curiousnomad said:
Thanks for the fantastic responses so far! My budget is up to ~ $4400 US. A lot of money, but then again I don't do this every year, even every several years. Based on how good the images from the 50 1.4 have been, "you get what you pay for".

Then again, if I become infected with NAS, I hear there is no cure....

Hi,

Everyone has given good advice, but keep in mind that it is largely biased to their vision of what they enjoy shooting, and what they think covers day-to-day photography - again from their point of view.

Mine would be the same. I've gravitated to shooting portraits and would suggest longish, fast lenses, perhaps one of them a macro.

One thing I would recommend for you to do is look at a lot of pictures and see what you really like and would like to try to mimic in your personal work and see what focal length (and f-stop, shutter speed, etc.) was used to make the photograph. That would help you in developing your vision, too (while it might seem like copying - painters learn by copying masters ;-) ).

My best,

Mike

Well, I have a different take on the matter! If at some stage you decide that you prefer macro or whatever, it doesn't mean that you will never take pictures of anything else or that you will happily accept the IQ of a lesser lens than you have in other lengths so my advice is go for the holy trinity then if, IF, you want to specialise on macro get the 105VR and you're done. Barring NAS.

Ooooer, I think I blew the budget a bit...

Godless said:
For $4400, you could get:

24mm f/1.4G + 70-200 VR II + something else you might want/need

I would start with that setup, can´t go wrong..

Since you're shooting primes now I think this might be the best option. You can add the 85mm f1.8 down the line too. After looking at the reviews for that lens, it might be a better option than the f1.4 and it's about 1/3 the price.

For $4400, you could get:

24mm f/1.4G + 70-200 VR II + something else you might want/need

I would start with that setup, can´t go wrong..

Or just stick with the lenses you already have, and take tons of pictures until your interests become more defined.

For example, as you take more pictures, you might develop an interest in macro photography, and you'd be glad you hadn't blown your budget on two zooms you wont really use.

curiousnomad said:
Thanks for the fantastic responses so far! My budget is up to ~ $4400 US. A lot of money, but then again I don't do this every year, even every several years. Based on how good the images from the 50 1.4 have been, "you get what you pay for".

Then again, if I become infected with NAS, I hear there is no cure....

That can be the case, but isn't necessarily always true. If you have lurked the forum or checked out the PAD thread you can see pictures from just about every Nikon body and just about every lens from the kit lenses on up and most are indistinguishable.

And as $4400 is a lot of money it can easily be spent with the you get what you pay for mentality...or asking NR members how we should spend your money ;)

Anyway with that budget and already have the 50 F1.4 I would go (If are are a smart shopper):
24-70 F2.8
70-200 F2.8
300 F4 or 105 F2.8 or 85 F1.8 & 60 F2.8 (depending on need/want)

Ahhh....thank you curiousnomad.... and a new suggestion. Again, I am a wide freak, so, the first two lenses I might recommend are:

17-35mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8VRII.

And this is based on this argument. The horizontal angle of view is shown for the 35mm and the 70mm. Not a lot of difference and with the 17mm you have wide covered well. This in a rough manner, shows the angle of coverage with the 35mm end of the short zoom and the 70mm end of the long zoom.

And the reason for all of this is the fact the wind is not blowing enough on Hatteras Island so as to have the kite boarders in the air, so I am just sitting around trying to spend everyone's money. And I think I just spent your $4400!

kyoshinikon said:
You are right.. I explained my maths wrong... 9-17mm is what the Dx equiv range of the 14-24mm would cover. However if you were to put a 14-24mm on a Dx body it has a range of 21-36mm due to crop factor. In other words a 14-24mm on Dx has a similar field of view as the 24-70mm on an Fx body. The Dx equivalent of the 24-70mm would probably be a 17-47mm...

I use my 14-24mmm on dx frequently

Oh no I thought you were going to start talking about equivalences ;)

Thanks for the fantastic responses so far! My budget is up to ~ $4400 US. A lot of money, but then again I don't do this every year, even every several years. Based on how good the images from the 50 1.4 have been, "you get what you pay for".

Then again, if I become infected with NAS, I hear there is no cure....

Postman said:
Really? Angle of view wise isn't 24mm on FX around 16-17mm on DX?

You are right.. I explained my maths wrong... 9-17mm is what the Dx equiv range of the 14-24mm would cover. However if you were to put a 14-24mm on a Dx body it has a range of 21-36mm due to crop factor. In other words a 14-24mm on Dx has a similar field of view as the 24-70mm on an Fx body. The Dx equivalent of the 24-70mm would probably be a 17-47mm...

I use my 14-24mmm on dx frequently

OK, I think I have this figured out....(humor time just so you can laugh). I do not have the 24-70 and the other wunderkind, the 14-24. So, to lighten this conversation up a bit, one needs two lenses, the 24-70 /2.8, 70-200/2.8 and two D4 bodies to go with them. And your grip can carry the 300/2.8 on a third D4 in case you need just a bit longer shot.

It is about the money as has been previously stated. And, so if "curiousnomad" could give us feedback on the amount in dollars or Euros they would like to spend, maybe we could come up with more realistic suggestions.

TaoTeJared said:
105VR or 24-120vr & 70-200vr (ver 1 or 2)

Just a note - the 35 1.8 works in FX if you like vignetting. I actually like the look it gives.

If you went this route you could throw in another prime or two for the price vs the 24-70, but all about the money you want to spend.

Bland said:
I'm glad you said that because those are the two I just bought! :)

Good luck! Have fun.

105VR or 24-120vr & 70-200vr (ver 1 or 2)

Just a note - the 35 1.8 works in FX if you like vignetting. I actually like the look it gives.

24-70 and 70-200 for prime 24 1.4g

curiousnomad said:
I like everything from street to landscapes to portraits. My initial thoughts are a 35 1.4 and either an 85 1.4 (1.8) or a 70 200 VR II.

good idea, go with that. the 35 1.4G is an awesome FULL FRAME lens perfect for what you describe.

the 85 or 70-200 should cover your other requirements.

tcole1983 said:
24-70 and 70-200 :)

I'm glad you said that because those are the two I just bought! :)

kyoshinikon said:
I will warn tho that the 24-70mm on a fx is wider than the 14-24mm on Dx

Really? Angle of view wise isn't 24mm on FX around 16-17mm on DX?

I will warn tho that the 24-70mm on a fx is wider than the 14-24mm on Dx

TheX-Man said:
If you have the cash and want zoom:
24-70mm AF-S
70-200mm AF-S

Primes:
24 1.4 AF-S
85mm 1.4 AF-S

They would be my choices too.

curiousnomad said:
If you were to buy two more pro lenses for a kit, what would they be?

AF-S 24mm f/1.4G - the best rectilinear wideangle I have met. Wide-end OOMPH.

The other one would be either AF-S 200mm f/2 VRII, AF-S 300mm f/2.8 VRII or 500mm f/4 VR depending on how long you need in the long end (these are still portable and even the 500mm can be used handheld for short periods of time)

tcole1983 said:
24-70 and 70-200 2.8 :)

+1

All that needs to be said...hands down these two are a must have. It is important to note that once you have used these amazing lenses, be it on your FF or DX body, you yourself will have a better idea of what other types of glass you will need given your usage of them and your specific style of photography.

Cheers...

14-24mm for wides 28-48mm Fx equiv and a 70-200mm for teles 140-300mm on FX...

Honestly the 70-200mm is the best all around of the bunch for where you are coming from...

Just to be different, and to mess things up a bit, I would suggest the 85 1.4 and the 70-200. Later, the 14-24.

My reasoning:

"I am serious about photography, but not a pro, and my interests are not that defined."

I'm pretty much in the same boat. I went with the holy trinity, the 50 1.4, and the 200mm micro.

In the beginning, I was considering pro work. My talent or lack thereof aside, I changed my mind after a while and today I do photography seriously but for the fun of it. I can't remember which documentary I watched where a photographer said it, but "if you don't take their money, they can't tell you what to do."

I learned that for pro work the holy trinity is absolutely the best lens selection to have in your bag. It's versatile and it covers the needs of day to day shooting. You can't go wrong.

But if you want to focus on growing creatively while taking advantage of some of the nuances of the tech, you're going to want to explore the extremes. One of the missing elements in my bag today is a longer 1.4. I want that 85mm badly, and a variable ND to go with it. There's so much in the way of creative exploration to be done with that combo.

Anyway, don't let the lazy practicality of a mid-range zoom to lure you away from expanding your creative horizons. I wish I hadn't.

Without any sort of specialization my suggestion covers just about anything without any sort of specialization. That being said it doesn't cover ultra wide, the long end or macro work, but does just about everything in between. You already have a fast prime so you really wouldn't be missing too much and you can add on later. The 24-70 and 70-200 would give you a good base to expand on though. As mentioned add a teleconverter and get more range out of the 70-200.

If you want primes then there are tons of options. Not sure I would spend the money on the two primes you suggest, but that is just me. I think the new 1.8G lenses are a great value for the price and there isn't much need for the 1.4 lenses unless you really feel like you need the F1.4 and little extra build quality.