Am I being redundant?

Apr 13, 2008
Staten Island, NY
I have the Nikon 35 f2, 50 f1.4, 85 1.4, 180 f2.8, 70-300VR, 16-85VR, 18-200VR.
They all seem to have their place in my shooting style.

However, I really love shooting 35mm or maybe wider. I've been considering getting either or BOTH the 20 f2.8, and the 24 f2.8.

Am I getting to a point where I'm simply better off getting rid of the three primes (20, 24, 35), and just get the 17-55 f2.8, or maybe the 20-35 f2.8?

I love the light, compact feel of the smaller primes.
I also like to take a single focal length for a day, and enjoy the challenges that it brings.

Opinions welcome.
Jun 27, 2007
So Fla
sell the 18-200, you've got it covered better with the 16-85/ 70-300 combo

look at the Sigma 24 1.8
the Nikon 24 2.8 is nothing to write home about

the 35/2 is way too versatile and small to get rid of
Aug 24, 2007
Parker, CO
You are in a good position - because you have a couple of options

Firstly, trade in the 18-200 on whichever your next lens will be - for either of the 2 suggestions below

1. trade in the 16-85VR as well and get the 17-55 2.8
2. buy the Sigma 10-20

Either of these 2 options will give you a well balanced kit

my $0.02
Dec 18, 2007
Chicago Area
I am a big fan of the 12-24 for my wides. I considered the 17-55 but I seemed to stay more within the 24-70 so I got one of those. I still have 30mm and 50mm primes but I shoot the 50 less and less.

Also, I have struggled with selling my 18-200 but I just love it for what it is and it's great as a P&S lens on a day out where I have better things to do than swap lenses. I'd hang onto that one myself.


Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji:
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY:
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom