24mm 50mm 85mm

[wedding_photographer5]

<p>I was quite surprised to learn that a search for these lenses didn't provide any significiant results, given the fact that this was and is a popular set for those who want to cover a <em>useful range</em> in a <em>relatively fast</em>, <em>portable and affordable</em> package. </p>

<p>Personally, I'm thinking of adding a 85mm f1.8 d to the 24mm f2.8 d, 50mm f1.8 d for the times I don't want to carry the 80-200mm f2.8 d but wonder if 85mm is a worthy companion to the 50mm (105mm and 135mm AF primes are too big and too expensive to justify them).</p>

<p>What is your experience with such a 24-50-85 set ?<br>

Has the 1.8 G series created a revival?</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I've got the 85 f/1.8D, and I think it is a really good landscape lens. Which isn't exactly praise for a relatively fast 85mm. It is a good performer, from about f/2.5 on, and very sharp from f/4 on. Out of focus rendering isn't very pretty, be mindful with flare and some cyan-blue fringing.<br>

In my view the f/1.8G haven't so much created a revival, but so far each lens is so much better than its predecessor that the old(er) AF lenses just do not make sense anymore to buy: the 50mm f/1.8G is really miles better than the 50 f/1.8D in every scenario (I've got both of those). Everything I've seen for the 35 f/1.8G makes it heaps better than the 35mm f/2; the 85mm f/1.8G: just look at example comparison photos between the G and D at wide apertures, and you know it's the f/1.8G which is worth its money.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, the 105mm f/2.5 is smaller, lighter than a 85mm f/1.8D, cheaper and better in every single way, except it lacks AF. So, I cannot really say what a 24-5--85 set would be like, as I nearly always bring the 105 instead. Plus, I always bring a 35mm.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>105mm f/2.5 is smaller, lighter than a 85mm f/1.8D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 105 is actually heavier (by about 50g). It's also longer, but thinner.<br /> <br /> I would not bother with a set consisting of the old AF-D primes 24, 50, 85 - given that their wide-open performance leaves a bit to be desired and if the main use is a f/5.6 and slower, I'd rather carry a 24-85/3.5-4.5 instead. The new(er) G-lenses are (much) better for each of these focal lengths - and if I were interested in shooting mostly wide (or close to wide) open, they are definitely a better choice.<br /> <br /> I don't have experience with a 24-50-85 set - I very much prefer 24-35-85 instead (the first two Sigma Art f/1.4 lenses, the third, Nikon G). And if I could focus the 105/2.5 Ai reliably, it would be my preference over any 85 a lot of times.</p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>FWIW, the bad, bad, bad bokeh of the 85/1.8D<br>

<br /> <a title="bad bad bokeh" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8478/8244967884_c05fb90f7c_z.jpg" alt="bad bad bokeh" width="429" height="640" /></a></p>

[Two23]

<p>I've owned the 85mm f1.8D and didn't get along with it very well. Worst lens I've ever owned for flare, and there's plenty of CA. I do use and own lenses 24mm PC-E, Sigma 50mm f1.4A, and Nikon 85mm f1.8G. While this is the sharpest lens group I've ever owned (I've owned dozens of lenses of many formats and time periods,) I would not use this set up for weddings. I tried it in the past and found I was missing far too many fast breaking shots.<br>

The Nikon 85mm f1.8G is very light and vastly superior to the 85mm f1.8D in every way. Still, I've never used it during a wedding. I find a pair of f2.8 zooms do everything faster and more efficiently.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I've seen you ask a few questions here lately.</p>

<p>I have to ask. Are you the only wedding photographer not just using a 24-70 f2.8 zoom? Primes are nice, but for an event like that...?</p>

[jose_angel]

<p><em>Personally</em>, I never carry with the 85 in the typical 3 lens setup (Leica aside). Usually 24 and 50, maybe 24 and 35, but when a longer lens is needed, I directly jump to a 105. A 85 could be smaller or lighter, but simply don`t do the task.<br /> The very few times I take the 85/1.4 is because I specifically want to shoot with a lens this type.<br /> In my experience, the sucessful substitute to my 70-200VRII is the 105VR. Never any 85.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"Are you the only wedding photographer not just using a 24-70 f2.8 zoom?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I also do not use the 24-70mm f/2.8. I use the older 35-70mm f/2.8 instead. I never upgraded because the 24-70 is a G lens that lacks the aperture ring that I need for proper exposure control on my older Nikon film cameras. In addition to the 35-70mm, I also use the older 20-35mm f/2.8 Nikon zoom.</p>

<p>I do, however, carry the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 105mm prime lenses as backup lenses for my backup body. </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Guys, let's not be ignorant here. There are a vast amount of wedding photographers who shoot primarily with prime lenses. Some of the very best and most sought after wedding photographers like Jonas Petersen and Ben Chrisman to name just a few.</p>

<p>In my experience it's common to favor primes among those that are high end full time wedding shooters. I think a zooms-only approach is more prevalent among the lower budget shooters and beginners, just as crop sensors are.</p>

<p>In the end it comes down to personal preference and what you like. Just zooms or just primes or a mixtures of both are all perfectly valid choices.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Pete S.</p>

<p>That may be true, but I've worked at churches for almost all of the last decade.</p>

<p>I'm the guy the photographer always coordinates with with regard to lighting, getting into the building, access to balconies or whatever. I've watched the shift from MF and film to digital crop sensor to full-frame close up.</p>

<p>I've seen <em><strong>one</strong></em> photographer in that whole time come in and use a prime for <em><strong>ANYTHING</strong></em>... and that was a macro for hand/ring shots only. That's why I ask. Our OP is clearly a Wedding Photographer, and from his questions, I can surmise he is probably not one with the experience and portfolio of the ones you mention. That's why I ask.</p>

<p>I'm trying to get to the real root of the questions Wedding Photographer is asking.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>I've seen you ask a few questions here lately.<br /> I have to ask. Are you the only wedding photographer not just using a 24-70 f2.8 zoom? Primes are nice, but for an event like that...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've just registered and am starting a few discussions.</p>

<p>While I do appreciate a good tele zoom, I get by with two primes in the wide to medium range.<br /> Most important aspect of reportage is 'knowing where to stand'. Once you learn that, using a prime or two is no big deal. In fact, it simplifies my work.</p>

<p>I'm in the process of building a new site. <a href="http://inboxgm.wix.com/lumicino">You can see here</a> what I achieve with these older d lenses. Mind you, I'm not a full time pro, just a freelance shooting a couple of weddings in my spare time.</p>

<p>The biggest share of wedding pics are shot with a simple 50. I do use a zoom but not a medium zoom, rather an 80-200/2.8 which is excellent. No need for VR since I'm shooting mostly 1/125-250".<br /> I do own other zooms: a 28-70/2.8 which I am selling in mint condition. It's just more than I need.<br /> And a 20-35/2.8 which is very nice but for a wedding I have enough with a 24 prime.</p>

<p>Said that, I believe the medium zoom is overrated. I'm not sure how many weddings you have shot but that's what my experience has taught me :)<br /> Another half truth I often hear is that <em>pro's must own the best gear</em>. No it's not. Pro's use the cheapest gear that delivers appropriate results so that they keep more cash in their pockets rather than investing in excessive gear.</p>

<p> </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I don't understand what you meant by no significant result. I had the 28, 50, and 85 all the time. I also use the 24-85 very often and often at the 24, 50 and 85 settings.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>The 85/1.8D is an excellent lens all the way around. You would be pleased with it for sure.</p>

<p>28/50/85 is that classic Nikon set, but there are some other options to consider.</p>

<p>35/85 gets a lot done in a two lens kit, particularly if you have two bodies.</p>

<p>Consider swapping the 85 for a 105/2DC or even a 105/2.8 Micro (this covers a lot as well.</p>

<p>Consider the 24 as an alternative to the 28.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I can't vouch for the wide angle (though I'm a little tempted by the new 20mm f/1.8 AF-S for when I don't want to be carrying my 14-24 around). The 50mm f/1.8 AF-D is fine at small apertures, and extremely soft wide open - but it does have the merit that it's appreciably smaller than the AF-S if you really care about portability. I've been known to put mine in a carry case that came with a teleconverter and tie it to the strap of a toploader camera bag. Unless you're really shooting for tiny, I concur that the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S is a much better option. When I got my D800e, I tested it for the AF issue - initially by putting my 50mm AF-D on it, then realising that it was so soft that I couldn't tell anything, which encouraged me to buy the AF-S. The Sigma Art 50mm is significantly better still, but much bigger, heavier and more expensive.<br />

<br />

85mm... the f/1.8 AF-D bokeh is, indeed, what I'd call "ugly". Ugly enough that I'd not want to use it for subject separation given the choice. The AF-S version is much better for bokeh, with the proviso that it has quite significant LoCA (the background of the transition zone goes green). It's your call whether that's a problem for you - I've had bride-with-green-hair syndrome from a 135 DC, but you might be able to work around it. If you can live with manual focus, the 85mm f/1.4 Samyang is pretty good as well - it has decent bokeh without being quite so soft wide open as the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D. If you can live without more than f/2.8, the 90mm Tamron macro (even the older one) can double as a short portrait lens on a budget, and let you get close-ups of detail. I can also recommend the old 135mm f/2.8 (and f/3.5) manual focus lenses for quality vs size and price - again, if you're quick and your subjects hold still.<br />

<br />

I'm not really a fan of medium zooms either, but when I was the prime shooter on a wedding recently I'll admit that my (hired) 24-70 was more useful than it is in my normal photography. Sometimes the wall is in the way when you zoom with your feet.<br />

<br />

HTH.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Well, you can't argue with results, and if the D lenses do what you want I don't see why you'd have to buy all new lenses. The newer lenses do the same things, just with silent focus and a some image quality improvements. The 85/1.8D is capable, but not the sharpest lens wide open on high res sensors, with more fringing and CA than current models, and the bokeh is very rough. The G lens is stronger in these areas.</p>

<p>BTW, are you sure you want a Flash site? They don't work with mobile devices, so you'd be missing out on a lot of page hits.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, are you sure you want a Flash site? They don't work with mobile devices, so you'd be missing out on a lot of page hits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Yes, most web traffic is now on mobile devices, so flash is entirely dead except for legacy sites.<br>

<br>

Getting back to the original question, if I HAD to go with primes, I'd want 24mm, 50mm (actually I'd prefer 40mm if it existed. I'm using that equivalent f.o.v. on µ43 and adore it) and then a long zoom. I find 85mm, for myself, less useless than I wish I did, and like 100 - 200mm lengths a LOT... and you already have the zoom you love.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, are you sure you want a Flash site? They don't work with mobile devices, so you'd be missing out on a lot of page hits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, that's why I'm starting a new site :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Getting back to the original question, if I HAD to go with primes, I'd want 24mm, 50mm (actually I'd prefer 40mm if it existed. I'm using that equivalent f.o.v. on µ43 and adore it) and then a long zoom. I find 85mm, for myself, less useless than I wish I did, and like 100 - 200mm lengths a LOT... and you already have the zoom you love.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True again. Shame nikon failed to provide an update to the 45mm f/2.8 (make it f/1.8) and 105mm f/1.8.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i use 35/50/85 f/1.4 lenses when i dont want to carry the 2.8 zooms. sometimes i just use the 35 and 85. 85 can be a useful focal length and complement shorter primes. there's obviously a big gap between 50mm and 105 or 135, and 85 slots right in there. but the OP seems to have answered his own question: "this was and is a popular set for those who want to cover a <em>useful range</em> in a <em>relatively fast</em>, <em>portable and affordable</em> package." the 85/1.8G appears to be way better than the D version and its relatively inexpensive, so get one if you feel you need it.<br>

<br>

the larger issue IMO is that the 24/2.8 D and 50/1.8D are both underperforming lenses for event shooting, since both need to be stopped down for best results. the 50/1.8D has very nervous bokeh, so it's not great for subject isolation shots, which is a big reason for shooting a fast 50 in the first place. I'd dump it and either get the 1.8G or a 1.4. similarly, the 24/2.8D's main asset is its small size. it has reasonable sharpness at 2.8 in the center, but you can get better performance at 2.8 from a zoom than you can with either of these aging lenses. personally, if i was a Wedding Photographer, i would get either the tamron or nikon 24-70.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>There's a new 45mm 1.8 from Tamron, with VR and weather seal. It's actually pretty good, though more expensive than the 50mm 1.8 options. See: https://flic.kr/s/aHskiptCzU </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The concept of a 24/50/85 kit suits me just fine for events, travel, or just a stroll in the woods. If anything, the spread from 24 to 50 is a little wide, so I'd insert a 35, or possibly 28 in the mix. I got along for years using a Leica M2 with a 35/50/90 kit, and I've condensed my day kit for a Sony A7Rii to a 25/35/50 and 85, all f/2 or faster.</p>

<p>The devil is in the details. If the OOF areas of the 85/1.8D are messy, that spoils the effect of using a shallow DOF to isolate a subject. In the past, Nikon wide angle primes, 35mm and under, tended to have more CA than I would like. I have a 28-70/2.8, and have never sought to replace it with primes. I probably use it 70% of the time, with the balance split between a 17-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. For travel, it's even more lop-sided at nearly 100%.</p>

<p>You'd be hard-pressed to find a set of prime lenses for the Nikon comparable in quality to the more popular 24-70 f/2.8 zoom lens, and would probably spend more in the process.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I think there is actually a current fashion about using fixed focal lenght lenses. Some people (usually youngest) seem to appreciate them above other choices, maybe in the feel of "old time" photographers. Thanks God the offer is now great, we have many good choices (do you remember ten years ago...? :).</p>

<p>Fixed lenses certainly offer some advantages, usually related to image quality or even to creative possibilities, but I wonder if also related to framing and working speed; obviously not.<br /> I also wonder about the weight&size convenience... one only prime is of course better, but I doubt if a three lens setup gives an advantage in this respect.</p>

<p>You can know "where to stand", but there is the fact of switching from one view to another... there are intermediate choices (framing <em>and perspective</em>) that are simply eliminated when using fixed lenses.<br /> If you think you do it better with primes, just go ahead. Probably, the right solution is to have everything; sometimes you`ll get a zoom, sometimes fixed, sometimes both.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Of course at the focal length it's designed for the fixed focal length lens is generally less expensive, smaller, lighter, faster and sharper than a zoom. Of course it's not usable for any other focal length. </p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>I shoot events with two bodies, one with 28-70 2.8, second with 50 1.4 - indoors or 70-200 2.8 outdoors - I have not figured out more flexible set up yet. Things are usually moving too fast for changing lenses.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>There's a new 45mm 1.8 from Tamron, with VR and weather seal. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cool, but way too expensive for what it is.</p>

<p> </p>

[raczoliver]

<p>I traveled and did everything else with the 24-50-85 combo for several years. I actually had a very old sample of the AF 85mm f/1.8, a non-D one, which optically is the same as the later D as far as I know.</p>

<p>The 85 was a good lens, but soft at wide apertures (f/2.5 or greater), and had bad looking bokeh. I mainly used it for landscapes at apertures between f/5.6 and 8. F/7.1 seemed to be the sweet spot on mine, which got me very sharp images. But... I sold it as soon as I bought the G version, because it is seriously better at almost everything. There were only two advantages to the old version, one was that it was slightly smaller, and the other that its focus ring had a hard stop at infinity (this was useful for aerial photography for me). Otherwise the G version photographs circles around the D at wide apertures, beats it at smaller ones too, and has a much more pleasing bokeh. I still find the rendering a little harsh, it is hard for me to describe, but the 105 and 135 DC lenses are nicer for portraits in my opinion. That being said, it is very good value for its price, and being strictly an amateur photographer, I couldn't justify the 85mm f/1.4G.</p>

<p>So in short, I can recommend the 85mm f/1.8G lens, and advise you to skip the D version.</p>