Thinking about condensing my prime lenses (50mm vs. 28mm)

Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
797
Location
College Station, Texas
Here's the deal.
I got a 85mm 1.8D two years ago, and as of the last 12 months...I barely use the thing.

I am thinking about selling it. Not having that focal distance is not ideal, but because I never use it, I clearly don't need it right now.

Okay that is part 1.

Part 2:

With my D700, I use my 24-70mm like 98% of the time (with my 50mm I guess being the other 2%?). And I love this lens to death.

I am leaving for a 6 week trip in Europe in May, and this imminent trip is making me wonder about a travel setup.
More specifically, just bringing one lens. I am only taking a backpack so weight is an issue.
This is why I am thinking about not bringing my 24-70mm.

So what?

I have been looking into the 28mm 1.8G as a walkaround prime lens. I find myself shooting on the wider-end while using my zoom lens, so this seems pretty reasonable.

Questions for you guys:

Should I get the 28mm or keep the 50mm as a walkabout prime lens?
I think I would enjoy having the wider 28 lens over the 50, in part because I want to capture things like the European landscapes as well as I can.

Note: The lens' usage will not just be limited to my Europe trip. The trip will just serve as a catalyst for me doing some selling & buying.

Thanks guys. You always have really good insight and experience to share!
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,476
Location
Lompoc, CA
I think you'd be crazy to go to Europe with a single focal length. If the 24-70 is too heavy then I'd get a 24-85 AF-S. But since that isn't what you asked I think the 28 would be more useful if I had to pick between those two.
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
164
Location
Poland
I'd say you need something wider than 50mm. Europe is full of amazing archtecture, landscapes. To capture all this beauty 50mm will be too narrow. I took my N24-70 for one trip and most used phocal length for me was 24-40mm.
Considering the fact that you only go with backpack I'd go with 28mm + 50mm where 28mm would be on the body most of the time.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2011
Messages
43
Location
South Florida
Even if weight was an issue, if I took one lens to Europe it would still have to be the 24-70mm f/2.8 for sure. I've never been there, but so much of the beauty of Europe is outside. Excellent landscape capability would be a must and the 24mm end of that lens would be best for that. Another personal thing is that I've never been a fan of zooming in on statues and structures for the photo, so once again, the wide end would be key. Now, if you want to take portraits of someone with scenic backdrops then the 50-70mm end should be perfect - and without changing lenses. It's got proven durability and weather sealing to boot for those rough weather days.
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
1,496
To answer your question.... the 28mm will be much more useful on a backpacking trip. And if you can find more room in that pack, put in the 50mm.
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
If weight is really important, I would keep all the stuff you now have. Consider instead a high end point & shoot?
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
436
Location
Le Bourg, St Julien d'Oddes, France. 42260.
I have a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which I hardly ever take off my camera. I also find most of my shots are at the wider end, around 28 to 35.
I am seriously thinking of getting an 85mm for portrait work but now you have me wandering.
Oh by the way, I live in Europe, ( France)
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
21,587
Location
South Florida
FWIW I walked for 10 days in London and for 9 days in Washington DC in my last two vacations, both with the D700 and 24-70. Heavy? A little. Regret it? Resounding no.

I have done a previous vacation with the D700 and four primes (24/2.8 AI, 28/2.8 AI, 50/1.8 and Tammy 90). It was fine and light though I had to keep changing lenses and blowing the sensor every night. I used the 28mm the most.

If you like primes (I do), you do not need to go expensive. The 28/2.8 AI is one of my sharpest lenses and fairly inexpensive. You pay way more for AF and f/1.8. Do you really need it?
 
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
1,847
Location
Germany
Here's the deal.
I got a 85mm 1.8D two years ago, and as of the last 12 months...I barely use the thing.

I am thinking about selling it. Not having that focal distance is not ideal, but because I never use it, I clearly don't need it right now.

Okay that is part 1.

Part 2:

With my D700, I use my 24-70mm like 98% of the time (with my 50mm I guess being the other 2%?). And I love this lens to death.

I am leaving for a 6 week trip in Europe in May, and this imminent trip is making me wonder about a travel setup.
More specifically, just bringing one lens. I am only taking a backpack so weight is an issue.
This is why I am thinking about not bringing my 24-70mm.

So what?

I have been looking into the 28mm 1.8G as a walkaround prime lens. I find myself shooting on the wider-end while using my zoom lens, so this seems pretty reasonable.

Questions for you guys:

Should I get the 28mm or keep the 50mm as a walkabout prime lens?
I think I would enjoy having the wider 28 lens over the 50, in part because I want to capture things like the European landscapes as well as I can.

Note: The lens' usage will not just be limited to my Europe trip. The trip will just serve as a catalyst for me doing some selling & buying.

Thanks guys. You always have really good insight and experience to share!

Hi Will,
I would take the 24-70 as the only lens and forget about changing lenses :smile:. Take a polarizer with you and be done.
Have a great trip and enjoy your holidays!

Best,
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
797
Location
College Station, Texas
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
FWIW I walked for 10 days in London and for 9 days in Washington DC in my last two vacations, both with the D700 and 24-70. Heavy? A little. Regret it? Resounding no.
I am not worried about carrying around the lens whilst walking. It is mainly about its transportation (as we will be taking about 6 flights during the trip), and baggage weight regulations/penalties.

But, if I were to bring the 24-70 I would bring it as a carry-on because I do not really trust airlines.

So I realize I may have just answered my own question.

Although I would prefer to have a wide prime lens with a max aperture around f/1.8 for low light situations.
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
164
Location
Poland
But, if I were to bring the 24-70 I would bring it as a carry-on because I do not really trust airlines.
Have you even considered putting other lenses in luggage? My photography equipment always travels with me as carry-on. It's simply to fragile.
Also, your luggage can easly get lost on the airport. Especially if you have one or more stops on the way to your final destination. Sometimes it takes time until they return lost belongings.

Cheap airlines like Ryanair have a lot of regulations and they carefully check luggage. Be aware of hidden costs.

Well, since you found good deal on 28/1.8G all I can say is good luck. Enjoy europe's experience :smile:
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
797
Location
College Station, Texas
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
Have you even considered putting other lenses in luggage? My photography equipment always travels with me as carry-on. It's simply to fragile.
Also, your luggage can easly get lost on the airport. Especially if you have one or more stops on the way to your final destination. Sometimes it takes time until they return lost belongings.

Cheap airlines like Ryanair have a lot of regulations and they carefully check luggage. Be aware of hidden costs.

Well, since you found good deal on 28/1.8G all I can say is good luck. Enjoy europe's experience :smile:
I don't think I would ever let my photography gear leave my side. Too risky!

And we are taking a Ryanair flight from Dublin to Seville, Spain. I am very aware of their cost structure. I hope my bag will end up being under their weight restrictions.

And thanks! I hope it works out well.
I noticed that you and I have a very similar setup (even down to having a Manfrotto tripod!).
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
797
Location
College Station, Texas
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
Additionally,
I am looking at getting some sort of filter for my 24-70 (with a step-down ring for my 28).
I am debating on either a circular polarizer or a neutral density filter.

I have run into the problem when I shoot where it is just way too bright outside. In this situation, I think the ND filter would come in handy.

But then at other times, it is just the skies in the backgrounds are too overexposed. That would warrant some sort of ND grad filter. But I am wary of dropping a lot of money on a good grad filter (Singh, etc).

Then there are circular polarizers.

Which one is best for general usage?
If I were to go to Europe with my 28, would I keep a circular polarizer or an ND filter on at all times?
 
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
164
Location
Poland
I noticed that you and I have a very similar setup (even down to having a Manfrotto tripod!).
We do, indeed. I sold my 85/1.8D couple of months ago and now I'm getting 28/1.8G. :smile:

Which one is best for general usage?
If I were to go to Europe with my 28, would I keep a circular polarizer or an ND filter on at all times?
I never had ND filter so I can't advise you but I do use, recommend Hoya Pro1 Circular Polarizer and love it. Below is a sample photo taken on extremely very bright day in Greece with D300 + Tokina 11-16/2.8 + hoya Pro1 CP.
I think it was jpeg straight from the camera. Can't remember right now. Colour of the skin is red (partly because I got burned:smile:) and that should be fixed in post process.

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


This lens is UWA (equivalent of 16,5-24mm on full frame) and correct me if I'm wrong but the effect on 24-70 will be slightly different.

P.S. Since Hoya has great filters just 2 days ago I ordered Hoya Pro1 ND-4 filter too mostly for taking pictures of running water.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2011
Messages
43
Location
South Florida
Regarding filters, I use a 3 stop ND filter for shooting portraits in the sunshine. It's excellent for rendering good exposures while allowing one to open the aperture for smoother bokeh in the background - otherwise the photo would be overexposed. I don't think I'd recommend keeping it on at all times otherwise you might forget to remove it if the sun ducks behind a dark cloud or starts to go down.

For landscape photos, I wouldn't worry so much about using one because even in bright bright sunshine I'd stop down quite a bit to render sharper detail thus eliminating need for the filter.

The Circ. Polarizer is excellent for reducing glare on images where there's water, glass, and deepening the blues and greens of oceans or blues of skies. I've discovered they're not best for images of people because the skin hues are deepened as well. Correctable in post to some extent but I've never liked the result. Once again, maybe not something to keep on at all times but for what it's used for - it can produce rich, vibrant looks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

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