Reverse Lens Lust

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Frits, Jun 16, 2005.

  1. After having a bout with lens lust, I now have a case of "Reverse Lens Lust" :D

    I have got some nice glass and have decided on the keepers:
    Nikkor AF-S 17-35 f/2.8
    Nikkor AF 35-70 f/2.8
    Nikkor AF-S 80-200 f/2.8
    Nikkor AF-D 300 f/2.8
    (plus a Tamron SP AF 1.4 for the odd close up with the 300).

    THAT'S IT (for now and for a long time to come). I feel that I cover the range that I need very nicely with that. Anything beyond that is just "bag fill".

    Surplus, that will have to go, although all excellent in their own right (hence "Reverse LL"):
    Nikkor AF-D 50 f/1.8
    Nikkor AF 85 f/1.8
    Nikkor ED-IF 300 f/2.8
    Nikkor TC-14E

    Does this make sense??
     
  2. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    "Does this make sense??" - no. In fact, not at all.
     
  3. absolutely, I go thru this all the time. just sold a couple from the second catagory myself. good lenses, just not part of current plan.
     
  4. Please elaborate, Bjørn. I'd love to understand this from your perspective.
     
  5. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    The basic point here is that swapping a set of fast lenses (f/1.8 ) for another of slower f/2.8 speed isn't a wise move. Even though you might not need all of the faster lenses all of the time, they are there whenever you need them.

    Overlapping focal ranges might not be seen as something you want, but there is more to any lens that just focal length. So a 35-70/2.8 might have about the same range as a 50/1.8 + 85/1.8, but if you need a fast lens, the zoom isn't the answer. It benefits your shooting whenever you do a little pre-planning ahead of the assignment, so picking the appropriate lens(es) isn't really that difficult.

    My advice is to keep all his lenses and purchase a bigger cupboard for storing them, so getting an overview is simplified :) And do keep the excellent TC-14E.
     
  6. Thank you for your insight Bjorn. I cannot contest any of the things you say, it makes perfect sense.

    But in my reality, I have found that 2.8 is plenty fast and that the quality of my zooms is excellent (again, for me).
    I guess I would reach for the 1.8's the odd time, but it is not worth it for me to keep them for that.
    I agree that the TC-14E is an excellent converter. I had 2, but sold one a few months back. I kept the one that I adapted for other then AF-S lenses.
    It worked fine with the 80-200, but now that I have the AF 300, I will not use it on the 80-200 anymore. On the AF 300 it will not work (other then manual), hence my reasoning.
     
  7. twig

    twig

    745
    May 23, 2005
    IF nikon added VR to a 17-55 or 28-70/2.8 lens then I would consider dumping my 50/1.8 and stop lusting after an 85/1.8 (not really though, I like having light "disposable" primes for when I am not working)

    Until then, as Bjorn mentions, there are times when only f/1.8 will do!
     
  8. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    I'm shaking my head and shrugging my shoulders.

    Prime lenses are a thing of beauty, they utilize curved glass of differing indices to bring divergent light from a part of the real world into focus in a plane where you can capture a miniture, two dimensional likeness of that part of reality.

    Zoom lenses are an engineered imaging solution for photographic convienence.

    One is for getting the job done, and the other makes me happy.
     
  9. Wow Chris! Stop it already, you're going to make me change my mind :D :D
     
  10. Hi Frits,

    Excellent glass you got there. Top of the line...
    I personally can't live without primes. If I was you I'd keep the 50 and 85 and sell the Nikkor ED-IF 300 f/2.8 and the Nikkor TC-14E (those are redundant).

    But you know what you're doing and your choice is the best choice. No arguing about that.
     
  11. JeffKohn

    JeffKohn

    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    Well I might agree with the others on the 85 1.8 but I say don't feel bad about ditching the 50 1.8. IMHO it's a vastly overrated lens that only gets such high praise because of its price. For many people it's going to be the first really sharp lens they get. But honestly I find the performance wide-open pretty lackluster, and to me that's the whole purpose of such a lens. Who cares that it's 5% sharper than a good zoom at f/8?

    I still have my "nifty fifty" but I haven't used it in almost a year. I do have need for a really fast lens every once in a long while, but in the next few months I'll probably pick up either the Sigma 30mm 1.4 (most likely) or the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 and at that point the 50 1.8 will be off to ebay.
     
  12. I'm fairly new to this lens lust (though very enthusiastic), but in the past suffered very much from guitar lust. Most of the guitars I acquired during my guitar lust are now under the bed. However. it gives me a good feeling to know they are there.

    I have to say that still the only guitars I ever regretted are the ones I didn't buy or the ones I sold.

    I'm with Bjorn on this. He has good rational arguments but I just have emotions. I've only sold one Nikon lens, a 70-300 ED, because I was very disappointed with it at the long end, but I'm keeping the others.
     
  13. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Judging from your list, I'd say zoom lenses are the objects of your desire, not primes. Lens lust is a very personal thing. I usually shoot my lenses wide open (and wish for even more aperture.) Even my zooms.

    I see yours are all f/2.8 while mine are lowly "consumer grade" lenses with slower apertures (12-24 f/4 and 24-120 f/3.5-5.6). They do, however, get the job done and are convienent. When I am shooting for money, such convienence is important (ie. Time is Money), but for personal shooting I prefer the slower, previsualized framing of a prime.

    Your set looks conservative and versatile. Go for it (and sell that surplus stuff here!)
     
  14. Frits my friend, I'd have to along with the concensus. I have a 35 f/1.4 and a couple of times I thought about turning the cash value into something I "needed." Then I'd try it for some reason and think better of it. I'm glad I kept it; that extra stop really helps in marginal situations. This week I shot a concert in which one of my grandsons played. It was a poorly lit auditorium. Like an idiot I left the 35 at home! With the D2X I wouldn't have had to worry about cropping...and it's a tiny light lens. I never used the 12-24 I took anyway. From now on any time I have to do indoor work the 35 f/1.4 goes into my bag.

    For example, the 85 f/1.8. I'm told it is even sharper than the 85 f/1.4 under some circumstances.

    Rich
     
  15. Hi Frits

    When I first read your post I was thinking - is Frits serious - or has he just gone nuts!

    But then I started to think about it and I am coming around to your way of thinking. I used to have the 35-70 and the 80-200, both excellent lenses and very versatile.

    If it was me, I would follow through with your plan, exept I would keep the 50/1.8 for these reasons:

    1. It isn't worth much so you will not really be able to swap it for something else.

    2. Other than the bokeh, it takes superb photos and it is small and light. Sometimes I do not want to lug around the extra weight. I hardly even notice it on my camera.

    3. Occasionally I like to "challenge" myself, just working with the 50mm FOV - this is good for discipline and I frequently surprise myself with the photos I end up with.

    4. Sometimes speed counts - focusing in dark situations and an extra stop of shutter speed - the 50/1.8 is good at low light photography.

    5. I use my 50/1.8 as my base test lens. Whe I get a new lens, the first thing I do is a test for colour rendition and sharpness. I do the same test with the 50/1.8 so I have a consistent comparison base.

    6. The 50mm is your cheap backup lens if your 35-70 tank ever fails. Okay, I'm reaching now, but I really want you to hold onto the 50!
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
reverse lens lust/cure for NAS Lens Lust Apr 9, 2011
Reversing ring is stuck on my lens Lens Lust Apr 1, 2010
Reverse of lens lust Lens Lust May 26, 2009
reversed lens lust again... Lens Lust Sep 12, 2007