Lens Choices


winsurf

New Member
Aug 12, 2010
28
0
0
#1
Hello seniors,
Given a choice between 16-35 VR, 24-70 2.8 and 85 1.4G to purchase, which would be your preferred pick? Interests are in travel, portraiture, sports and general walkabout. Understand that there isn't a one lens fix all therefore seeking kind advise and experience from those who own or used them. Using it on D700 body.
Appreciate your views and comments and thanks in advance.
 

Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#2
Hi,
first i am not senior :) ...

When i first bought my d700, the very first lens I purchase was the 24-70 f2.8.
It is a very capable portrait and walkabout lens I feel.
I coupled with MD-B10 for better weight distribution ...

on the other hand, a prime lens restrict composition in certain aspect ... i only use my 50f1.4G mainly for portrait on my kids.

I didn't consider 16-35 VR ... i would get 14-24 for wide angle shots.
 

Jan 27, 2010
809
0
0
#3
Hi TS, it seems that you are unsure of your needs at the moment. The 3 lenses you posted have very different uses, and i can immediately eliminate the 85G since its too restrictive for your needs. As what bethpapa74 said, the 24-70 will probably be your best bet at the moment as it serves as a good general walkaround. The other lenses are "specialty lenses" so to speak. But do note that general walk around lenses may have their limitations too, such as a constant 2.8, which may not be bright enough for some situations.

Personally I haven used any of the 3 lenses before, but the 85G produces the best bokeh for obvious reasons. Thus the best lens to get is the one that gets you the shot. Nuff said.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#5
If no buget restrictions,

All three. or replace the 16-35 with 14-24
 

#6
If no buget restrictions,

All three. or replace the 16-35 with 14-24
+1 =P

but sadly my wallet will die long before i get any.

how about 17-35 2.8, 50 1.4G, and 85 1.4d? chances are that most of use will be completely satisfied with the performance of these. the 17-35 is really phenomenal is you don't need VR.

zoom lenses offer you speed, convenience if you need to move around alot. but i find that prime lenses(manual focus primes even more so) force you to think v carefully when composing the image. i very often get better results even if i were using a 135mm prime. the primes will also give you very very good IQ. for my self, i shoot primes and leave zooms for event shooting.
 

winsurf

New Member
Aug 12, 2010
28
0
0
#7
Many many thanks for your replies, if only budget permits to get all three would be great.... then will leave a very big hole in the wallet.

Seems that it points to the 85G and the 24-70. I've managed to test the 24-70 and would say its amazing. Now its left to try out the 85G.
 

bruggink

New Member
Jul 2, 2008
901
0
0
#8
Hello seniors,
Given a choice between 16-35 VR, 24-70 2.8 and 85 1.4G to purchase, which would be your preferred pick? Interests are in travel, portraiture, sports and general walkabout. Understand that there isn't a one lens fix all therefore seeking kind advise and experience from those who own or used them. Using it on D700 body.
Appreciate your views and comments and thanks in advance.
85mm is a very special lens and I dun think anyone of us would consider it as a walkabout lens. You see, the problem here is that you included sports photography, which is already a league of its own. I dun know how you can do sports photography which any of the mentioned lens. Else, i think the perfect walkabout lens for D700 will be 24-70mm.
 

akerue

New Member
Aug 10, 2009
798
0
0
SIngAporE
www.flickr.com
#9
85mm is a very special lens and I dun think anyone of us would consider it as a walkabout lens. You see, the problem here is that you included sports photography, which is already a league of its own. I dun know how you can do sports photography which any of the mentioned lens. Else, i think the perfect walkabout lens for D700 will be 24-70mm.
err he can still shoot sport with the 24-70, if he close by the actions, and crop when needed too...

my 2 cents,

well, TS, u can always skip the 24-70 and opt for the 24-120 F4 vr as that will free up some extra cash for u to fund for some other lenses, like the 16-35 F4,

do you really need the 2.8... or u would rather have that extra focal length at the long end, dont worry abt the overlapping range with the 85 1.4, since they both serve diff purpose anyway...
 

winsurf

New Member
Aug 12, 2010
28
0
0
#10
As for sports photography, do already have a lens for that and will not be using this for walkabout. So deciding to get a zoom for walkabout or prime for portraits. Only question I have to ask myself is whether I prefer convenience & versatility against a prime and the type of shoots I do most often. Of course the IQ of a prime is second to none plus it forces you to frame your shots right. As for having a 2.8 lens, well what more can I say that it's fantastic... serious poison
 

Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#11
akerue said:
err he can still shoot sport with the 24-70, if he close by the actions, and crop when needed too...
Probably ts will have to invest a lot on the game ticket to be close enough. But he can always install a tc20

well, TS, u can always skip the 24-70 and opt for the 24-120 F4
You can always get the 70-200f2.8 after your 24-70f2.8

do you really need the 2.8...
personally, i think its good to have if you are willing to invest.
This added advantage allows you to keep your ISO at a minimum while still allowing extra lights into your sensor.
 

Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#12
bruggink said:
85mm is a very special lens and I dun think anyone of us would consider it as a walkabout lens. You see, the problem here is that you included sports photography, which is already a league of its own. I dun know how you can do sports photography which any of the mentioned lens. Else, i think the perfect walkabout lens for D700 will be 24-70mm.
Totally agreed.
85mm can also be a walkabout lens only if you keep cropping to whatever focal length you desire.... [Just joking]

Plain and simple...
If you want to spend some green on a pro lens with a lower f stops, then you should get 24-70mm f2.8.
If your concerns are more on reach, then get 28-120vr.... Cos you'll never get enough reach on that 24-70 lens.
 

winsurf

New Member
Aug 12, 2010
28
0
0
#13
Not too concerned about reach as I use the 70-200 for my sports shooting. Trouble is do I really need another mid zoom or should I use a prime instead to cover the range from 20-70? That's why the difficult choice of 24-70 or 85 as I have both the 35f2 and 50f1.4. Will let go one of these two primes when I have decided which to purchase? Really appreciate all your comments and views...
 

Mar 9, 2007
246
0
16
#14
Hi TS, I have e 35mm, 85mm, 24-70mm and e 70-200mm. Often end up with combi of 35 + 85 or 35 + 70-200 for general walkabout, portraiture and some event shoot. I guess e only time i really use e 24-70 is for travel and scouting work. You do need to know e focal range you are comfortable with for e kind of shoots you want to do, think it will be much easier to decide then. Why not give your 70-200 + 35/50 combi a try and see if they are good enough or do you still need e 24-70. Given e choice of e 3 lens you mentioned, i will properly pick e 16-35mm (wide), keep e 70-200mm (tele) and e 50mm (standard, low light) and sell e 35mm, based on e focal range coverage. Just my 2 cents.
 

Last edited:

winsurf

New Member
Aug 12, 2010
28
0
0
#15
Hi TS, I have e 35mm, 85mm, 24-70mm and e 70-200mm. Often end up with combi of 35 + 85 or 35 + 70-200 for general walkabout, portraiture and some event shoot. I guess e only time i really use e 24-70 is for travel and scouting work. You do need to know e focal range you are comfortable with for e kind of shoots you want to do, think it will be much easier to decide then. Why not give your 70-200 + 35/50 combi a try and see if they are good enough or do you still need e 24-70. Given e choice of e 3 lens you mentioned, i will properly pick e 16-35mm (wide), keep e 70-200mm (tele) and e 50mm (standard, low light) and sell e 35mm, based on e focal range coverage. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for sharing as we seem to own almost similar lenses. So far been pretty ok with 35 & 50 combo thus 24-70 was omitted as I usually use one when am out. The 70-200 is superb and will definitely keep it. So it's left to versatility (24-70) against speciality (85). A dilemma which makes this hobby so poisonous... Of course in practicality, is it a want or need.
 

Mar 9, 2007
246
0
16
#16
Thanks for sharing as we seem to own almost similar lenses. So far been pretty ok with 35 & 50 combo thus 24-70 was omitted as I usually use one when am out. The 70-200 is superb and will definitely keep it. So it's left to versatility (24-70) against speciality (85). A dilemma which makes this hobby so poisonous... Of course in practicality, is it a want or need.
No problem :) both e 24-70mm and e 85mm are very good lens. i will have a hard time choosing too if i only can get 1. Trying renting out both lens and try ? see what options you can have ? think you also need to take into consideration taking pictures in e day and night.
 

Last edited:

Foress

New Member
May 20, 2011
134
0
0
#17
The only problems with 24-70mm are cost and weight.
For this specific range on nikon, quoted, "You can never get better than this."
agreed.
want to get the 24-70mm myself but budget.. maybe not.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#18
bethpapa74 said:
Probably ts will have to invest a lot on the game ticket to be close enough. But he can always install a tc20

You can always get the 70-200f2.8 after your 24-70f2.8

personally, i think its good to have if you are willing to invest.
This added advantage allows you to keep your ISO at a minimum while still allowing extra lights into your sensor.
I think if willing to invest, go more and get the 300/2.8
 

winsurf

New Member
Aug 12, 2010
28
0
0
#19
That would be the ultimate unfortunately am just doing this as a hobby. I would certainly rent it one day to enjoy myself with it but to part $$ for it would be an overkill. So the thought of 24-70 & 85 came about.
 

Top Bottom