I have a D7000 with a 35 1.8 and a 50 1.4. I am going to go full frame in the future, but am waiting to see if a D600 materializes. If you were to buy two more pro lenses for a kit, what would they be? I am serious about photography, but not a pro, and my interests are not that defined. I like everything from street to landscapes to portraits. My initial thoughts are a 35 1.4 and either an 85 1.4 (1.8) or a 70 200 VR II. I know the 14-24 2.8 is great, but it seems more specialized. Thanks for your input.
Which two pro lenses to buy?
(33 posts) (21 voices)-
Posted 10 months ago #
-
24-70 and 70-200 :)
Posted 10 months ago # -
AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR,
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
If longer is needed, add either the TC-14EII or TC-20EIII.If primes are your love,
AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED,
AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G or
AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-EDMy opinion... I like wide and tele... but if you like the middle range, go with what tcole1983 suggests.
However, if you are like many of us infected with the FX virus, you will slowly gather in a collection which enables you to shoot about anything.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Your 50mm f1.4 will work perfectly with full frame, and remember while the 35mm f1.8 is a DX lens, you can use it on FX but you'll have vignetting. You can find examples online, and I think it's perfectly usable for certain situations. Wide angle lenses are really specialized so if you're considering the 14-28 or 16-35 make sure you know what you're getting. I bought the 8-16mm for my D7000, and I just haven't been able to use it to it's full potential. It's definitely b/c of my skill level, but just make sure you know you'll use it before you buy.
If you have the cash and want zoom:
24-70mm AF-S
70-200mm AF-SPrimes:
24 1.4 AF-S
85mm 1.4 AF-SBudget:
85mm 1.8 AF-S
Sigma 70-200mm HSM OSBudget 2:
24-85mm AF-S
Sigma 70-200mm HSM OSNikon Zooms Semi Budget:
24-120 f4 AF-S
80-200 AF-DOr mix and match to whatever your shooting/budget needs.
Posted 10 months ago # -
First choice is easy -- 24-120 f4 VR. I have this lens on my D800 80% of the time not only does this lens do nearly everything. Its does it extremely well
but the second lens is tricky
if you are into Macro AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED I don't think Nikon make a sharper lens
if you are into sports the 70-200 f2.8 or the 200-400 f4 beware both are quite heavy
if you do weddings or night clubs the 24mm f1.4 is a must
Birding 600mm f 4
need an ultra wide? consider the 16mm f2.8 fish eye ( Light room can remove the distortion if you don't like the fish eye effect) unlike the 16-35 or the 14 -24, this lens is small and lightweight
Posted 10 months ago # -
The one must have lens - and on almost everyone's list - is the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. It's an excellent lens and fits a number of different roles. It works well with teleconverters. And it is great on both DX and FX bodies.
Yes - it is heavier than consumer lenses. But all the pro lenses are heavy in comparison to consumer models.
The 24-70 is a very good lens, but I might hold off for now. It is not wide enough for a DX body, and is one of the few new lenses that lacks VR.
The 105 f/2.8 VR Macro is a good option. It works nicely as a portrait lens on an FX body, and is a good macro lens. It also works nicely with Nikon teleconverters. AF is a little slow - but you expect that for macro work.
Posted 10 months ago # -
tcole1983+1 - no other option for a start IMHO
Posted 10 months ago # -
Definately the 70-200.
24-70 if you like the middle ground.
14-24 on a full frame is really going to be wide, and you'll not be able to use screw on filters. Before I'd spend money on that, I'd want to be sure I'd use it a fair bit.
If you are interested in macro - look at the 105 VR. Love that lens.Posted 10 months ago # -
Without any sort of specialization my suggestion covers just about anything without any sort of specialization. That being said it doesn't cover ultra wide, the long end or macro work, but does just about everything in between. You already have a fast prime so you really wouldn't be missing too much and you can add on later. The 24-70 and 70-200 would give you a good base to expand on though. As mentioned add a teleconverter and get more range out of the 70-200.
If you want primes then there are tons of options. Not sure I would spend the money on the two primes you suggest, but that is just me. I think the new 1.8G lenses are a great value for the price and there isn't much need for the 1.4 lenses unless you really feel like you need the F1.4 and little extra build quality.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Just to be different, and to mess things up a bit, I would suggest the 85 1.4 and the 70-200. Later, the 14-24.
My reasoning:
"I am serious about photography, but not a pro, and my interests are not that defined."
I'm pretty much in the same boat. I went with the holy trinity, the 50 1.4, and the 200mm micro.
In the beginning, I was considering pro work. My talent or lack thereof aside, I changed my mind after a while and today I do photography seriously but for the fun of it. I can't remember which documentary I watched where a photographer said it, but "if you don't take their money, they can't tell you what to do."
I learned that for pro work the holy trinity is absolutely the best lens selection to have in your bag. It's versatile and it covers the needs of day to day shooting. You can't go wrong.
But if you want to focus on growing creatively while taking advantage of some of the nuances of the tech, you're going to want to explore the extremes. One of the missing elements in my bag today is a longer 1.4. I want that 85mm badly, and a variable ND to go with it. There's so much in the way of creative exploration to be done with that combo.
Anyway, don't let the lazy practicality of a mid-range zoom to lure you away from expanding your creative horizons. I wish I hadn't.
Posted 10 months ago # -
14-24mm for wides 28-48mm Fx equiv and a 70-200mm for teles 140-300mm on FX...
Honestly the 70-200mm is the best all around of the bunch for where you are coming from...
Posted 10 months ago # -
tcole1983 said:
24-70 and 70-200 2.8 :)+1
All that needs to be said...hands down these two are a must have. It is important to note that once you have used these amazing lenses, be it on your FF or DX body, you yourself will have a better idea of what other types of glass you will need given your usage of them and your specific style of photography.
Cheers...
Posted 10 months ago # -
curiousnomad said:
If you were to buy two more pro lenses for a kit, what would they be?AF-S 24mm f/1.4G - the best rectilinear wideangle I have met. Wide-end OOMPH.
The other one would be either AF-S 200mm f/2 VRII, AF-S 300mm f/2.8 VRII or 500mm f/4 VR depending on how long you need in the long end (these are still portable and even the 500mm can be used handheld for short periods of time)
Posted 10 months ago # -
-
I will warn tho that the 24-70mm on a fx is wider than the 14-24mm on Dx
Posted 10 months ago # -
-
-
curiousnomad said:
I like everything from street to landscapes to portraits. My initial thoughts are a 35 1.4 and either an 85 1.4 (1.8) or a 70 200 VR II.good idea, go with that. the 35 1.4G is an awesome FULL FRAME lens perfect for what you describe.
the 85 or 70-200 should cover your other requirements.
Posted 10 months ago # -
24-70 and 70-200 for prime 24 1.4g
Posted 10 months ago # -
105VR or 24-120vr & 70-200vr (ver 1 or 2)
Just a note - the 35 1.8 works in FX if you like vignetting. I actually like the look it gives.
Posted 10 months ago # -
-
TaoTeJared said:
105VR or 24-120vr & 70-200vr (ver 1 or 2)Just a note - the 35 1.8 works in FX if you like vignetting. I actually like the look it gives.
If you went this route you could throw in another prime or two for the price vs the 24-70, but all about the money you want to spend.
Posted 10 months ago # -
OK, I think I have this figured out....(humor time just so you can laugh). I do not have the 24-70 and the other wunderkind, the 14-24. So, to lighten this conversation up a bit, one needs two lenses, the 24-70 /2.8, 70-200/2.8 and two D4 bodies to go with them. And your grip can carry the 300/2.8 on a third D4 in case you need just a bit longer shot.
It is about the money as has been previously stated. And, so if "curiousnomad" could give us feedback on the amount in dollars or Euros they would like to spend, maybe we could come up with more realistic suggestions.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Postman said:
Really? Angle of view wise isn't 24mm on FX around 16-17mm on DX?You are right.. I explained my maths wrong... 9-17mm is what the Dx equiv range of the 14-24mm would cover. However if you were to put a 14-24mm on a Dx body it has a range of 21-36mm due to crop factor. In other words a 14-24mm on Dx has a similar field of view as the 24-70mm on an Fx body. The Dx equivalent of the 24-70mm would probably be a 17-47mm...
I use my 14-24mmm on dx frequently
Posted 10 months ago # -
Thanks for the fantastic responses so far! My budget is up to ~ $4400 US. A lot of money, but then again I don't do this every year, even every several years. Based on how good the images from the 50 1.4 have been, "you get what you pay for".
Then again, if I become infected with NAS, I hear there is no cure....
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
