Thinking out loud....


2nd Trick

I want a light three lens set built around the 35 2D. In other words I need a shorter and longer fixed focal length lens. Probably the 20 2.8 for the shorter. The longer is a problem. In classic 35mm terms the set would have been 35, 50, and 135....that would suggest the 85 as the replacement but the jump from 35 to 85 is pretty huge so maybe the 50......but the 50 is too close to the 35. Hmmm, maybe the 60 micro?.....
Oct 28, 2006
Munich, Germany
I would recommend 20 - 35 - 85 (not that I've any of those as a prime). For years my film kit was 28 - 55 - 105, and it worked pretty well. 20-35-85 is as close to that as you curently can get (actually a bit longer). Most exact match to the 105 would be 70 - there's a new Sigma 70 macro which reputedly isn't bad.
Jun 10, 2006
Denver, CO
Too bad you did not post this on Friday. I will drop off the 20 2.8, 24 2.8 and 60 micro for you to check out on Monday.

I agree with Paul, "the right lens for the job" and I also think that the zooms can make you lazy and shoot everything from the same spot where the single focal length forces you to move around and be more creative. That being said, I have the 17-55 on my camera today...
Jan 31, 2005
B&H Web Site, Lens Section
Go with the 85. I find the 50 to be too long and too short at the same time -- a "tweener", if you will. I never use my 50 prime and also never have any 50 shots with my 17-55. I typically do have several at 55 from the zoom but that just means I was hit the wall at the long end and really needed something longer. Both Nikkor 85 primes are great lenses with the 1.4 version being stunning.

Mar 23, 2007
Collecchio, northern Italy
Ciao 2nd trick,
I guess you should evaluate anyway a 50 in your lens kit. This lens will reveal extremely useful in weddings or where you need to frame a whole figure within 5-6m with low light (typical of small churches). A 35 mm would surely fit most other situation, but a 50 is really good to get out of troubles in certain situations. Furthermore, it's probably - if you go for the 1.8 - the cheapest and most compact lens of the whole Nikkor system... So, why renouncing at it? I agree for the 20 and the 85. As someone has, if you want to go with primes, I guess you could feel the lack of a macro lens (everything is good, you have just to decide which distance fits you better from flowers / insects / small objects.) and also a longer lens, a 180 F2.8 for instance.

Just imho, but hope that helps. All the best.
Jan 8, 2007
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
So far, my basic walkaround set is the 35mm f/2D and 60mm Micro. I'm also contemplating the 20mm or 24mm to complete it but maybe a wide angle zoom like 12-24 or the like as well I've found I don't need longer than 60mm all that often on city walkaround.


my recent trio has been ->

90 macro
180 2.8

but this is primarily because of all the floral i've been shooting lately (gotta have the 180 close by just incase a pretty girl shows up, lol)

Oct 2, 2006
20,50,85. shall post some 20/2.8d pics in which i find that for my kind
of pic taking it is as good on the d200 as on my d80 and my d70s.

not to offend anyone..i have a 35/2D and never really liked it. just me
and my opinion.

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:
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom