Which lens would you purchase next?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SLC Flyfishing, Dec 10, 2009.

  1. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #1
    This is just for fun, I am wanting to see what you guys would do in my situation.

    I'm thinking to but another lens in the next few months, I've currently got the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 (VR1).

    I'm torn between wide angle zoom, or specialized portrait prime. Both of which I've been wanting since I went to Full Frame in August.

    I'm thinking (Nikkors): 14-24 f/2.8, 17-35 f/2.8, or 105 f/2 DC.

    Which one would you buy, if you had to decide between the 3, and why?

    SLC
     
  2. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #2
    What do you do with your gear?
    If you just want a setup that is good for everything then I would go with the 14-24 as you'll prevent overlap from 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and I think the extra 3mm will be useful.
     
  3. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #3
    I would go for the 14-24mm and perhaps an 85mm ƒ/1.8 if you could squeeze that in your budget. As that would more than likely cover all of the focal lengths that you are likely to shoot at. And the 85mm would allow for a better portrait lens.
     
  4. iSavant macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
  5. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #5
    I 2nd that.
     
  6. zachsilvey macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Location:
    Battle Ground
    #6
    I personally would go with the 105 because I like longer lenses and shorter depth of field. But I have heard that the 14-24 is amazing at it would probably get more use than the 105 as it is more versatile.
     
  7. Maxxamillian macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    Utah
    #7
    The 105. I have this. If your experience is anything like mine you will fall in love with the lens. The bokeh is phenomenal....
     
  8. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #8
    The 17-35 will take filters, so if it were me I'd go with that (actually, I went with the 18-35 because of money + weight concerns, but that's a different question).

    Note that a number of people - including Thom Hogan - seem to think the 17-35 is going to be updated in the reasonably near future.
     
  9. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #9
    For fun, option 4- 85mm f/1.4.
     
  10. El Cabong macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    #10
    What do you want to shoot? There's your answer. (To clarify: 14-24 for landscapes, 105 for portraits; 17-35 is overpriced for its age/quality and it overlaps a lot with your 24-70. It probably won't be replaced anytime soon, though a prime refresh is heavily rumored to be due early next year. Screw filters [pun not intended] and go for the 14-24 instead.)

    My personal suggestion is the 200mm f/2 VR, aka option 5. I don't have it, but I know that it's a good lens that costs a crapload of money. It really beats out all the other suggestions so far, when you really think about it.

    There's also option 6, the 400mm f/2.8 VR, so that you can branch out to bird/sports photography. Amazing lens, or so I hear.
     
  11. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #11
    14-24. I find 24-70s incredibly boring. In fact, I'd ditch it and replace with a nice portrait lens.

    My personal kit at this end of the spectrum (Canon) is a 16-35, 50/1.2 and a 70-200.
     
  12. tonynz macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2008
    #12
    50mm f/1.8

    Every photographer needs one of these in their bags....
     
  13. chiefroastbeef macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas/ Hong Kong
    #13
    I'd love a 14-24 as well. Though I love my 24-70, I do agree that primes really do force the creativity out of a person.
     
  14. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #14
    In all the decades I've owned and used cameras, I've never had one in my bag and never missed having one...
     
  15. SLC Flyfishing thread starter Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    Thanks for your opponion, and no offense for not taking it, but no way on earth is the 24-70 going anywhere. I love that lens, and it gets a lot of use.

    I know that I need to buy according to what I shoot, but that's where I'm stuck. I've found myself craving something just a bit wider than 24 mm lately. But my wife shoots a lot of portraits, and I'd make use of the 105 f/2 DC as well. I've got the funds for either lens really, but either way I go the lens is going to be used to fill niches, not a a lens that I see myself shooting through frequently. At least not compared to the two I already have.

    I had the 85 f/1.8 and sold it cause I wasn't using it enough (at all really). I can do most of the work of an 85 mm prime with the 70-200. I'd be buying the 105 DC for it's DC feature more than it's focal length.


    SLC
     
  16. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #16
    Fair enough - my 24-70 is a nice lens, no doubt, but I find it hardly gets used. Produces nice shots, but I always seem to pick up something else to do the job.

    Personally, I'd go for the wide first and then make the portrait lens the next purchase.
     
  17. SLC Flyfishing thread starter Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #17

    That's kinda that way I'm leaning right now. I've got the portrait focal lengths covered with the other two zooms. But nothing ultrawide yet.

    SLC
     
  18. Kronie macrumors 6502a

    Kronie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #18
    I would get the 85 1.8. I mean how wide do you need to go? (only you can answer that) Me? I don't need to go wider than 24mm on a full frame camera. If I do I can stitch the scene together in PS and no one will ever know.....I'm talking landscapes here not architecture.

    My UWA just sat in my bag 95% of the time so I recently bought the 85 1.8 and I just love the DOF. Awesome for portraits.
     
  19. akdj macrumors 65816

    akdj

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #19
    I shoot Canon, so I'm not super familiar with the Nikor line-up...however, I had to make the same decision this time, last year. Between the 16-35 and the 85/1.2 after I picked up a FF 5d2. I already had the 24-105 and 70-200, so I was looking for an UWA and a portrait lens. (Same thing, my wife loves shooting portraits:))

    I ended up with the 85L and it hardly came off my 5d2 this past year! Amazing lens and good for so much more than portraiture. I've used mine for landscapes, wildlife (not birds), my 4 year old son, and a lot of product and wedding photography...I don't know how I lived without it so long.

    I just picked up a 16-35 about 2 months ago and while it's an awesome lens, I don't find myself using it that often. Again, it's only been 2 months, but I don't go anywhere without my 85, 24-105 and 70-200 (and a 1.4 TC:))

    Good Luck

    J
     
  20. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #20
    I find these days that I've seen enough good Photoshop portrait actions that I'd rather have a bit shorter FL for portraits, hence the 85mm suggestion- the DC isn't all that interesting to me because I generally shoot portraits in controlled conditions where I can manipulate the subject->background distance, and I can soften in PS and still be able to do things like sharpen up the eyes, a treasured piece of jewelry, or whatever.

    Personally, I find myself at 35mm more often than not for wide, because the perspectives are better and for so many subjects wider just gets more useless sky- I think my 20-35 has been on the D3x less than a dozen times, and my 10-20 has been on the D2x about four times this year, and I'm including shooting at the Grand Canyon and Crater Lake.

    Obviously, you may have different ideas, it's just my two cents.
     
  21. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #21

    I've thought about it, and......no. :p

    Besides, the 135 mm f/2 is several times cheaper, several times smaller and lighter, and is sharper wide open, as far as I know. It's also at a focal length where the OP may get more use out of it on a full-frame DSLR.
     
  22. seedster2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #22
    I wouldn't consider the expensive 17-35mm 2.8. It overlaps with the superior 24-70mm and it's due for an update.

    I would either opt for the 85mm 1.4 or 135mm for a portrait lens.

    I'm saving for the 14-24mm despite its limitations. It performs exceptionally well. You wouldn't be disappointed with its results
     
  23. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #23
    I would go for the prime. even if you still wanted the wide angle, something like a 18 to 30mm. Of course they get expensive, but IMO if your going to spend the money on the wide angle, why not get the best possible glass.

    My suggestion would be go all prime.
    This is what I have
    24mm wide angle
    50mm
    85mm
    105mm (not much difference from the 85)
    180mm

    I use older (mid/late 70's) Nikon glass so I usually spend between $150-300 for lenses.
     
  24. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #24
    IMO, the 24mm Nikkor isn't really worth the time IQ-wise, the 20-35mm is close to as good if not better, the 14-24 is almost certainly superior. In wide prime land- either a 10.5mm fish which can be de-fished or the 20mm prime is a better choice. In fact, I can't think of many primes I wouldn't put in front of a 24mm purchase (I have one- I wouldn't miss it if I dropped it on a rock.) Probably the 14mm because of it's poor performance on digital and price would be on that pretty short list.

    The 105mm he's looking at is the DC lens, which is unique and very different from the 85mm because of the defocus control- it's a specialty lens, though I'd probably be more tempted by a PC lens myself.
     
  25. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #25
    If you're talking about one lens for now... I'd go wide, since you already have the portrait focal length covered pretty well. The 17-35 f/2.8 is supposed to be a great landscape lens, at it's best stopped down a bit - very sharp, good color rendition, contrast... can wear protective filter or polarizers/neutral density filters, etc. which the 14-24 can't. But... the 14-24 is probably the ultimate wide-angle going right now, and I have to admit to having a little lust going on myself for that one - it'll have to wait until I go full frame though. I would be a little worried about that front bulb element hanging out there, and like most of those you already have, it's not exactly lightweight and portable. But, image quality would be incredible. I think you could pick up a 17-35 mint for $300-400 less than the 14-24, but that's only if money is a factor. One thing I do like about the 17-35 is it's non-G. I like the aperture ring, and ability to go back and use film bodies, and no built-in AF motor to break (and I've had two lenses that had AF motor failures (one a Canon, one Nikon.)

    Anyway, looks like you're putting together a nice collection either way. One thing I do like about the 105 f/2 DC is the 'semi-vintage' design of the lens. Something about Nikkors from that era that just appeal to me, kind of like mid to late 70s stereo integrated amplifiers. Anyway, good luck, whatever you do. :)
     

Share This Page