If you could buy any f1.4 lens set of 3, which ones will you buy?

[leogonzalez]

<h1 >Nikon 24mm f/1.4G</h1>

<h1 >Nikon 28mm f/1.4D</h1>

<h1 >Nikon 35mm f/1.4G</h1>

<h1 >Nikon 50mm f/1.4D</h1>

<h1 >Nikon 50mm f/1.4G</h1>

<h1 >Nikon 85mm f/1.4D</h1>

<h1 >Nikon 85mm f/1.4G</h1>

<p> <br>

I shoot portraits and social events and own a D700 and a D80.<br>

Thanks for your recomendations.<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I would probably wait to see what the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is like and skip the 24 and 28. Buy the 50 f/1.8G its sharper and has less CA then the 50 1.4G. Skip the Nikon 85 f/1.4's and look at the Sigma 85f/1.4 save a ton of money and loose very little IQ against the Nikon 85 f/1.4G</p>

[User_502260]

<p>My Nikkors are not this new but I would want the 85, 50 and 35 G lenses. These are the newest and best coated Nikkors in these focal lengths. Between improving high ISO performance and less apparent camera shake with the 24 and 28 focal lengths I don't know how many people really need such fast 24 and 28 lenses. My fastest 28 is an f/1.8 and my fastest 24 is an f/2 (Konica Hexanon, Vivitar) and when shooting full frame and wide open, good bokeh is harder to come by with such short lenses. It's more important for the longer lenses. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"If you could buy any f1.4 lens set of 3....." Already have; the Samyang 24mm, 35mm and 85mm.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>24/1.4 is a must... is giving lot of space for creativity... do not skip it!<br /> 35/1.4 is a good option too but the new coming Sigma could be a $$$ saver....<br /> 85/1.4 is the classic portrait lens... The D is nice but AF is inconsistent and noisy... The G I tested but I've got a lemon... many friends of mine are swearing that theirs is a gem... I ended in Sigma camp with their 85/1.4 and I could not be happier... the only drawback... this is a heavy lens... lot of glass inside....<br /> Having said that... If I'll have to start again I'll buy the AF-S f/1.8 trifecta 28/50/85 and the rest of the money in a deposit for 200/2 VRII.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>RJ - I approve (and, as regular attendees know, I have the 85 Samyang and have plans for the 35mm sometime after I get the 21mm Zeiss that my recent 14-24/D800 combination has shown me I need).<br />

<br />

Of the Nikkors, on plain sharpness, I'd take the 24, 35 and 85 AF-S lenses. The 28 AF-D didn't review as well as I expected, the 85 AF-D is plain soft especially off-centre (yes, I know it doesn't always matter) and I'd not get enough for the 50mm lenses on eBay given that I already have both AF f/1.8 50mms (the AF-D is much smaller, which is why it's not getting ditched). I wouldn't - and haven't - spent my own money on the 85mm AF-S because the LoCA is so pronounced, but I wouldn't turn it down if given to me and if I could pick my shots. I'll be interested to see what the 55mm Zeiss f/1.4 can do. Manual focus is a bit of a pain for some event purposes, though. Like Mihai, I'd prefer none of the above and keep my 200 f/2.<br />

<br />

That said, for portraits with a staged background where I don't care about the corners, I might think about the AF-D 85mm (or the Samyang). For events, I'd probably find zooms (24-70, 80-200 AF-S if the 70-200 VR 2 is out?) more useful. It depends how much control you have and whether you have time to switch lenses; I've shot enough photos at weddings as a guest that I've found flexibility useful, but then I've (deliberately) never been the official photographer and tried to corral the subjects.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have a lot of excellent Nikkor glass and can say without a doubt that my 50mm 1.4 D is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. My copy focuses very rapidly on both my d300 and d7000 and is almost silent when it does. I may have an ideal copy but I love it.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have a lot of excellent Nikkor glass and can say without a doubt that my 50mm 1.4 D is the sharpest lens I have ever owned. My copy focuses very rapidly on both my d300 and d7000 and is almost silent when it does. I may have an ideal copy but I love it.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[imagesbymonroe]

<p>Leo, I own the D700 and I chose the Sigma 85mm 1.4 and Sigma 50mm 1.4 over the Nikon versions simply because I could not pay the higher price when the Sigma's produced similiar quality for less money.<br>

In the Sigma 50mm 1.4 case it cost more than the Nikon 50mm 1.4 but I preferred the IQ and bokeh of the Sigma over the Nikon.<br>

I would love to have the Nikon 24mm 1.4 however as some have already posted I will wait to see if the Sigma 35mm 1.4 is as good as the others Sigmas if so I will happily purchase the Sigma 35mm 1.4<br>

Visit my flickr site and see the D700 and Sigma 50mm 1.4 and 85mm1.4 at work. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbymonroe/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbymonroe/</a></p>

[rossb]

<p>24,50,85.</p>

 

[leogonzalez]

<p>Thank you very much for your answers, i was going for the 24,35,85 way and the cash scared me, and i wasn't sure about the sigma option, i think i'll go on save some cash route.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>For social events with a full frame, I would get a 35mm f/1.4, 50 f/1.8G and a 85mm - maybe save a little and get the 85 f/1.8G instead. For me, 24mm for people photography is a bit too wide, and unlike some, I don't feel a 35 and 50 are too near one another - both have a completely different "feel" to them. And boring as a 50mm may seem, it's more often than not just the right tool in the box. I wouldn't skip it, especially since it's very affordable.<br>

The 85 could be a bit short to my taste on a D700, but on a D80 - just about perfect. A 24mm/35mm pair could make sense on APS-C too, but the large expensive 24 f/1.4 for use on APS-C to me makes little sense, and since you have a D700 I would primarily target the 'needs' for that camera.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I already have 35, 50 and 85 (all 1.4, different versions). The 24 I use is either an Ai or AFD (amongst other zooms).</p>

<p>The "reasonable" answer could be in the "classic combo": 24, 35/50 and 85 (35 if you shoot indoor/outdoor, 50 if mainly outdoor and/or portraits).</p>

<p>But if I were buying them again, I`d start with the ones I use most; no doubt first the 35, and then 50.</p>

<p>Personally, I`d probably skip the 24 and 85. If I`m forced to buy another one, it`d be the 85... or maybe the 24... I don`t know. The 24/1.4G is too big (I`m too lazy about carrying this expensive beast) and I rarely use the 85/1.4... (instead, I use the 105VR a lot).<br /> ---<br /> Wouter, I agree with you. I was just typing while you were posting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I don't feel a 35 and 50 are too near one another - both have a completely different "feel" to them. And boring as a 50mm may seem, it's more often than not just the right tool in the box. I wouldn't skip it, especially since it's very affordable."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same about the "big" 24 and the "short" 85... </p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>I already use 85/1.4 AF-D (truly fabulous chunk of glass) and 50/1.4 AF-D (I love it) </p>

<p>For portraits and social events I'd go with these two and add the 35mm/1.4 G.</p>

 

[Two23]

<p>For sure, Sigma 50mm f1.4 & Sigma 85mm f1.4. A wedding photog friend has those and I have to say that Sigma has edged out Nikon. I would get the Nikon 24m f1.4G but only because it's the only choice. I currently have a 35mm f2.8, 50mm f3.5, and 90mm f4 for my Leica and while they're great lenses, the 35mm just doesn't give me enough spread. A 24mm or 28mm would be better.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[orcama60]

<p>I will go with 24, 50 and 85. With those, you will have a wide angle for groups, a middle one couples and the classic 85 for individual portraits. </p>

[luis_g]

<p>For me, 24-35-85</p>

[dan_wolfgang]

<p>I also vote 24-35-85. The 24 1.4G is absolutely phenomenal. </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Forgot to mention that I`d only buy "G" versions.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>The 28, 50 and 85 all D version.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Back in the mid 1980's, I bought the 35mm/f1.4 AI-S for indoor, available light photography. Today I would get that again as an AF-S lens for the same purpose. The 85mm/f1.4 AF-S for portrait work is obvious.</p>

<p>Personally, I don't find the 24mm/f1.4 AF-S as useful. That is on the wide side for handheld, indoor work. If I shoot building interior, architecture, or landscape, I don't need f1.4. In fact, I have the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E for those purposes. The PC-E is about the same price and is much slower, which is fine by me as I would use that on a tripod anyway and need more depth of field.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>As for usefulness, hands down, the most useful would be the 35mm.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>If I were to lose my 24mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8 lenses that I use for portraits and social events, I would replace them with the 24mm f/1.4G, 35mm f/1.4G, 50mm f/1.4D, and 85mm f/1.4D.</p>

<p>When given the opportunity, I selected the “D” version over the “G” version because I have older camera bodies that accept the “D” lens but not the “G” lens.</p>

<p>If I had to limit my replacements to only three lenses, I would replace the 24, 35, and 85.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>24 + 35 + 50 for three. 28 + 50 for two. 35 for one.</p>

[sener]

<p>For portraits, I do not think you want too wide view. Greater or equal than 50mm would be good to my guess because of the effect of bokeh and depth of field. So among the choices, you need to compare each by optics and other technical details. I used to have a 50mm f/1.8 which was a wonderfull lense and at a much cheaper price than f/1.4s. I must also warn you that for social event type of shooting f/1.4 is useless because of the too shallow depth of field. The photos at such apperture turn out to be a noise on focus eyes on blury type. I almost always used my 50mm at f/2.8, it is slightly sharper and still fast at this apperture.<br /> Good luck.</p>