You should post it in the animals section, great picture

Pete

Pat, I am not sure I could afford that 24mm lens, but sounds like something I would like. Most of my shots on the 50 are taken between 1.8 - 2.8 range usually. If there is more than one person, I tend to stop down...
The wide angle is 3.5...Plus, I like to not use the widest sometimes because the lens will be sharper a few stops down...
Pete, auto focus is much smoother than the 1.8. Haven't tried MF yet
I sold the 85mm 1.8 within a day, so that was good.
I am sure I wouldn't be able to afford the new version anyways. This was used but MINT, the guy had only used it 2 times! And he gave me a Nikon clear filter for it too :o)
Here's the first photo with it, http://www.flickr.com/photos/ukreal1/4157677234/
It was at 2.2, I zoomed all the way in and the eyelashes were razer sharp. I also used it on 2 shoots this weekend, along with the other lenses...
P :o)

ukreal1 does portraiture kanuck

hummm quite close eh? So we are talking Macro then. You must have considered the 60 or 105 VR I assume then right? Closeup photography is something that has spiked my interest as well over the past few months. I have been thinking about switching ballheads and getting a micro positioning plate for sliding ability to get more accurate positioning. I'd like a DR-5 right angle adapter for the viewfinder eyepiece for shooting from very low poistions as well.

I know what you mean telephotos don't excite me much either. I have the 70-200mm VR I but I love the 16-50 range. Wideangles and closeups do it for me.

True but think of how much "better" the new 70-200 is over the older model. Besides AF-S is something I want in that lens not just VR or new coatings. Besides at that price I'm certain it was used.

PMA 2010 in Feb. It's sooner than you think ;^) maybe perhaps.

NikoDoby said:
I would have waited for the rumored update to the 1.4 85mm, but good luck with your new lens Pamela.

How long, and would it be that much sharper, cost? Remember she paid $700

Pete

I would have waited for the rumored update to the 1.4 85mm, but good luck with your new lens Pamela.

ukreal1 said:
OK guys, here's my crazy update...
I bought the 85mm 1.4 this morning, I figured I wouldn't see it mint for $700 on this island again or anywhere maybe and now I am going to sell the 1.8.
I think my next lens will be the 35mm 2.0. The guy is also selling the 17-35 and am tempted but only if I knew I was going FF very soon, which I am not...
He is also selling the 105 micro...
I do want the 60mm micro BUT I am gonna try some reversing of the nifty 50!
I should be done then LOL
Thanks for all your help, I will let you know how I like the 1.4

Please keep us posted on how you like that lens, how does on MF/AF on your camera.

I have thought about getting one also

Pete

You have a great portfolio. I suggest that your current lenses are serving you very well, and you don't seem to use the widest aperture much; why go to f/1.4 as the maximum aperture when your style seems to benefit from shooting at f/2.8 or f/4 a lot?

I think you would love having the 24mm f/1.4 when it comes out. Portraits in context can be fun as well. It's a 37mm equivalent on DX, and 24mm is pretty dramatic on full frame.

Please keep shooting!

I am done for the telephoto range I think, I like to shoot quite close!

Have you considered the 135mm portrait lens? Sucker's got Amazing Bokeh!

OK guys, here's my crazy update...
I bought the 85mm 1.4 this morning, I figured I wouldn't see it mint for $700 on this island again or anywhere maybe and now I am going to sell the 1.8.
I think my next lens will be the 35mm 2.0. The guy is also selling the 17-35 and am tempted but only if I knew I was going FF very soon, which I am not...
He is also selling the 105 micro...
I do want the 60mm micro BUT I am gonna try some reversing of the nifty 50!
I should be done then LOL
Thanks for all your help, I will let you know how I like the 1.4

I am happy user of a 50mm Nikon wonder lens. I tried new AF-S 60mm as something new but I really do not see much difference, IQ is about the same, 60mm is not notably longer, I am using extension tubes for macro and you could not use AF for really close ups so I decided to spend my money on something else.
On the other hand I think that 700$ is a very good price for 85 f/1.4 in a mint condition, so if you can sell your current 85 f/1.8 for a couple of hundreds it would be a good deal.

bmxdad is right, the 60/2.8 macro would be your best bet, plus it's a great lens that handles beautifully and isn't intimidating. The Tamron 60/2 is a DX lens, but the faster speed might be interesting.

ukreal1 said:
Wow thanks for all your replies, now I am more confused than ever LOL
Yep, I am not too hulked up, can carry a car or two :o)
Well, this is the thing, my fav lens is the nifty 50 for FOV BUT the 85 I could maybe pick up for $700 mint so if I ever went FF that would be my 50...I actually don't like too much the long reach with the 85 1.8 (on the D300) and was thinking of the 1.4 as more of an investment in case FF one day, is that crazy? I wish I had a 1.8 and 1.4 to compare side by side...
I don't think I would like the 70-200. I rarely shoot people with my 55-200. I think I am getting caught up in the iconic status of the 'cream machine' and the nice used price. I dunno!
But, def. the 50mm is my fav on my D300...

Alright to sum this up:
You don't like a larger and heavy lens
85mm on your d300 is a bit past your limit
You already noticed that a faster 50mm lens is not any sharper, that 50mm F1.8 is actually on of the best lens deals you can get, the canon is crap in comparison
So if you need to get something new maybe get this one
"AFS Micro-Nikkor 60 mm f/2.8 ED G N"
This lens is sharp, it has a mm size that you like, you would have macro and it would also work on FX

Pete

Wow thanks for all your replies, now I am more confused than ever LOL
Yep, I am not too hulked up, can carry a car or two :o)
Well, this is the thing, my fav lens is the nifty 50 for FOV BUT the 85 I could maybe pick up for $700 mint so if I ever went FF that would be my 50...I actually don't like too much the long reach with the 85 1.8 (on the D300) and was thinking of the 1.4 as more of an investment in case FF one day, is that crazy? I wish I had a 1.8 and 1.4 to compare side by side...
I don't think I would like the 70-200. I rarely shoot people with my 55-200. I think I am getting caught up in the iconic status of the 'cream machine' and the nice used price. I dunno!
But, def. the 50mm is my fav on my D300...

shivaswrath said:
heartyfisher, you really think the 35-70 is that much better than the 24-70 for portraits? I'm trying to determine if there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in optical quality. . .

weight wise, the 24-70 might be a bit more difficult for her to lug around, the 35-70 might fit the bill better (which was my first recommendation). . .alas, price is always a consideration. . .

You mean it the other way around right? 'cos the 24-70 is the best midrange zoom at the moment. the 35-70 is great. Like I said I have one. but it does flare a bit. Its nice to use that flare in portraits sometimes but yes the 24-70 is the best lens in this range at the moment. now is it worth it? well its not worth it for me as I dont do enough portraiture on dx to warrant it and i dont have an FX camera to use it as my main normal lens. and I have the 35-70 already. However, I will probably pick one up in 10 years time off ebay. It is a bit heavy but I dont think its too inconvineantly heavy. on the other hand i am waiting for tamron to bring out out their VC version of the 28-75. If they do I will be the first in line! Their 17-50 VC F2.8 sure was tempting... still is tempting :-)

heartyfisher, you really think the 35-70 is that much better than the 24-70 for portraits? I'm trying to determine if there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in optical quality. . .

weight wise, the 24-70 might be a bit more difficult for her to lug around, the 35-70 might fit the bill better (which was my first recommendation). . .alas, price is always a consideration. . .

Hi and welcome..

Had a look at your work. really nice stuff you have. My sugegstion is you should consider one of the normal FX zooms. They are great for portrait on dx format cameras. If you can afford it, get the 24-70. Since you like the 50mm FOV so much, having a bit of flexibility around that focal length should give you a few more options for composition. If price is an issue consider the older 28-70 or the sigma 24-70 HSM or the tamron 28-75 or the old 35-70 nikkor. I have that old 35-70 lens and I love it for portrait on my DX camera. However, if I were to do it profesionally like you seem to be I would seriously consider the 24-70 nikkor.

I would also seriously consider getting a 50 f1.2 but those are hard to find.
Good luck with your NAS !! :-)

NikoDoby said:
That's right Shivas, I've got "guns" to match my abs :^)

Poor Pamela, she's running away from the forum now!

Niko es muy loco! ;^)

ukreal1 said:
I should add my other lenses are:
18-70 DX - use for landscapes and wide family shots, but rarely use above 18mm
10.5 fisheye DX - just got used, love for now!
55-200 DX - hardly ever use, use at street fairs occasionally...
yeah I could sell the 35 1.8, but am itching for a 1.4 something!
Also want to eventually get a micro...
thanks for all the input so far :o)

Great pictures by the way: Anyway like other mentioned the 70-200 lens could work for you, but it is heavy and to your clients might look a bit scary, but the lens is sharp and if you like using a tripod the lens is so easy to use in portrait direction, If this is not for you, then keep the lenses and invest in a 105 2.8 Micro lens, this lens will also work great on a future FX camera

Hope to see some of your pictures in our Photo-a-day

Pete

That's right Shivas, I've got "guns" to match my abs :^)

Poor Pamela, she's running away from the forum now!

Niko's craziness aside (lol, j/k), I think the options he outlines will be EXACTLY what you are looking for. . .

I would even throw the 80-200 in the mix that way you don't double up TOO much on coverage and it's cheaper than the 70-200. . .

Not to sound sexist, which when some writes it invariably is, but it sounds as if you are PROBABLY not a hulked up photog (like Niko is) that could carry around a 2lb telephoto with a pro body, esp given your proclivity for primes, so with that in mind, I would stick with either the 105 or 135 DC, or the 105 Macro? I hear the 180 2.8 is great, but suffers more CA than the 70-200/80-200 counterparts . . .

Shivas

I meant you were making sense, Niko. I don't think you're crazy just because you have crazy ideas about the GXR.

What?! Just because I find the whole Ricoh GXR idea interesting I'm suddenly the crazy one around here? :^)