Currently I have the D80, 18-200 and the 50/1.4 and I am thinking of getting an all-prime setup.
The setup I have in mind:
AF 24/2.8D
AF 50/1.4D
AF 105/2.8D Micro (non-VR)
AF 180/2.8D
Teleconverter TC-14E
I think the above setup should give me good flexibility while keeping the size and weight to a minimum. The 24, 50 and 105 can also use and share 52mm filters/CPL and that should cut some cost. The 180 is also pretty small in size and with the teleconverter, still offers good quality images.
I have tried shooting with the 18-200 set at 24, 50, 105 and 180 (chose a single FL and shoot for the whole day) and though the experience is quite "liberating" but not being able to compose with the subject(s) at the desired size/position can be pretty frustrating.
I am wondering if the "better" IQ of a all-prime setup justifies the cost of losing the convenience of zooming? Also, with the quality of top zoom lenses fast approaching or even surpassing the quality of primes, is it sensible to stick to primes?
Wish to hear opinions from fellow bros. TIA.
The setup I have in mind:
AF 24/2.8D
AF 50/1.4D
AF 105/2.8D Micro (non-VR)
AF 180/2.8D
Teleconverter TC-14E
I think the above setup should give me good flexibility while keeping the size and weight to a minimum. The 24, 50 and 105 can also use and share 52mm filters/CPL and that should cut some cost. The 180 is also pretty small in size and with the teleconverter, still offers good quality images.
I have tried shooting with the 18-200 set at 24, 50, 105 and 180 (chose a single FL and shoot for the whole day) and though the experience is quite "liberating" but not being able to compose with the subject(s) at the desired size/position can be pretty frustrating.
I am wondering if the "better" IQ of a all-prime setup justifies the cost of losing the convenience of zooming? Also, with the quality of top zoom lenses fast approaching or even surpassing the quality of primes, is it sensible to stick to primes?
Wish to hear opinions from fellow bros. TIA.