Closing the gap between 24mm d and 80-200mm FX

[chuck]

<p>If you are going to get a 50mm go for the Nikon 50mmf/1.8 AFS. It cost 1/4 as much as Sigma Art lens (I can vouch whether it matches the Sigma lens, but it is good), and in most respects equal or better than Nikon's own f/1.4 AFS, which cost twice as much.<br>

I bought both of Nikon's 50mm AFS, compared them, and returned the f/1.4AFS.</p>

[wedding_photographer5]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd hate to miss either focal length; plus, none of these are heavy or big.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not so much a question of physical encumbrance because both 35 and 50 are small lenses, like you mention.<br /> It's rather a question of 'mental' encumbrance. I don't like too many options, I don't like burdening myself deciding between 35 or 50. The gap seems too small to consider both, don't you think.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, carrying both isn't a big burden, if you're OK with a 80-200 f/2.8 already.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The tele zoom is a class apart. A 105mm, 135mm or 180mm isn't much smaller than a 80-200mm, nor is it much cheaper if at all. I wouldn't gain anything by using a tele prime instead.<br /> <br /> The difference between these and a tele zoom isn't as substantial as the difference between the D primes in the 20-85mm range and wide / medium zooms like this picture illustrates.<br /> .<br /> <img src="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBbmWfAi9nJLiNv8yyCHITPh3NFYyXh-1slb0bGvMxU17RW_He" alt="" width="257" height="196" /></p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>As said, "<em>my approach and my preference, so it could well be pretty meaningless to you</em>"; to each his own, and that was exactly my point. Nobody here can tell you what works best for you.</p>