where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
hi guys , just curious..
please state the body you using and what is your favorite prime lens used with that body?
and what is actually the most famous combination of prime lens (the one that professional always have?? )
for cropped body: 35 ,85 , 105??? -->> holy trinity??
Thank you.
35mm on D300
50mm on D300 if I'm not feeling creative... the crop forces me to be a bit more creative when I'm being stubborn ;)
My fav ? I am weird .. My fav is my Sigma 150 F2.8 Macro. I use it as a macro (of course) with extension tubes, as a Portrait lense, General Nature photos(nice bokeh), Event (Theaters), General Tele (with my 1.4 TC), Street photos.
As for Combination of Prime lenses.. In the film days(FX)? It depended on the individual of course. but you would choose 1 from each set below
* Ultra wides (...)
* Wides. (20,24,28,35)
* normals (35,40,50,55)
* Tele ( 85,105,135, 180)
* Long Teles (....)
Note that the 35mm was used by many as their "normal" - In DX the wonderful 24-70mm (equal 35-105) is just about a perfect all round lens and is probably well worth it if you are a person that likes that range. For me I like the longer end and wish Nikon (or any one else) would make a nice 28-105(120?) F2.8 dx lens (==42 to 160(180)) Oh well I can dream ..
PS: The 40mm focal length is known as the "sweet spot" and its was only "discovered" by a few photographers. its these fanatical photographers that have push up the price of the discontinued Nikkor 28mm F1.4..for DX use Go check out its price! You wont believe it! Maybe PMA australia will have a new 28mm dx!
Hard decision.
My choice (I feel like I'm going to think 'why did you choose those?' tomorrow) is 50mm, 150mm, 400mm on 35mm and the equivalents on DX
hey hearty fisher,
correct me , but as far as i know, the normal lens for FX is "50mm" , not "35" like what you stated.
35 if you were in DX and 50, if you were in FX. am I right?
24-70 is very nice, I agree with you on that but the price makes me think like prolly 30 times before I spend that much for MIDRANGE ZOOM. insanely priced.
hey hearty fisher,
correct me , but as far as i know, the normal lens for FX is "50mm" , not "35" like what you stated.
35 if you were in DX and 50, if you were in FX. am I right?
24-70 is very nice, I agree with you on that but the price makes me think like prolly 30 times before I spend that much for MIDRANGE ZOOM. insanely priced.
oh yeah guys , i am saving up for 105mm VR micro and thinking of getting 35 1.8 as well since its cheap and lot of people praise this lens so much.
so do you think that the combination of 35 and 105 is okay? or do i need more?
do i leave too much gap from 35 to 105? maybe i should pick up like 50 or 85? if yes, which one?
I am a d40 user btw.
Normal is boring so is seldom used unless you are Henri Cartier-Bresson. Photographers used 35 on full frame film more often then 50 for example.
For D40 I would go for 60mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Micro instead, it is lighter and very useful as macro, portrait and all around lens.
None of current wide angle Nikon prime lenses (except 10.5mm DX Fisheye) are usable on D40 unless you are willing to always focus manually, but if you are 20mm f/2.8D is one of the most usable and best wide prime lenses for DX (and is great on FX too).
What prime lenses you actually need very much depend on what you need them for.
as for me I prefer zoom lenses instead of primes, but if I could have unlimited budget than:
200 2.0
300 2.8 vr
and
600 4.0 vr
"please state the body you using and what is your favorite prime lens used with that body?"
For an average day, a D300 with my micro-NIKKOR 55mm 1:2.8 !!
Given one choice that is.
"and what is actually the most famous combination of prime lens (the one that professional always have?? )"
Professional's ? To many variables and dependencies. Wouldn't venture a guess.
For me, when it comes to primes well.... what's necessary?
What's the subject?
Distance matters.
Framing matters.
What's the light like.
Could be wide - 20, 28, 35, normal - 50, or short tele - 85 or 105.
To just to grab the camera and go (subject unknown), and limit to three.
OK, 35,50,85.
Oh! Plus an SB-900, for just in case.
Need long tele's, well. That's another story all together.
Fin.
10.5mm f/2.8G DX is so wide that everything is sharp more or less anyway, but it is a fisheye lens and not so usable for everyday photography.
By the way, if there is a prime DX lens I would prefer over all the others it would be 10 to 12 ultra-wide non fisheye AF-S f/2.8 lens.
@ nikonian : The 50mm is known as normal on film because when cameras were first introduced they included the most versatile lense they could think of and that was the 50mm lens. Some cameras came with the 40mm as the "normal" lens (like the olympus). However, some(many) photographers (as stated by mb) preferred the 35mm as their "normal" lens. So many consider the "normal" lenses to be from 35mm to 60mm. (for FX) hence one of the best "normal" Zooms is the 35-70mm Nikkor. However most people consider the 35mm as the start of the Wide angle lenses. Its all fairly subjective i think.
The standard kit was 28mm, 50 or 40, 135mm. + TC1.4 or 2 if you were an amateur trying to build a nice reasonably priced kit. or if you had some money or were more dedicated. you would aim for the 20,24,35,50,55macro, 85, 105, 180.
I got as far and the 50mm. and TC2 . :-) ... before all the zooms arrived...
Your right focas is not at all an issue unless your right up on something, you know what capture nx removes the fisheye distortions and what you end up with is in my opinion are pleasing results, I don't like it better than my 14-24 on a full frame camera but it does make for a small easy to carry alternative.
I have a D90 and a D300
I'm mostly a wildlife shooter so my favorite walk around prime is 300mm F/4. I've not yet used this lens on my D90. I also have the 70-200F/2.8 but this is not a prime I know. I've used it on both cameras. I would like the 35mm prime when and if it ever becomes readily available.
BTW, which lens would be a good, affordable alternative to the 24-70 since I don't think I will ever afford it? One that give good performance for the price?
50mm 1.4D on top of the list
For flea:
Yeah, I know that 85 mm 1.8 or 1.4 wont autofocus with my body but I am pretty sure that Nikon will release the new version out soon with AFS ofcourse. They have updated the new 50 1.4 with afs. I am pretty sure the new 85 is coming.
For mb:
Thanks for sharing this info mb. Actually I feel the same way as most photographer. 35mm in dx is still too tele for me. I feel its much easier to take pics with 24 mm in dx. Its not super wide but It’s a nice focal length for me. And I actually have compared what I see with 24 mm and with my own eyes and they have about the same perspective; Now, its clear.
Micro 60 afs is the one that also interest me , dude. But here is the thing, I want to get macro lens so that I can photograph insects. Most people said that 60 is too short for that.
Now here is the thing, do you think its wrong to get 105 and 60 altogether (since both of them are macro)? is it just a waste of money? Should I opt for 50 1.4 afs?
I have heard lot of good things about 60 afs micro and it’s a new lens as well and much better than previous version.
I wish Nikon come out with 24 1.4 (doesn’t matter dx or fx).and most importantly, looking at current situation, should I pick up 35 then?? 35 1.8 is basically cheap and that’s what interest me most.
Or should I get micro 60 and micro 105 afs together? Instead of 105 and 35?
mb:
if nikon came out with 10.5 or 12 super wide prime (2.8 aperture), dude, you bet i will get that baby as well : )
I hope they can come out with wide primes for dx (20 or 18), thats good enough for me.
btw, I just realized that if they made 24 1.4 (fx), this wont be cheap and it can cost like 1700 bucks (look at canon counterpart). with that money, I might as well just get 24 -70.
oh yeah, to throw something into mix, do you think nikon 24-70 (36-105) replacing primes then ?
nikonian - as for nikon 24-70 replacing primes, in my case I'll say yes, I used to had 50/1.4 and once I got the 24-70 I decided to sell it, as it was only taking space in my bag, 24-70 has better IQ than 50/1.4, sure You are losing one stop, and gain some weight, but You get speed, as it's much faster in AF
The 24-70 is expensive because of the manufacturing effort, labor cost and best quality! I use this lens 95% of the time when shooting indoors. My other lens is the 50mm 1.4 AF-S which is good for creative use (nice creamy bokeh).
can anybody respond to this question of mine? i am so curious.
"I want to get macro lens so that I can photograph insects. Most people said that 60 is too short for that.
Now here is the thing, do you think its wrong to get 105 and 60 altogether (since both of them are macro)? is it just a waste of money? Should I opt for 50 1.4 afs?
I have heard lot of good things about 60 afs micro and it’s a new lens as well and much better than previous version "
You must log in to post.
