Thinking about 3 pro lenses...

Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
257
Location
California
My next lens acquisition will be in a few months. I was thinking about these three lenses:

35mm 1.4G
70-200mm 2.8G VRII
105mm 2.8 Micro
84mm 1.4G (okay I added this one to potentially replace my 85 1.8G)

Do any of you have experiences you'd like to share with these lenses? Anything would be appreciated.

I already have the lenses listed in my signature, so I could see going for the 70-200mm 2.8G, but I'm also fond of "normal" range shooting, too.

With the 24-70mm 2.8G, would I get any better IQ and less distortion from the 35 1.4G? Would I benefit from the 85 1.4G over the 1.8G?

I realize the answer may be predicated on the type of shooting I do, which is mainly street shooting and landscape, but I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences with these lenses.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
1,043
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
Mainly street & landscape?

These require no large aperture, so I would not bother with either of the f/1.4 lenses.

For street, I guess you are more than covered with 24-70, both in terms of focal lengths and apertures.

For landscapes, again, 24-70 is a very solid performer. Just guessing, but maybe add an ultrawide lens (16-35/4) or a telephoto (70-200/4)? Again, no need for f/2.8 zooms for landscapes.

In any case, I'd suggest you to first determine what you want to shoot, and in which ways your current gear limits you.
 
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
520
Location
Guam
All good suggestions by sir oliver, going to what oliver was saying about no need for 2.8 zoom, you can replace the Nikkor 24-70 , with the Nikkor 24-120 F4, for your street photographer, you can have two very good F4 zoom (24-120, 70-200), light weight as well ... or not as heavy as the "pro" 2.8 lenses.
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
257
Location
California
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
The 24-70mm 2.8 is a keeper for me. I'm thinking about lower light situations. Also more subject isolation, etc. Something a bit wider than the 50mm but with a fixed aperture. I want fast lenses.

I'm going to scratch the 85mm 1.4G off the list for now. Maybe a 28mm 1.8G?
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
257
Location
California
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
I 'm leaning towards the 35mm 1.4g or 70-200mm 2.8G VRII, BUT I'd love to hear the experiences of others regarding any of these lenses.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
155
Location
Norway
I would probably complete the 2.8 trinity before adding expensive primes as the 35 f/1.4. I had the 16-35 f/4.0 but sold it for a 35 f/1.4 due to red cast when used with the Lee Bigstopper. I really like the 35 f/1.4 and will not sell it. Together with the 50 f/1.4 it fills the gap between 14-24 and 70-200 which both are on my short list. Since you already have the capable 24-70 and and a fast prime in the 50 f/1.8, I would go for either 14-24 or the 70-200 f/2.8.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
1,211
Location
Thomasville, NC
From your signature, you have nothing over 85mm. I would stretch for the 70-200 either the 2.8 or the 4. I really enjoy the 70-200VRII. It is a stellar lens.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,924
Location
Collecchio, northern Italy
Matt
the only lens I'd take is the Sigma 35 f/1.4, not even the Nikon which also scored less on DXO and eventually the 70-200 (consider the Tamron 70-200 VRII though) For sure, you need a tele. Sigma 35 vs Nikon 35 means saving almost half of the money and investing in something you need more (while having an equal or superior optic)
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
2,316
Location
GA
Definitely get a 70-200 to fulfill the telephoto end then ask yourself the following questions:

1. The 85 f/1.8G vs. 85 f/1.4G is a $1200 price difference (new vs. new)...do you think your photos will look 3x better (assuming you believe it is equipment that makes the photo instead of skill)?

2. There are a lot of great macro lenses out there that it is hard to go wrong with any of them. Everything from $100-5000 lenses will produce superb images...what are you looking to get out of a macro lens?

3. If your preferred focal range is "normal", what would you gain from a 35mm lens? You may be better off considering the 28 f/1.8 or save that money and get a dedicated wide angle (i.e. 18-35, 16-28, 14-24, etc).
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,476
Location
Lompoc, CA
I 'm leaning towards the 35mm 1.4g or 70-200mm 2.8G VRII, BUT I'd love to hear the experiences of others regarding any of these lenses.
They are all great lenses, you can't go wrong with any of them. I think its like others have said, what is it that's limiting you now? Do you need something faster than the 24-70? that says 35 f/1.4. Do you something longer? then the 70-200, although I seriously consider the f/4. The 85 f/1.4 or the macro would be a tougher sell given what you have, and what you say you do. Maybe a longer prime like the 105 or 135 DC or the 180 f/2.8 would make more sense.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
3,400
Location
New York City
Of the lenses you list, the 70-200 is certainly the most versatile. The 105 should only be considered for macro or portrait work, which in your case seems not likely (although it could be used for street). I'm glad you've decided against the 85 f/1.4 as that seems like an upgrade based in vanity, not need. The 35 f/1.4 has very specific uses. If you're not sure if you need it, you don't.

So based on the lenses you list, your current line up, and your stated intentions, I'd suggest the 70-200 or something in the wide range (16/17-35, 14-24).

Just my worthless $0.02. :wink:
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
1,547
Location
Famington Hills, MI
I 'm leaning towards the 35mm 1.4g or 70-200mm 2.8G VRII, BUT I'd love to hear the experiences of others regarding any of these lenses.
These two lenses are my main lenses although mine is the VR1 version. I've considered some changes, just because. I fantasize about the 85/35 1.4 combo since I got the D800. For the way I shoot, the versatility comes from the aperture speed rather than the zoom. If I could afford to go all primes I would.
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
With the 24-70mm 2.8G, would I get any better IQ and less distortion from the 35 1.4G?
Matt, I've said this before: 'The 24-70 is such a dull lens. It always performs exactly how you want it, in any aperture.'

I don't know if it's sharper, but the 24-70 is a perfect lens for a lot of scenes. Maybe the 35 is a little bit better, but maybe the zoom is better for your way of shooting.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
6,374
Location
Alabama
I would submit if you have to ask, wait until you can answer the question yourself before buying. You are only going to get advice based on how others shoot. The lenses you are looking for are well reviewed so there is a wealth of info out there.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
3,400
Location
New York City
I would submit if you have to ask, wait until you can answer the question yourself before buying. You are only going to get advice based on how others shoot. The lenses you are looking for are well reviewed so there is a wealth of info out there.

+1

Bingo!
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
2,483
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
I like 35/1.4 lenses on FX. It allows for a relatively wide perspective, subject isolation with preservation of environmental cues. It's easy to take any focal length lens and fill the frame with a subject, blowing out the background. But it takes a fast wide lens on a larger format sensor to do the wide isolate look.

Here's an example of my favorite model:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Compare it to this one shot with a 100mm lens:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


At 35mm there is a more gentle separation of the subject, while at 100mm there is compression of the scene. If you put the subject a little further away with 35mm, the effect is even nicer, but harder to nail without very accurate focus.

Since you're looking at AF lenses, I'd get a Sigma 35/1.4 over the Nikkor. It's sharper, contrastier, and cheaper with the only penalty being slightly busier bokeh.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
967
Location
Netherlands
I'm going to stir things up now:

You basicly have everything covered except for a "smallish" wide angle. You might want to think about a 35mm f2 for street shooting? On the otherside you don't have anything longer than 85mm, I'd go for a 70-200 f4 or f2.8. Both are optically good but do you want and need the f2.8? Also price wise.

If you want a 35mm 1.4 I'd take a look at the Sigma like mentioned above. I wouldn't upgrade the 85 1.8G. the 2/3 stop isn't really worth the +/- $1000.- upgrade imho. (Yes I have a Sigma 85 1.4 and I got it at all most the same price as the 85 1.8G from Nikon so that's the choice for me there).

And the 105 2.8 Micro??? Why did you post it in the list?
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
2,967
Location
Sydney Australia
All very different lenses you have listed there :) I dont think you can go wrong with the 70-200 and the Sig 35 is beautiful for a much lower price than the nikon.

I'd like to suggest you consider renting one or two of these for a week or so and see how they actually work with what you want to shoot. Realistically we are talking some fairly decent coin here so spending a little more on a few rentals could be a good idea if it results in you getting the gear that really suits your needs / style.
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
Matt,

Wait till you should see the second picture (sitting on the tree) with a 105 or 135mm DC lens. The BG would be so much better!
 
Joined
Aug 21, 2011
Messages
1,304
Location
tha US
I have a question. You already have the 24-70 which is generally accepted apart from our good friend Ken Rockwell to be a superior zoom covering the normal range, a 50/1.8, and an 85/1.8, and you're asking what else you need?

You really have the whole lower spectrum covered. If you want to go wide, the 28/1.8 is very competent, as is your 50. For the rest of the majority of your shots, the zoom is more than adequate.

This would suggest a long telephoto is the only outstanding area for which you need a new lens, and for which I would suggest the 70-200 as it is the most versatile. Of course there's the 200 f/2, but that's a tradeoff only the purchaser can make.
 
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: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom