The easiest way is to put them out on Flickr. From there, you can get Flickr to create a link that you can copy and paste into here.

You all are right, but I also keep my Primes! The 50f1,4 and the 85f1,4 are amazing!

Can anybody tell me how to post pics?

Greetz!

You'll like that 24-70 its an amazing lens.

With ISO going higher and higher, the value of that extra stop or two of aperture starts to diminish. Prime's are generally sharper than zooms, but the 24-70 is so sharp at 2.8, that it doesn't really matter. In face, I'd say its sharper at 50mm than my 50mm 1.4 (I've never done a scientific comparison, but it sure seems that way).

I'm having an increasingly difficult time finding a use for the ultra-large apertures like 1.4 and larger. The depth of field is so shallow that unless my focus is perfect, its usually a little out of focus. I suppose it would help if my camera could auto-focus with it, but even on the D90, I don't have a lot of luck at 1.4 with anything that's not flat.

Thats such a no-brainer, the 24-70 (which you got now) is just an awesome lens, i mean really really awesome.
and the 70-200, i couldn't live without it, tho i sold mine and will be getting the new version.
i think you will be very pleased with the 70-200 and 24-70, and so much more versatile than a prime in my opinion, i constantly evolve my camera bag, new lenses that do more for me replaces lenses that do less for me, rather than having 80 specialised lenses.

Glad to hear basti.rlp post some pictures when you get a chance :^)

I got the 24-70 (7 month old) for 1299€ - christmas i'll looking for a 70-200 VR

:) THX

yep i think so

If you want landscape and portrait in a single lens 24-70 is the best lens on the planet ...

Ok, my resumé is:

Kepp my lenses 50f1,4 and 85f1,4 get a 24-70f2,8 ... NikoDoby, he's right - i don't have any lens for this range, so i do have to get one. later on i can get a 70-200 ... 4 lenses and a sb900 + skyport elinchrome ...

think this is a good combination for all situations ... 24-70 as a walkaround an ww, 50f1,4 for AL also the 85f1,4
and 85f1,4 for portrait 70-200 portrait and sport or sth. else

later on i can also sell any of these lense

to mb: the 17-35 is very wide ... thats good, but i missed the range over the 35mm ... i often had to change the lens ... so i go for the 24-70 ...7mm less but enough ww vor landscape an 70 at the end for portraits ... thats a walkaround for me ... but as you said ... it's my opinion

thx guys - but now i do have to get some money ^^ :)

F/1.4 aperture is like 1/8000 speed, something that is there but is never actually used.
As for creamy 85 is called cream machine by some and is as good as if not a bit better then 105, but you are right, 105 VR micro is better choice IMHO is you must choose between 105 and 85.

I just picked up the 105 2.8 Micro to try my hand at Mirco work, and I have to say that it makes for a pretty nice portrait lens as well. 2.8 is about as fast as you will ever want for portraits... anything faster and depth of field becomes an issue.

Even at 2.8, I can't take a head shot of my dog without either his nose or ears being outside the depth of field, so forget about it at 1.4. With portraits, I'm almost always using some sort of flash, so I can use any aperture I want.

What I like about the 105mm is that its got the best bokeh of any of my lenses. Gorgeous creamy backgrounds. It's also as sharp as any Nikon lens I've picked up.

Would I opt for it over the 70-200? Not for general use. Would I opt for it over the 70-200 +$1,000 for portrait work? Yeah probably.

If you no longer have the 17-35 what are you currently using in that range? Just the 50mm? Seems to me that you need the 24-70 before you should buy the 70-200, but do you use the 85 at all? Just get the 24-70 and see how that works for you for portraits.

I personally wouldn't get rid of an 85 f1.4 but than I wouldn't get rid of a 17-35 either.

Let’s just say 17-35 is ideal range for me, though it is not the latest it is still one of the greatest Nikon lenses, so my opinion would probably not apply to you...
Anyways new 70-200 VR II would certainly have been my choice for second lens ... and I would keep 85 f/1.4 ...

Maybe I have to correct myself:

I have enough money to buy one of those:

70-200f2,8
24-70f2,8

But if I would sell my 85 I could get both ... and thats what I am thinking about. Because the combination is very flexible ... with 85f1,4 I only can do portraits an some lowlight actions.

But if I wouldn't sell my 85f1,4 ... qhat should I buy first? A 24-70 or a 70-200 - both are nice lenses for me.

I read his equipment list on his website mb. So if you no longer have the 17-35 then you really do need the 24-70 first. If your not using the 85mm f/1.4 then you should sell it. The 50mm 1.4 should cover your low light needs and 70mm should be good for portraits until you have enough $$$ again for the 70-200 don't you think?

I have probably missed something, but if you have 50 f/1.4 and 17-35 why on earth would you need 24-70?
Anyways if you don't have 70-200mm f/2.8G VRⅡ/TC-17E II Teleconverter combination go get it, must have for any ambitious Nikon user.
Then have a break and think about what are you missing and then try the lens as Niko suggested and only then decide what to do next.
Lens should not be just a collectable items but something you actually use often, at least for me it is so.

17-35 not anymore ... this is old ... didn't like the range.

24-70 ... thats enough ww for landscape and enough zoomrange to do some portraits - and a perfect walkaround.

the one and only question is ... if i can get some $$$ for the 85f1,4 or if i should keep it ... it's so difficult.

i already used the 70-200 ... it's not that big as i thought ... thats very suprising compared to the canon 70-200f2,8 ...

greetz

I see you already have the 17-35 f2.8 basti.rlp, so I agree with mb that you should get the 70-200 and keep the 50mm f1.4. Have you tried out the lenses in person? I think you should if you haven't.

I hope I will survive this but on D700 all you need is:
17-35mm f/2.8D (or wait a bit to see what 16-35 brings)
70-200mm f/2.8G VRⅡ
TC-17E II Teleconverter

and if you still have some money left:
60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro

Sounds like you really want the 70-200. The 85f/1.4 is a great lens but if Nikon announces a new version you might not get as much $$$ as you would if they don't. Who knows though.

Do you really use f1.4 for any shots? If not then I say go with the 24-70 and 70-200. But only you can decide what lenses will work for what you use them for. If you want them for landscapes why not go for something wider than the 24-70?

Welcome to the forum basti.rlp :^)

Hi,

my current Lineup is: D700 - 50f1,4 - 85f1,4

Now I'm thinking about some changes. I do like the 85f1,4 for Portraitstuff, but it's very speacial and not a walkaround. In the future I'll looking for these two Lense: 24-70f2,8 and the 70-200VR f2,8.

First. The 50f1,4G is avery good LOWLIGHT performer and i like this lens the most ... now I'm not realy sure about the 85f1,4. The 70-200 f2,8 is also a very good portraitperformer and I think i will like this lense like my 85f1,4 ... i head a lot of this lens, speacially for portraits (closeups and stuff).

In the end it is a question of money ... maybe i should sell the 85f1,4 an get for the 70-200VR ... that my combination will be like this:

D700
24-70f2,8
50f1,4G
70-200f2,8

I'm not sure if I'll miss the 85f1,4 that much? Or should I wait, keep the 85f1,4 get first the 24-70 ... and then as soon as possible the 70-200?

It's that point ... I can't deside. Be more flexible with the combination: 24-70/50/70-200 or wait and get first the 24-70 or 70-200 ...

If I wait ... which should I get first? Sometimes I realy do like to make some landscapes ... but sometimes I also would prefer to have more tele ... for sports ... or sth. else.

HELP ME ^^

THX