24mm f/1.4G ED or 35mm f/1.4g with D7000 as everyday lens


Status
Not open for further replies.

implusive

New Member
Dec 5, 2009
179
0
0
#1
Dear bros, which of the above would make more sense as a long term investment? While still keeping the 18-105 as a zoom lens.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#2
Dear bros, which of the above would make more sense as a long term investment? While still keeping the 18-105 as a zoom lens.
If you are intending to stick with a DX setup for at least the forseeable future, I would advise against getting either of these lenses.
I think not much argument that they are stellar performers, but once price comes into the equation, well...

Sigma 24/1.8 and Nikkor AF-S 35/1.8DX are much better "value for money" propositions... You could buy both for far less than the price of either of the 1.4 Nikkors.
Unless price is no issue.... :)
 

Omega23

New Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,074
0
0
#3
24mm f1.4.. this is the sharpest 24mm nikkor lens current in the market much sharper then the trinity..
 

ZeroDivine

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2004
2,071
1
0
andritei.zenfolio.com
#4
24mm is nice.. but frankly u won't go wrong with either as 'long term investment' as they really hold their value well.
 

implusive

New Member
Dec 5, 2009
179
0
0
#5
Nice bros thanks! So as a everyday lens possible? If it were to be my only lens on my D7000 will it be enough for my street shooting,portrait and maybe travel shots?
 

Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#6
24mm f1.4.. this is the sharpest 24mm nikkor lens current in the market much sharper then the trinity..
If trinity comes in f1.4 ... pretty sure it will be as sharp as these primes.
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#7
If you don't intend to change to FX in near future, I strongly advise you to get the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX and Sigma 20/24/28mm f1.8 instead. They are really value for money for DX setup.
 

Jul 9, 2009
849
1
0
Singapore
#8
With a crop body, the 24mm f1.4G ED is ace as a 36mm FOV is more versatile as compared to the 52.5mm FOV.

Like others mentioned, can consider sigma 20/24/28 as cheaper alternatives.

I would recommend getting a 24mm 1.8 macro + Nikkor 85mm 1.4D for lowlight work, still cheaper than the 24mm ED. You can save your 18-105 for daylight work and switch to the primes where you need to work in low light condition or decide to go light.
 

Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#9
If you don't intend to change to FX in near future, I strongly advise you to get the Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX and Sigma 20/24/28mm f1.8 instead. They are really value for money for DX setup.
agree. .. the 35mm f1.8 DX is a good couple with kit lens.

Move to FX to fully explore these expensive lens capabilities.
 

cichlid

Senior Member
Dec 2, 2006
5,066
3
38
S'pore
#10
Every time I see someone asks whether to buy an expensive FX lens to use on DX bodies, for example a 24mm f1.4 or 24-70 f2.8, I wondered why don't just use the money to buy a D700 + other cheaper lenses like 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4/f1.8, 85mm f1.8, Sigma 20/24/28mm f1.8 or Tamron 28-75mm. In this way, one can start enjoying the benefits of full frame.

May be a lot of ppl will disagree, but that's my 2 cts :)
 

Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#11
Every time I see someone asks whether to buy an expensive FX lens to use on DX bodies, for example a 24mm f1.4 or 24-70 f2.8, I wondered why don't just use the money to buy a D700 + other cheaper lenses like 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4/f1.8, 85mm f1.8, Sigma 20/24/28mm f1.8 or Tamron 28-75mm. In this way, one can start enjoying the benefits of full frame.

May be a lot of ppl will disagree, but that's my 2 cts :)
agree ... the amt of $$ you save on one of these expensive lens, you can easily get a 2nd or even 1st hand d700.
then slowly build your lens empire la ...
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#12
Because the teachings goes, a good glass is more important than a good camera body. Lens are built to last for decades, at least that was how they were built in the past.
 

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#13
Every time I see someone asks whether to buy an expensive FX lens to use on DX bodies, for example a 24mm f1.4 or 24-70 f2.8, I wondered why don't just use the money to buy a D700 + other cheaper lenses like 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4/f1.8, 85mm f1.8, Sigma 20/24/28mm f1.8 or Tamron 28-75mm. In this way, one can start enjoying the benefits of full frame.

May be a lot of ppl will disagree, but that's my 2 cts :)
I agree with this. In fact thats what I did & am very happy with it. ...
 

Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#15
Every time I see someone asks whether to buy an expensive FX lens to use on DX bodies, for example a 24mm f1.4 or 24-70 f2.8, I wondered why don't just use the money to buy a D700 + other cheaper lenses like 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4/f1.8, 85mm f1.8, Sigma 20/24/28mm f1.8 or Tamron 28-75mm. In this way, one can start enjoying the benefits of full frame.

May be a lot of ppl will disagree, but that's my 2 cts :)
machiam you buy a 45k lancer and spend another 20k modding it .... it is fast but still a lancer in the end. hehee...
Dun fame me ... i drive a stock lancer :p
 

Guapo

New Member
Aug 1, 2007
78
0
0
#16
machiam you buy a 45k lancer and spend another 20k modding it .... it is fast but still a lancer in the end. hehee...
Dun fame me ... i drive a stock lancer :p
So the question in the end is.....

Are u happy with ur 20K modded lancer which is different and special ?
Or do u want to be like everyone else buy a WRX and spend even more ?

Cuz there will always be someone else who is faster and better than u.
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#17
Even if you have an super expensive glass like 24mm f1.4G and 70-200mm f2.8 VRII mounted on your DX camera, you still can't capture a night/low-light shot handheld with crisp and clean/less noises as nice as a FX camera due to the low ISO performance of DX camera.
During day-time or bright light situation, a kit lens or not so expensive lens can do pretty good job already. So if you only intend to use these expensive glasses with DX camera for day-time or bright situation, it's a waste for money in my opinion as it doesn't fully utilize the capbilities of these expensive glasses.
 

Omega23

New Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,074
0
0
#18
Lenses price dun depreciate as much as bodies and thus many go for good lenses first... this is a good choice... no doubt the full capabilities of the expensive primes will be utilize in FX but it is another level by itself...if can't afford both an expensive prime and FX i see nothing wrong using an expensive prime on DX...
 

Omega23

New Member
Mar 12, 2009
1,074
0
0
#19
another reason for choosing the 24mm instead of the 35mm is because 35mm u got much more choices like 35mm F2 and 35mm F1.8 and both are superb lenses too.. where else for 24mm u need to get third party ones or the 24mm F2.8.
 

implusive

New Member
Dec 5, 2009
179
0
0
#20
And what would you achieve by getting the d700 and using cheaper lens as quoted by you? ive seen people using the d90 with expensive lens and you see results. Full frame? I don't need a full frame thats why decided to get a d7000.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom