The Ideal Two-Lens Kit

[mark_jordan3]

Hi Doug, I own Nikkor primes 24mm/2.8, 50mm/1.4 & 85mm/1.4; the 50mm is often left behind when I want to keep size down to 2 lenses as a light take-along kit...perhaps only limited by my personal style, the 50 just doesn't seem to give me enough latitude in either direction as a workable substitute. Understand you want something faster than 2.8, perhaps you could go 28mm/1.4 on the wide end...or look to one of the new Sigma lenses. As someone else suggested the 35mm/2 & 85mm/1.4 might be your best combo.

[beau 1664876222]

It's almost ridiculous to pour on another view after all these worthy posts, but here's my opinion: Get the 24mm 2.8 AIS and the 105mm 2.5 AIS. Despite not being particularly fast, they are 2 out of the half-dozen "magic" lenses ever made by Nikon. I have found that if you want a picture to look wideangle or telephoto, 28 and 85 just don't create the drama. A 50 1.4 would also be a good bet, though it doesn't have any special qualities that other good 50's don't have. 100% of my portfolio is these three lenses (mostly the 24) if anyone's interested.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

<i>Beau writes:

I have found that if you want a

picture to look wideangle or telephoto, 28 and 85 just don't create the drama.</i>

<p>

Interesting observation, I hadn't heard it stated quite like that before. That's probably why I'm comfortable with the 35 and 85 and don't feel a need for the 50. Both 35 and 85 seem fairly 'normal' to me. I certainly agree that w/a 'drama' begins at about 24mm, but I never thought about where the corresponding 'drama' begins at the tele end.

[ilkka_nissila]

I have a question. What do you need the f/1.4 for when travelling? Do you travel in cities and want to capture night scenes? I'd think that for many applications the quality available at f/1.4 is not so great. On the other hand, I'd never want to travel without a tripod.

[beau 1664876222]

Todd, I guess I never thought about it this way until you raised it, but a 24 and a 105 are, respectively, half and double the standard angle of view, plus a little extra "juice" in either direction. I suppose that would help explain why they make such a popular pair, and along with the 50 a logical trio (adding the "no-drama" option). Even though I didn't choose my lenses with any such logic, I do know that looking through the 24 and the 105 is endlessly inspiring for me and I'd be having a lot less fun without them.

[mike_mc_ardle1]

How about a 17-35mm and an 80-200mm both f2.8 though.

[dj_soroka]

Two Lenses???

 

35 mm f/1.4 AIS and one of the following:

 

85 mm f/1.8 Manual Focus AI'ed with HS-7 hood and L37C filter;

105 mm f/2.5 AIS;

105 mm f/1.8 AIS;

75-150 f/3.5 AIS series E zoom (note speed differential versus primes).

 

Your existing 24 f/2.8 and 50 mm f/1.8 give plenty more options.

[david_chananie]

Susan McCartney, who acutally does this for a living, recommends something like a 35-70 f2.8 and an 80-200 f2.8.

[ronb]

I recently asked myself a similar question, but speed isn't that important to me: I ended up with the 28-50mm f/3.5 AIS zoom and the 105mm micro f/2.8 AIS. Reasonably wide, normal, short tele, and macro. If I want really sharp wide angle shots with no distortion I'll substitute the 28mm f/2.8 AIS.

[cd thacker]

Wow! Thanks for all the great ideas and options. <P>

 

In answer to the question more than one person asked, "Why such fast lenses?," I'd say it's for a number of reasons. The first and most important, is that I love to shoot in low light and natural light - at (and just after) dusk; at dawn (and just before); even at night. Open up an f/1.4 lens, using film rated from 800 to 3200 or higher, and you can handhold virtually anywhere - with a wide lens, anyway. The second reason, is that I like that great out-of-focus effect you get with such lenses shot wide open; and I like isolating things with narrow depth of field. <P>

 

Being as I started in photography (before stopping for some years) back in the seventies - that is, back when flash use wasn't automated, and when there was a kind of built-in prejudice against it on the part of some people - I never really got into using flash. The great work being done with it, over the past, say, ten years (though, truth to tell, there has always been great work done using flash - it's just a great deal easier now), has almost convinced me to experiment more with flash (I did play with it here and there back in the art school days) - and I'm sure I will at some time - but in the end I think it really isn't my style. And finally, my experience in shooting up to now - especially while traveling - is that you seldom have quite enough light to shoot by; and all the speed you can wring out of a lens is welcome - like mana.<P>

 

Hmmm, two lenses? Or three? The latter option certainly is tempting. I suppose the thing to do is to set up a provisional two-lens kit and work with it here at home for a while - just to see how it works for me. <P>

 

So many options! A good problem to have, I think.

[Jim_Tardio]

I understand your reasons for fast lenses, Doug. However, just about all I shoot is travel related. I use f2.8, sometimes f3.5 lenses with 100 speed film, and I seldom feel the need for anything faster. And I also shoot in low-light, dusk, dawn...you name it.

<p>

As for wanting a shallow DOF, f2.8 will do the trick nicely. From my experience, most travel shooting calls for a greater DOF. Of course, there are portraits, the isolating of details, etc...and an f2.8 lens is more than adequate for this.

<p>

I don't mean to argue with you, or dispute your shooting methods, but by insisting on speed you're forcing yourself to choose from a very short list of lenses, a few of which are much heavier and bulkier than their slower (but still fast) versions.

<p>

Just my thoughts

[douglas_green1]

Personally, My travel kit is a high quality 28-70mm f2.6~2.8 zoom (Tokina ATX - The Nikkor 35-70 f2.8 would also work, but I really like to go down to 28mm), and a 105mm f1.8 Nikkor and a TC-201. For the bodies I use 2 Nikon FGs. This has me covered from 28mm to 210mm, with 2 types of film available at once. And it's a pretty light setup.

 

I could not get by with just 2 primes, I'd need at least a 24, 35, 85 or 28, 50, 105 setup, and I'd still bring the TC201 2X converter.

[john_n._wall]

Two lenses -- the 24 mm f/2.8 and the 85 mm /1.8. If you have an extra $75, get the 50 mm f/1.8. and if you can fit in a third lens, the 180 mm f/2.8. I personally don't think the additional speed you get with the slightly faster Nikkor primes justifies the cost. With these lenses and Ilford 3200, you can just about shoot handheld in the dark.

[doug_warner1]

Hi Doug,

My vote would be for the 35mm/f2, 85mm/f2, or the 105mm/f2.5. I own all three actually, and prefer the 85mm over the 105. I guess its just the way I see things. The 35mm is my standard lens of choice instead of 50mm. Again this is personal preference on my part. My .02 from another Doug. Good luck....

 

Doug Warner

[wai_chi_lai]

I also has the same question, I will travel to Norway, Finland in the middle of this year. I've got the 20-30 2.8 Tokina, 28-105,50 1.8 and 80-200 2.8 Nikkors,Sb28 and Manfrotto 190. which lens/es do I really need? I'll bring my F80(film) and Fm3a(slides). Pls advice.

[cd thacker]

Wai-Chi,<P>

 

I think you're going to find the zooms somewhat limiting in terms of speed; also, size and weight. Much of that however, especially the issue of speed, depends on the type and style of shooting you do. This is true, as well, for the question of whether or not you should take a tripod, and, if so, what type. <P>

 

In any event, in order to be fair to your own questions and get the maximum number of useful responses, it is advisable to start a thread of your own. Don't be shy. And welcome to the Nikon forum!<P>

[cd thacker]

As far as my own question goes, I've reached the conclusion, I think, that I had my SLR head in rangefinder clouds.<P>

 

On reflection, and after reading through these answers, I realized that one of the great advantages of an SLR system is just that: that it is a system, consisting in part of a wide choice of optics and focal lengths. Trying to limit such a system to only two prime focal lengths, is to go against the grain of the designers' intent, and the nature of the system itself. <P>

 

All of which is, I suppose, a roundabout way of saying that the minimum kit of lenses, for manual focus SLRs, is probably three in number - but could just as easily, depending on style, etc, be four, or five, or ten. Conversely - perversely, even - rangefinders seem to be whole as a system with even only a single lens. <P>

 

Any thoughts on why this difference, if indeed it exists, between RFs and SLRs?

[cd thacker]

I mean, sure, you could get by with, say, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 (or whatever the speed); but there would come those times - perhaps many of them - when you'd feel the need to go wider. Or longer. Or fisheye. Or macro/micro. Or what have you.<P>

 

So i think the solution is probably to have a whole system - a modest one for the sake of traveling lightly - and to pick and choose from it according to the day's shooting. You still might find yourself without the lens you need at hand - but at least you know it's nearby, and can be gotten at quickly.<P>

[ShunCheung]

Range finders have a lot more restrictions. Long lenses are not practical with range finders; for example, 135mm is the longest Leica makes for its M lenses. Macro is pretty much impossible for RF, super-wide-angles require external viewfinders and zoom are difficult to use also (Contax has a zoom for its G RF and Leica has a tri lens, but those are the exceptions). A RF has its advantages, but there are good reasons that most serious 35mm photographers use SLRs.

 

Again, if you go out for a day shoot, I can bring only a couple of lenses. But on a long trip, I would bring two wide angles just to have some backup.

 

Finally, I think Doug has some special needs for very fast lenses. I can't speak for other people, but at least for me, a max aperture at f2.8 is sufficient for 99% of my photography now. That is why my 35mm/f1.4 is mainly sitting on the shelf in these days.

[cd thacker]

Thanks for the response(s), Shun. I think I'm going to post another thread so we can discuss the nature of rangefinders versus SLRs. In the meanwhile, since that 35/1.4 is collecting dust - have you thought about selling it? :)

[ShunCheung]

Sorry Doug, there are several items that I don't use any more, but since they served me well once upon a time, I am keeping them. They include: an FE body (my first Nikon body other than a Nikkormat FT3), F4 body, 43-86mm/f3.5 zoom (my first Nikkor lens and the only AI lens I currently have) and the 35mm/f1.4 (the only AI-S I currently have).

 

Needless to say, I have completely switched over the AF bodies and lenses. That explains some of our different preferences.

 

It is nice to have AI and AI-S lenses around so that when someone askes questions such as whether an AI lens works on some new bodies, I can verify it immediately (provided that I have that body).

 

I still own a Leica CL and a couple of lenses. But a rangefinder is just not very practical for my type of photography. Two years ago I got into medium format and had to choose between RF and SLR once again. It wasn't very hard to decide on a 645 SLR. As usual, your mileage may vary; for some people, a RF may make sense for their type of work.

[ed_vaughn]

For range of focal length, I'd go with the 35-200mm AIS. Its compact, and covers a great range, but isnt exactly fast. Its alot sharper in my experieence than some of the reviews give it credit for. I happen to have gotten lucky and bought one at a local auction for about $150. If Im going to do some low light shooting, I take an old 50mm 1.2 along as well.

[larry n.]

Doug,

 

If I'm not mistaken, you're planning on shooting in fast-moving situations.

 

I was wondering why you don't consider a good quality zoom lens, such as the 17-35, plus a longish lens, maybe the 200/4 AI.

 

I realize the quality is a little lower with this zoom, but sometimes getting the picture is more important, isn't it?

[ShunCheung]

The new <A HREF="http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2003/af28-200ed.htm">28-200mm G IF-ED</A> zoom forms your ideal one-lens kit. :-) Just don't try to use it on your FM2 or FM3A.

[duncan_mcmorrin2]

Naji,

I honestly don't think you lose much quality with a 17-35 AF-S over many of the primes in that range. Speed perhaps, but quality?

 

Duncan