-70 in terms of optics or focus speed. <<<lol, that sounded like hyperbole, but it's not...</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>Yeah...Eric, I should consider th OP's purpose which is, I guess, portraitures, right? I was just talking about a lens kit in general, not for portraits. The portrait part somehow got lost with me...</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>For portraits on DX...</p> <p>If money doesn't matter, the 24-70 nikon seems good.<br> With primes...I would probably take the 30 1.4 sigma and 60mm f2 macro tamron combo...<br> Or for versatility...the 50-150mm 2.8 and 30mm 1.4.</p> <p>I just think the 85mm 1.4/1.8 is too long on the DX. And I would not want to use three primes...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marklcooper Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <p>The OP stated he's using a D300, taking portraits, and using flash. Why 3 fast lenses? Use a 17-55 f/2.8. Go wide for a group portrait. Move the tripod closer if needed for a tight in shot. I'm not sure you can go wide enough with the 24 - 70. I'm NOT a professional photographer, let alone a professional portrait photographer, but I do love the flexibility of my 17 - 55. I dislike changing lenses unless I really, really have to. As Matt says, add the Sigma 85 f/1.4, but I have no experience with it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 <blockquote> <p>I was just talking about a lens kit in general, not for portraits. The portrait part somehow got lost with me...</p> </blockquote> <p>well, i actually agree that a 17-50 or 17-55 + an 85/1.4 would be a more useful overall DX kit than just a 24-70 by itself. but the OP was talking about doing portraits at three prime ranges (35/50/85) with a d300. nothing wrong with that. however a 24-70 would work just as well or better in most situations. in particular, there's kind of an awkward gap on DX between 50 and 85 which happens to coincide with the heart of the portrait range. using a 50 and and 85 on DX would leave you with a short 75mm tele and a medium 127.5mm tele, with nothing in-between. see the problem?</p> <p>if i'm shooting portraits on DX, i'm not sure i don't just get the tamron 60/2 or the CV 58/1.4 if a sub-2.8 aperture is what you want at a 'classic' portrait length. otherwise, the nikon 24-70 or the tamron 28-75 cover that entire prime range; both are 'good enough', if not the absolute best of the best. the nikon is faster focusing and better @ 2.8; the tamron is sharp, with good bokeh, from f/4 onward.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_kowalczewski Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 <p>I would prefer the 24-70 mm f/2.8</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 <p>The 28-75mm tamron came across my mind as well, Eric. Though the question still kinda loses me though. I mean...portrait could mean an awful lot. It could be set up studio portrait types, pj event portraits, outside lowkey stuff...</p> <p>Now...is it an extra, just portrait only lens kit. Or are we thinking integrating, consilidating a portrait kit with a larger all around kit? Anyway, I tend to over analyse...A DX/FX "most in the least" traveling kit will do that to you:) I've got the most insane minimalist kit going imo...and I'm still not happy:(</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now