where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I use a D700 and I mainly shoot travel photos and snaps.
I currently have AF-S 24-70mm, 35mm f/2, and 85mm f/1.4D.
And I was thinking of selling the 24-70mm for 16-35mm and 50mm prime.
My main reason is the wider reach and the weight. I really love primes and how light they are compared to zooms especially when I am travelling.
What do you guys think?
I have 16-35, a bit of distortion that can be easily corrected in LR3
mine is soft at the edges wide open, but pin sharp at f8
The other lens to look at is the 16mm f2.8 just over 10 oz
againe it needs stopping down to f8 to get the corners sharp
and again the distortion can be corrected in LR3 or Hemi
Seems kind of moving backwards to me but than again it was questions like this, that has led me to having 20 lenses. There is no real good answer. One thing I believe in is a few grams savings in weight, is rarely worth going backwards in quality or convenience. Now that changes a bit with the 70-200 & 300 2.8s but as sharp as Nikon's zooms are, you don't gain much with primes.
You could go for a whole different set up with a 24-120 or the 28-300 and add primes as well. If you are not really needing the 2.8 at the 24-70.
If you can find a used one, Tokina has a great 17mm f3.5. It is a fantastic lens and would give you that wide angle. Tamron has a great 14mm as well used.
The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens (some had some not so hot variations in the first few runs but is now good) or add the 1.8 (even the older one) as well can be had for $100. It doesn't leave much reason not to get one.
Maybe not much help, but this will be one that each photographer has to pick for themselves. Only you know where a gap is for what you shoot.
Totally agree with TTJ.
The 24-70 definitely is a heavy lens but it just as sharp as any primes except can't shoot wider than F2.8. I can't imagine myself carrying all different primes while traveling. Like TTJ said, if you do need wider go get it/them. Come to mind tokina 16-28 or nikkor 20-35 or 3rd party wide prime.
Last June I went to Bali with a 24-70, 70-200 and 50.1.4 because I wanted to cover most range i could as well as low light. I end up using 24-70 only, used the 70-200 only to pleased my buddies who wanted to try it. At the end of the journey, i had to pay few visits to physio to look after my back. Glad i didn't take the 14-24 along.
The 24-70 2.8 is one of the most used lens in my bag and may of those that own it. Hence, JY usage. So my recombination is to keep it.
The 50 1.4G has been priced very reasonably by Nikon, as a prime lens....just get one and add it to your arsenal. You will be very happy with it. If price is an issue, then the new 50 1.8 is the one to go with hands down.
I personally skipped the 16-35 VR and went with the 14-24 2.8. It performance is second to none. Though I'm a big advocate in the whole VR technology Nikon has in their lines of lenses, I have found that when it come to ultra-wide angle lens, it is not needed. I much rather have a tripod for those slow and long exposures in getting the shot I seek.
TaoTeJared said:
....has led me to having 20 lenses.
Not there yet Jared, but I'm getting closer each day in caching up to you :p
Cheers.
When I traveled all over Europe I rarely used my 24-70. My main walk around lens was the 16-35. I found I could get close enough to cut everyone else out of the photo and still frame the shot the way I wanted it. I was also suprised at how well the 16-35 worked in low light. My 50 1.4 only came out for night shots.
My wife and I really like the open top bus tours and this is where I wish I had the 24-120 f4 or the 28-300. My 70-300 was just not wide enough so I was constantly changing back to the 16-35.
On my Yosemite trip I mainly used my 14-24 for walk around. My 24-70 was great for pano's and long exposures, and the 70-200 when wildlife was around. Since I got the 14-24 I rarley use my 16-35 but I do find it easier to compose shots with the 16-35 than I do with the 14-24.
It really might be worth it to rent the lens's. Of all my lens's the 16-35 has fit my shooting style the best. Who know's maybe the 14-24 will fit your style better or the 24-70 which you already have.
Again I know we have discussed this before, but if only you could get filters on the 14-24mm lens quickly and without the headache of having to order the Cokin Setup. Its a perfect lens and extremely useful however, you almost need the 16-35mm with the 14-24mm. Definately keep the 24-70mm though its just as good as any prime I agree.
For lanscapes and travel, I'd need a 14-24, 16-35 and a 24-70mm. Finish it up with a 70-300mm VR and I'd be done. Each day out try and bring just one of the four because these 4 lenses would equal at least 10kg :(
I prefer the 14-24mm (or 17-35mm if I need filters) over the 16-35mm for the extra f-stop.
The 16-35mm isnt really lighter than the 14-24mm and larger than both the 14-24mm and 17-35mm (as well as the canon and sony version of 16-35mm f2.8)
kanuck said:
....if only you could get filters on the 14-24mm lens quickly and without the headache of having to order the Cokin Setup....
Personally, the only filter that I would ever want to put in front of this amazing glass would be a Neutral Density filter made my Lee Filters. They have a very nice starter kit. However, that is where the 24-70 comes into play for me most of the time. I just pull out my Hoya ND400 and shoot those rivers, streams and/or water falls. Not to mention the less gear I have to care around...as you so eloquently point it out, it can get heavy at times :P
Perhaps I should ask how Skintbrit is enjoying his Hoya Filter System for his 14-24mm. I believe he is the only one to receive his order. If I had a 16-35mm I'd probably shoot it naked as well without even a UV filter on it. Maybe then would produce images comparable to the 14-24 although many say both lenses yield similar sharp images. The only real difference is the barrel distortion and the F4 aperature of the 16-35mm. I 'd still like to have both though..
You must log in to post.
