where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Hi everyone,
Could you help me in finalizing my decision to buy which of the above? I'm more inclined to both portrait and landscape photography but I can only buy 1 lens for the moment. I've the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1 on my arsenal. Can the 50mm be an effective alternative over the 24-70mm? Will be needing your valuable opinions and recommendations before I push the button. Thank you in advance and regards to all!
"Can the 50mm an effective alternative for the 24-70mm?"
This is another lens question that often comes up in the forum that absolutely no one can answer but you.
But here goes anyway.
I have both lenses. I usually carry both if I carry a bag. I use each lens for different things. The 24-70mm is on my camera 90% of the time because of what I shoot and my shooting style. I use the 50mm for whenever I need f/1.4 or don't want to lift the sledgehammer 24-70mm. Both are fantastic, reliable lenses.
I don't have the 16-35 f/4 but for me the choice would be between 16mm vs. 24mm and f/2.8 vs. f/4. My solution was to get the 14-24mm because it fit my style better.
Good luck.
I am assuming you are shooting FX
the 70 120 f2.8 is one the best portrait lens you can get
I would add the 24 -120 f4 vr which excellent for landscape
yes it's only f4 but you already an f 1.4 for low light
I have exactly the same dilemma, upgrading from my D90 to a D800 and need to buy some FX glass. I also own the 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200mm VR.
I decided to go with the 16-35mm VR purchase first. Can be used for landscape as well as close wideangle portrait shots. That gives me a small hole in my focal range around the +/- 50mm area, but i think i can live with that for the moment. Was thinking about maybe going for one of those old 35-70mm f/2.8 lenses as a temporary solution if i see that i need it. It's the previous generation pro-glass and can be had for ~ $300 now - similar optics and a lot lighter, sounds like a winner for a walk around lens.
Answer is simple. You already have the 70-200mm F2.8, which is an ideal portrait lens. The 16-35mm is a good landscape lens, seems like a rather obvious choice to me. Personally I opted for the 24-70mm, but I don't have the 70-200mm.
The 3 lens I think all photographer should own or plan on owning is 14-24 2.8 or 16-35 4.0, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8
I have 50 1.4g, 24-70, 70-200. I plan on getting the 14-24 in the future but for right now I don't see that it would come in handy based on my shooting style. The 24-70 I use 80% of the time, 70-200 10%, and 50 10% of the time. Although I do use the 50 1.4 more often than the 70-200 but the time frame is much less than my 70-200. I tend to have my 70-200 mounter for much longer when I'm using it.
I have the 24-70mm 2.8 and love it and I also have the 50mm 1.4G. I love the range of the 24-70, but I just simply love the dof and shooting the 50mm wide open. I use both of them for different things. I tend to like longer lenses so the 24-70 is really a wide angel lens for me. I wont ever need anything wider then 24mm. If I were you I think I would go with the 16-35 based on price and that you want a landscape lens and not a do it all lens. The important part is figuring out 16mm vs 24mm and f4 vs f2.8
sevencrossing said:
I am assuming you are shooting FX
the 70 120 f2.8 is one the best portrait lens you can get
I would add the 24 -120 f4 vr which excellent for landscape
yes it's only f4 but you already an f 1.4 for low light
I was thinking maybe they were shooting DX :)
+1 on the 24-120 f4 - but personally I would go wide with the 16-35. Depends on how much you shoot in each range really.
On DX I almost never use my 24-70 and use a 35mm 1.8 & 50 1.4g instead. I'm more of a Prime shooter though.
The 24-120mm has too much distortion on the wide end, although correctable, you'll loose resolution. At 24mm the 16-35mm is distortion free.
Again, distortion correction leads to a loss of resolution. Why loose resolution when you don't have to?
Go for the 24-70. Its great. And even though it passes 50mm, its not a 50mm at all when shooting below aperture 2.8 The 50 gives you better low depth of field images.
The 24-70 is reliable and extremely fast, and I find it to be really sharp all the way.
I would then wait until you can afford the 14-24mm It is by far the most incredible wideangle lens ever made.
Not a fan of the 16-35 at all.
I had the 14-24mm (fantastic) but sold it for the 16-35mm due to space/weight considerations for traveling. The 16-35 is much more compact with excellent image quality; I have no qualms using it for professional work.
I think for landscape photography you'll often want 20mm or wider, which is missing in the OP's current collection, so the 16-35 might be the better choice over the 24-70.
I'm on a very long journey currently (more than 8 months on the road now) and it's the first trip I've taken in years without my mid-range zoom. I also left my 80-200mm at home. I'm carrying several primes instead (35/2, 50/1.4, 105 macro) and a 1.7x converter.
So for me anyway, having a mid-range zoom like the 24-70 is convenient but not essential, while having wide-angle coverage is a must.
I agree about the 20mm or wider. I used to have a Nikon 20-35mm F2.8D (great compact wide angle zoom BTW, but soft wide open), but often found it just wasn't wide enough. I've missed that range a few times since I bought the 24-70, but not enough to get anything wider as of yet.
I own the 16-35, 24-70, 50 f/1.4 and 70-200.
The 24-70 is my most frequently used lens. Quality is very good at all focal lengths. It's an all purpose lens - good for landscape and portraits although I prefer the 70-200 for portraits. I do find I need the widest end a lot, so either the 14-24 and 16-35 are necessary counterparts for landscape work.
I chose the 16-35 over the 14-24 for two reasons. A lot of my landscape work involves water and using the Singh Ray Vari-N-Duo to slow exposures. The 16-35 has filter threads and the 14-24 does not. There are workarounds - but none as simple as the 16-35. I rarely need to shoot it wide open so the lack of f/2.8 is a non-issue.
The VR aspect of the 16-35 has been important for me. I have used it in some interiors where tripods were not permitted. I bought it specifically for use on the water where tripods did not provide stability due to the movement of a canoe or ship.
I've tried to substitute the 16-35mm and 50mm for a 16-35 and 24-70 on a couple of occasions - in the Okefenokee and in Venice. In both cases I came away a bit frustrated and wished I had the 24-70. It is possible to use the 50mm to fill the gap, but whether it works really depends on your style.
If money is an issue, one under appreciated lens is the Sigma 15-30. It's a relatively recent design for film and FX cameras. Like the 14-24, it does not have front filter threads, but it is pretty economical for thewidest end if you choose a Nikon 24-70.
You must log in to post.
