SkintBrit said:
Yes, I agree.....she's definitely a keeper. Sounds like the missus isn't too bad either :-)

LOL - You're a lucky dog too from what I just read on the Happy Christmas thread Skinty!

spraynpray said:
Wow ben - you lucky dawg - what a great present! She's a keeper!

Yes, I agree.....she's definitely a keeper. Sounds like the missus isn't too bad either :-)

Congrats on the new lens and for have such a wonderful wife.

spraynpray said:
Wow ben - you lucky dawg - what a great present! She's a keeper!

That she is. She's an absolutely wonderful and amazing woman.

First thing I noticed about this lens was "hot damn, this thing focuses quick!"

Wow ben - you lucky dawg - what a great present! She's a keeper!

Well, my wife wanted me to shoot some christmas scenes we're going to submit to iStock. I told her "if you want the best results, it'd be best if you let me crack open the lens you got me". She totally caved! HAHA!

Im now a proud owner of the 24-70mm f/2.8!

Ive never used filters before but I got a free Circular Polarizer with the lens. I need to figure out how to use that...

gep said:
You should really consider the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. The results of this thing are stunning and the price isn't bad at all for a top quality prime like this. Just think what 3 extra stops of light (shooting at f/1.4 instead of shooting at f/4) would do for you by either taking your ISO from 3200 lets say to 400. That is the difference between a shot that looks ok for the web and a shot that looks unbelievable in a 20x30 print.

The reviews are saying this lens is awesome:
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

"Copyright © 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Home | Reviews | Tips | Photography | Contact Us | GraceElisabethPhotography"

@GEP -

FYI - This forum does not allow members to advertise for their sites - that includes pushing people so they click on a "link" that you get a kickback from.

Well, everybody has pretty much answered the OP, but let me say this about that. I have the 50 mm f/1.4G and I don't really like it much. The 50 mm f/1.8G is a much better lens for me as the photographs I take with it seem to be better in contrast and color. Also, the f/1.8G seems to focus faster and more accurately when I am standing up close.

I like the 24-120 f/4, but everyone should have a 50 mm lens for FX format. I will be getting a D600 as a second body some day soon, and I will probably park my 50 mm F/1.8G on it.

You should really consider the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. The results of this thing are stunning and the price isn't bad at all for a top quality prime like this. Just think what 3 extra stops of light (shooting at f/1.4 instead of shooting at f/4) would do for you by either taking your ISO from 3200 lets say to 400. That is the difference between a shot that looks ok for the web and a shot that looks unbelievable in a 20x30 print.

The reviews are saying this lens is awesome:
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

@ ben_v3 I think you forgot the 24mm f/1.4....

Seriously though, I think if I were to rethink the purchases I have made in the past year, I would drop the 24-120 f/4 VR and get a second body. For 'walk around" I would use the 16-35mm f/4 VR or 24mm f/1.4 on the first body and either the 85mm f/1.8, 135mm f/2, or 70-200mm f/2.8 on the second body.

And, if, when or somehow the D400 arrives...this will be the second body.

LOL

Haha. We had more than that in our budget for a lens. I told her if she was getting me the 50mm f/1.4, to also purchase the 105mm f/2.8 Micro. :)

@ ben_v3 You are getting a 50mm f/1.4.....LOL Happy Holidays

I gave my wife a link to my B&H Wish List and told her to just pick a lens. Ill update everyone after christmas as to what I end up with. :)

Here are the choices I gave her in order of wanting

1. 70-200mm f/2.8
2. 24-70mm f/2.8
3. 105mm f/2.8 Micro
4. 50mm f/1.4
5 . 14-24 f/2.8

edited to add lens options

kanuck and I both agree that the 24-70 2.8...be it Nikon, Cannon or even the new Tamron VC..is truly a must have lens in a photographers bag. I love mine and those that have used it have found its performance to be outstanding. I very much enjoy this focal length. Lastly, our dear friend kanuck has brought it to my attention that he has come across some "sample variation" however. I personally have not had a single issue with any of my Nikon gear; kanuck is a valued member here and his input is always welcomed by me and those that are pro-active on our forum. He knows his stuff...it is unfortunate he has had to deal with such matters.

As for the 14-24 2.8...get it and be done with it. It has no equal and is one of Nikons greatest lens of all time.

70-300 vs 70-200 F4...my money would be on the 70-200 F4.

With respect to Ziess, my only beef with their geat is that they are not weather sealed. Thus, if the weather conditions go south, then one has to be cautious in how to use it. Your manual focus skill will come in handy should you get one of these bad boys.

Spray, what how about the 16-35 f/4?

kanuck said:
Yes the 24-70 Nikkor is a wonderful lens and can do it all. I am in a discussion right now with Golf comparing the new Canon Mark II 24-70 and the Nikkor 24-70 for a guy wanting to jumpp to Nikon from Canon in another thread. Both are definately spectacular. How about a 14-24, 24-70, 70-300 VR or 70-200 F4 VR III? I have never been too keen on tele zooms so this might be just my perfect setup ^^

I'd prefer if Nikon bought out a 14-24 f4 as I don't need wide apertures at those focal lengths too much, then I'd go for that and the 24-70 f2.8 (for the DoF) and my 70-300 which I would replace with the 80-400 replacement one day.

It would be handy if Nikon completed the f4 trilogy all with VRIII, then we could 'mix and match' to suit ourselves.

Yes the 24-70 Nikkor is a wonderful lens and can do it all. I am in a discussion right now with Golf comparing the new Canon Mark II 24-70 and the Nikkor 24-70 for a guy wanting to jumpp to Nikon from Canon in another thread. Both are definately spectacular. How about a 14-24, 24-70, 70-300 VR or 70-200 F4 VR III? I have never been too keen on tele zooms so thia might be just my perfect setup ^^

kanuck said:
Ben_v3 have you given any thought towards using Zeiss ZF .2 glass? Glass will not get any sharper for the Nikon system trust me they are really something. The 24mm 2.8 D cheapy is a classic, very sharp, renders some of the best star bursts, and very reasonably priced. The 35mm Ais is great too and the 50mm 1.8G is solid as well. It sounds too me like you really need the 24-70mm though..

I certainly wouldn't mind having primo Zeiss lenses and I have no problem with manual focus for some things, but I really am leaning towards the 24-70 f/2.8.

OR

14-24 f/2.8 | 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8
Pretty solid trifecta. Pretty solid damage to my wallet. I still need to figure out what primary use Id like to address first, then pick a lens.

Ben_v3 have you given any thought towards using Zeiss ZF .2 glass? Glass will not get any sharper for the Nikon system trust me they are really something. The 24mm 2.8 D cheapy is a classic, very sharp, renders some of the best star bursts, and very reasonably priced. The 35mm Ais is great too and the 50mm 1.8G is solid as well. It sounds too me like you really need the 24-70mm though..

heartyfisher said:
I dont know how good the bokeh of the 24-120 is(it looks ok) but the samples and tests of the 24-70 looks amazing.

Other lenses to consider include the new tamron 24-70 VC. (VC=VR).

I know there is serious money to be saved there, but I need to see some reputable tests! The VR is a real tempter.

I dont know how good the bokeh of the 24-120 is(it looks ok) but the samples and tests of the 24-70 looks amazing.

Re: the 50mm.. I think you should consider the 50mm 1.8G.. it looks really good. it will save you some money.. and the diff between 1.4 and 1.8 is really minor esp with the sensor hack that nikon( and the others) use to compensate for the light not registering in the regions below F1.8.

Other lenses to consider include the new tamron 24-70 VC. (VC=VR).

@sevencrossing: +1
@ben_v3 +1 for your comment: "Damn you Nikon and all your spectacular lenses!"

Having 2 out of the three was my approach. 24-70 2.8 * 24 1.4G. These lenses will be with me for a long time. Now if I only had a true reason for the 300 2.8 VR II.....

spraynpray said:

How does the 24-120 VR f4 compare for sharpness with the 24-70 f2.8?

very few people , including me, have both

those of us with 24 -120 seem very happy

as do those with 24 -70

they both seem to be first class lenes

only you know, if you need the extra reach of the 24 -120

or the the extra stop of the 24 -70

I am happy with the bokeh of the 24 -120 at 120mm @f 4; although the 70 -200 at 2.8 is better

if you want nice bokeh at 24 mm, the only option is the 24mm f1.4

I like Jared's idea of getting both. :) Having a 5 month old I like to shoot indoors in the evenings when we're playing with him which the 50 1.4 would be great for. But the 24-120 f/4 would be a better all around lens. Damn you Nikon and all your spectacular lenses!

When do you think we'll get a 14-600 f/1.0 thats perfect at all zooms and apertures that can be hand held and some other ridiculous demand? ;)