gentoo - how do You like the 300/4, as I'm in a need to get some longer reach, and was wondering about either this lens or sigma 100-300/f4 - most of my pictures are taken wide open, sharpness is crucial but only in the center and also AF speed is important. You also wrote that You are using TC with it, how is the performance, and which TC are You using?

""But you won't get the reach with a prime, no?

Actually, I forgot about the expensive long primes.""

Depends really. I have the 70-200 2.8 and a 300F4. Once you start to go beyond 300mm both begin to get expensive. The 300 2.8 and the 200-400F4 are just about the same price. The 200-400 is my dream lens. For now I will have to attach my TC to my prime to get the reach I need.

I'm a huge fan of the better Nikon zooms, no matter the speed. It really all depends on what kind of stuff you like to shoot, or what is going to earn you some money. Back in my F5 days, I had 20mm 2.8AF, 24mm 2.8 AIS, 50-135 3.5 AIS(one of THE best zooms Nikon ever made), 80-200 2.8 AF, and 70-300 AF. I also had the TC201 for the 80-200. Prime lenses are great for shooting when you've got time to get the shot you need to get, but if you can't get it framed like you want, then you're going to have to settle, or swap lenses, and the shot may be gone by the time you change lenses. If you're going to sell HUGE prints from your photos, then get the very best of the best lenses Nikon offers...but, if most of your prints are no larger than A3 (probably 80% of buyers)the only way you MIGHT be able to tell a difference between a 70-200 2.8 and the most useful lens Nikon makes, the 18-200 (I'm talking DX stuff here) is if you had the prints side by side, and I'm not sure anyone but a trained professional would be able to tell even then. People don't get their eyes 6" from a print to take a look whether one of the leaves on a tree is softer than those somewhere else in the photo, nor do they carry a loupe in their pocket. Point is, I'll put an A3 or even a 20x24 print of a landscape, taken with my 18-200 DX at F8 or better to get the proper depth of field, up against any 2.8 zoom, or prime lens at the same used focal length, and from a normal viewing distance hanging on a wall, nobody would be able to tell the difference.

If you're shooting handheld at night with a prime lens like the 35 1.8, the plane of focus is SO small that you're probably going to have to stop it down anyway to get the depth of field you want/need, so you're back in the less expensive, but equally good for all practical purposes, zoom lenses, even if they are not the "pro" 2.8 versions. Who wants a photo of a band member playing on stage, and the only thing in focus is his/her eyes? Of course, it depends on how far away you are, but then you have to worry about what else is going to be in the frame. The fast lenses are very nice for looking through the viewfinder in low light, but I'll take a zoom, where my eye can quickly adjust to the lower light level in the veiwfinder, I can frame the shot quickly, and shoot 3 shots at 5.6 and one of them will be good, perhaps all three. When shooting certain things, like a live band, one does not have the luxury of moving into position to get the best shot with a prime lens on the body, and two seconds later, the shot is gone forever. I'll take my 18-200, handhold it at ISO800 or a little more, and get usable shots of a band performing that the members of the band will be tickled to death with. I'm no pro, but enjoy shooting varied subjects, and get very good results, without carrying around a bag full of gear, fumbling around changing lenses, etc. If I'm shooting landscapes, I'm on a tripod 70% of the time anyway. IMO, people get too wrapped up in having the "pro" lenses and think everything else is junk, when in real life, the less expensive, lighter, and more versatile DX zooms will do a fine job 98% of the time. If you're going to do prints that cover most of a wall, you need to be using large format cameras anyway. My 2 cents..

thanks adamz. thats what i was about to say. sigma and third party lens are like gambling. you never know what you gonna get.

rickytoyota - indeed Sigma alternatives are much cheaper than Nikon, unfortunately it's a lottery when You buy one - You either get a great copy or (most of the times) lens that disapoints a lot, so if You gonna buy any Sigma lens buy it from reputable reseller with a good return policy

There are some excellent lens alternatives by third party companies like Sigma that offer fast zooms that will give you the range your looking for in the DX format. Pricing is better than Nikkor lenses and the quality is first rate. I've used Sigma lenses off and on since my days with 35mm and my old Canon F-1s and recently borrowed several lenses (18-50mm f2.8 and 50-150mm f2.8) from a friend when I was playing with his D2xs and the quality was excellent with both lenses. They were less expensive than Nikkor lenses (by a significant margin) and you still had "professional" quality lenses. There are a number of F2.8 options in third party lenses with the only compromise being that you might have to accept some variable f-stops (2.8-3.5 or 4.5) for some of the lenses and zoom ranges, but for most photographic situations, this shouldn't be a significant problem.

if i had fx camera, nikon 24-70 2.8 would be all i need. 14-24 would be very nice to have but not urgent.

and then just get d60 (cheeap) and attach 70-200 2.8. i think it would be very wonderful.

the problem is "fx body is super expensive" .

I still believe you pick the right lens for the right situation. I use my 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 lenses for most of my shooting. With the quality of todays DSLRs (FX format and 12MP and higher) you will get excellent quality from your immages with most of your high-end 2.8 zooms. The decision for primss really comes down to the type of photography you're doing. I still use my 50mm and 85mm f1.4 for most of my portrait work, and have kept some of my older nikkor manual focus f1.4 wide angle lenses around for specific indoor photos without flash.

I would start out with F2.8 zooms to start out your lens collection as this will give you the most options for range and add on primes based on the type of photography you find yourself concentrating on.

Nikonian:
B&H sells the LensCoat, I saw it listed with the suggested accessories. I use it in place of the hard plastic lens cover because it is easy to place into a pocket - it folds easy. In the camera bag I put the hard cover back on and place the LensCoat over the hard cover - easy way to protect the lens, the lens cap and make it easy to find the LensCoat.

Normal procedure: Take the hard lens cap off and use the LensCoat when walking around. As my hand lifts the camera to shoot it also takes off the Hoodie - it is soft enough to hold under the lens for quick shots. Then it either goes back on the lens or into my pocket. When the lens goes back into the camera bag the hard cover goes back on, with the hoodie over it.

Just a bit more protection for a great lens.

Snaketail

By to lazy to walk, I mean, walking to compose your shot, I.E. moving back and forth. Like I said, I understand that there is a time and place for both, but if it's just preferance, then primes.

hi snaketail, i just saw that product (lenscoat hoodie). i dont know that such product exist.

so what about the front cap of that lens? so you just dont use it at all when you shoot?

coz i imagine, you would remove lenscoat and front cap when you want to start shooting ??? (kind of awkward imo).
or you may just leave the front cap and just use the lenscoat?

sorry, i am just confused a little here.

Fast primes for the reason of better quality and dust - at 2,0 - 4,0 dust is less visible than with zooms closed to 5,6 - 11.

nikonian
I understand your concern about scratching the 14-24. I baby mine and use a LensCoat (hoodie) on it when I'm not shooting. The LensCoat is easy to get off and stays on the lens all the time, when I start to shoot I pull it off, fold it up and it goes in my pocket.

I shoot a D700 and sometimes switch to DX to get a bit more reach from the 24mm end (use RAW - you'll lose some resolution doing this).

I sold my 12-24 DX lens because I didn't know that I could use it on my D700 - after all it is a DX lens - but in FX mode it will give you a full frame image from 18-24mm...wish I'd kept it!

Had a Sigma 12-24 and 15-30...never again - these lenses flare like crazy.

Snaketail

i use dx body and seriously, when i am contemplating about building my collection, I am so confused. there is no clear cut. nikon 14-24 would have been perfect. the performance is stellar, etc but the inability to take filter really bug me. what about if I scratch it?

i was thinking of 10-24 + 24-70 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 but 10-24 is overpriced imho. and not to mention that it is unusable in fx body.

and not to mention that nikon's price increase makes it even more difficult these days. sigh

Hi Nikonian

I have an 18-200mm which is wide at the 18. I tried a nikkor 12-24 (ultra-wide) in the shop and was really impressed by it although price is a bit steep for such a little item.

24mm is still wide enough for my needs eg. snapping the kids in the lounge room. If I had to buy an utra-wide I would probably would save up for the 14-24mm f2.8 because it's f2.8 and would also cover FX when I decide it's time to buy a FX body.

Check-out http://nikongear.com/nef/lenses/nikkor_lenses.php for more lens info.

- Matstar

hi matstar, may i know what kind of lens do you have for wide anglE?

I have a D90 with 24-70 f2.8 and a 50mm 1.4 AFS. The 50 is much easy inside the home with low light and physical weight - perfect for portraits! The 24-70 gives me much more width and faster focus and better reach, which is great for chasing shots of the kids.

Verdict - the prime 50mm is the sharpest lens I've seen (wins me over every time!), and the 24-70 is very close second in the sharpness department and that zoom ring is damn handy when recomposing (on moving subjects).

I love street photography. If I take only one lens with me I take the 50mm f1.4. If I take two I add the 14-24 f2.8.
Snaketail

But you won't get the reach with a prime, no?

Actually, I forgot about the expensive long primes.

I use both zooms and primes depending on the situation. For birds that are truly wild and not necessarily the common park fed ones, most birders will tell you, you need a prime. I generally found myself shooting at the maximum focal length most of the time anyway with my zooms. I still use a zoom though if I'm in an area where the birds are more tame and I may be shooting other things as well. Of course, I'm talking only from the telephoto side of things here.

If by convenience you mean getting the shot, then yes, zoom wins. Many shots with a prime won't be there anymore by the time you get in position.

To the 24-70 vs. 50 1.4, let me first say I own the old 50mm 1.4, not the AFS version. Auto focus on this lens is slow. Not painfully slow on a good body, but slow enough to be irritating. Of course it won't auto-focus at all on my D40 body. I'd say both lenses are about as sharp as each other, but I think that's because they both out resolve my 12mp D90. I don't know what the difference would be if I stuck them on a D3x (although I'm willing to try if anyone wants to send me theirs).

I actually find the colors & contrast to be better on my 24-70. I have no idea how a lens can accomplish this, but its definitely there (or maybe my brain sees it to justify the purpose). If I get time later this week, maybe I can post some comparison shots. It's out with the pro in my household right now, so I won't have anything for a bit.

nikonian - 24-70 is far better, yes 24-70 has faster focusing speed, and IMHO 24 on FX is ok for landscapes although not wide enough on DX.

i see now willis. so basically, zoom wins due to convenience, doesnt it?

hey, can you comment on the pics quality of 24-70 compared to 50 1.4 at 2.8??

how is it? is 24-70 better? what about the focusing speed of 50 1.4?? is it slow?

and is 24-70 wide enough for you? for landscape?

Here's the thing with primes... they are great for lots of things like shots of flowers, models who you pay to sit still and pose, buildings, etc.

For capturing things you can't predict, they are not very well suited. Sure you can crop after the fact to get the shot you wished you framed up, but then you are throwing away pixels... possibly lots of them. I spent last weekend at a festival that had all kinds of crazy stuff going on (Eeyore's birthday party... yeah that's right the donkey from Winnie the Poo). My 35mm prime was on my camera, and while I got a few great shots, the most interesting were to wide to use (especially on my 6mp D40). So for lots of situations, a prime just won't do.

That's the thing with photography gear, even at the pro end... you are always making trade offs.

I think there is an assumption here that we are talking about the "normal" focal lengths of around 35-50 mm. Basically the range the 24-70 f2.8 will replace. ..