D7000 l N24-70 F2.8 l N70-200 F2.8 VR II l SB900
WTS: Nikkor 70-300mm VR
Ha..Ha. I understand.
As shown in BaggioLee signature, his choice of lenses are actually The Best Lenses for Everyday Photography.
:thumbsup:
One best lens for everyday photography?
- Thread starter xintothezonex
- Start date
D7000 l N24-70 F2.8 l N70-200 F2.8 VR II l SB900
WTS: Nikkor 70-300mm VR
Ha..Ha. I understand.
As shown in BaggioLee signature, his choice of lenses are actually The Best Lenses for Everyday Photography.
:thumbsup:
Happy New Year to all.. 
Thanks for all the suggestion mates.
I think that to have a 24-70 would be wonderfully perfect but I feel that the weight is really going to kill me. :bsmilie:
Its been really fun with my 50mm f1.4G so light and I think that I might be considering another prime lens.
I am not a pro and Im not doing photography for business (just for me and my family) so I feel in terms of which lens is sharper is really not necessary but of course not to that extend and I also feel the need of the new f1.4G is also not necessary.
I am now considering the 35mm f2D or the 24mm f2.8D.
Anyone have any experienced with either of this lenses?
To me its quite cheap that I can actually get both of these primes (or rather only one of them) rather than getting a 24-70mm f2.8 or the 16-35mm f4 (imo). :dunno:
Then my gears will be 24mm f2.8D, 35mm f2D (either one or both), 50mm f1.4G and 70-200mm f2.8 VR1.
Thanks for all the suggestion mates.
I think that to have a 24-70 would be wonderfully perfect but I feel that the weight is really going to kill me. :bsmilie:
Its been really fun with my 50mm f1.4G so light and I think that I might be considering another prime lens.
I am not a pro and Im not doing photography for business (just for me and my family) so I feel in terms of which lens is sharper is really not necessary but of course not to that extend and I also feel the need of the new f1.4G is also not necessary.
I am now considering the 35mm f2D or the 24mm f2.8D.
Anyone have any experienced with either of this lenses?
To me its quite cheap that I can actually get both of these primes (or rather only one of them) rather than getting a 24-70mm f2.8 or the 16-35mm f4 (imo). :dunno:
Then my gears will be 24mm f2.8D, 35mm f2D (either one or both), 50mm f1.4G and 70-200mm f2.8 VR1.
Last edited:
You can skip the 35mm IMHO
Just take 1 physical step, with your 24mm, and you will end up with a similar "crop"...
On the longer end, look at the 85/105, and then the 180 or 200 range...
That way, you only need 4 primes in total, and you're good to go everywhere !!
Lastly, concentrate on the skill, and let the lens ONLY be your tool to achieve it.
Happy Shooting and Cheers
Just take 1 physical step, with your 24mm, and you will end up with a similar "crop"...
On the longer end, look at the 85/105, and then the 180 or 200 range...
That way, you only need 4 primes in total, and you're good to go everywhere !!
Lastly, concentrate on the skill, and let the lens ONLY be your tool to achieve it.
Happy Shooting and Cheers
Hi Michael,
What do you mean by similiar crop? Can you explain?
Thanks. That is why I dont want to commit myself getting an expensive lens. Hopefully just one lens for me to shoot my family pics and one for landscapes.
Similar crop means that it will show you "exactly" the same image. Move one step closer, and it's like using a longer focal length. Move one step backward, and it's like using a wider lens.
So if you took a photo with a 24mm, and another with a 35mm, and you took the one taken by the 24mm and cropped it to the same "edge" of the 35mm in photoshop, it will more or less approximate the the one taken by the 35mm.
BUT, you cannot do it the other way.. understand now?
So if you took a photo with a 24mm, and another with a 35mm, and you took the one taken by the 24mm and cropped it to the same "edge" of the 35mm in photoshop, it will more or less approximate the the one taken by the 35mm.
BUT, you cannot do it the other way.. understand now?
Not "exactly". Perspective will be different.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Last edited:
@geewhiz.
You are right. My Bad.
However, also try mounting the camera on a tripod, and shoot with different lenses... You will understand what I mean.
Alternatively, try shooting with a zoom lens, with the camera on a tripod, and start zooming in, while shooting at various focal lengths.
From the same position, using longer focal lengths will be like "cropping" the image...
You are right. My Bad.
However, also try mounting the camera on a tripod, and shoot with different lenses... You will understand what I mean.
Alternatively, try shooting with a zoom lens, with the camera on a tripod, and start zooming in, while shooting at various focal lengths.
From the same position, using longer focal lengths will be like "cropping" the image...
Last edited:
TS, haven't decided yet, have u ?
One lens for family pics: your current AFS 50mm 1.4G together with D700 should be your main lens.
One lens for landscape pics: if price is not an issue for you, go to 24mm f/1.4.
Alternatively, the lightweight 24-120 f/4 VR could be considered. At 24mm length, it is wide enough for landscapes and also sharp at f/4.
TS, haven't decided yet, have u ?
One lens for family pics: your current AFS 50mm 1.4G together with D700 should be your main lens.
One lens for landscape pics: if price is not an issue for you, go to 24mm f/1.4.
Alternatively, the lightweight 24-120 f/4 VR could be considered. At 24mm length, it is wide enough for landscapes and also sharp at f/4.
I still have not decided but was actually looking at the 35mm f2D or the 24mm f2.8D. Anyone think its a gd lens?
Reviews said that the 24mm f2.8D is crappy but 35mm f2D is ok. :dunno:
I dont think I can buy the 24mm f1.4G unless I managed to sell of my 70-200mm f2.8 VR1.
My baby is already 4mnths old today. I have decided my 50mm is enough for my family shots so all I need is a wide angle lens.
Not sure which review(s) you referring to but I think the 24mm f2.8 should be an excellent lens thats suitable especially since you mentioned you wanted wide-angle, shooting landscapes & price is a consideration. Of course 24mm f1.4 the best but so is the price.
If you already have 50mm, 35mm is too close to make a real difference. If I have the D700, I wont hesitate for a moment to get this 24mm f2.8. A review here of the lens if you trust it http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24mm-f28-afd.htm If you dont need a zoom, this prime lens is quite ideal & quote "This 24mm f/2.8 is sharper than the $1,850 14-24mm AF-S at 24mm. It is as sharp as the $1,800 24-70mm AF-S at 24mm, and this compact fixed 24mm lens also has far less distortion than the 24-70mm" unquote.
Last edited:
theoretically, given this prime 24mm price tag, it should be sharper than any of the trinity zooms lens by some margins, if not it defeats the purpose of being a prime .
btw, this 24mm has a inferior built (plastic barrel) and using micro motor if i'm not wrong. anyway, it's an awesome lens to have.
Nikon Full Frame AF-S/AF-D Prime lenses available in market
- 24mm f/1.4 or 24mm f/2.8
- 35mm f/2
- 50 mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.8
- 85mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8
- 105mm f/2 DC or 105mm f/2.8 VR Macro
- 135mm f/2 DC
Although Nikon has SIX (6) independent prime lenses to cover the range from 24mm to 135mm, that doesn't mean that you need to purchase them all.
If you are taking the path of 50mm (note you have already owned this lens), the next lenses should be:
24mm - 50mm - 105mm
Or if you are taking the path of 85mm, the next lenses should be:
35mm - 85mm - 135mm
I don't see any advantage of having 50mm and 35mm together. It's only few step forwards or backwards indeed.
Or just purchase the 24-120 f/4 VR to cover the range from 24 to 120 mm
Last edited:
I have read the review from kenrockwell.com but there is this video saying otherwise.
Its in the youtube.:dunno:
theoretically, given this prime 24mm price tag, it should be sharper than any of the trinity zooms lens by some margins, if not it defeats the purpose of being a prime .
btw, this 24mm has a inferior built (plastic barrel) and using micro motor if i'm not wrong. anyway, it's an awesome lens to have.
Yeah, its made in plastic but for the price, I'm not complaining.
i believe likiwiguy is a more reliable source. even though he's quite harsh on most of the consumer lens.
my bad...i'm refering to the $3000 24mm f2.8g.
Last edited:
you spoke my mind. this is exactly what I do. I would definitely recommend the 24-70 for everyday use. true, it is interesting and challenging to shoot with primes, but i'd go with the versatility of the 24-70.
theoretically, given this prime 24mm price tag, it should be sharper than any of the trinity zooms lens by some margins, if not it defeats the purpose of being a prime .
btw, this 24mm has a inferior built (plastic barrel) and using micro motor if i'm not wrong. anyway, it's an awesome lens to have.
Yep, its sharper, but only just. Eg vs the 24-70. But then not much use leh..... people get it for the DOF + bokeh effect. You can see the diff in distortion (corner) plus vignetting
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...Comp=690&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&Lens=618
yeah...pro prime lens are still the ultimate lens, but i still don't know why a simpler constructed prime (24mm f2.8g) can cost 3k.
Last edited:
I love my 24 70 f2.8 even though it heavy but considering its range, built, and its sharpness is more than enough for me.
Similar threads
