Hi all,
so I shoot with a D300. I have a 50mm 1.8 (my most used), a 85mm 1.8 and a few others that I don't use as much. I am really concerned with these 2 for my dilemma...
would you/should I...
a) upgrade to the 85mm 1.4
b) upgrade to the 50mm 1.4
c) do nothing, stick with what I have
I have that 'itchy lens' feeling. I could get the 85mm mint/used. I have tried the 50mm 1.4G in the store and really didn't see much ($400 worth) improvement.
You can see my website for the style I shoot...www.pamelaoliveras.com
Oh, and although I will eventually upgrade to a FF, it won't be anytime soon as far as I can see, I am happy with my D300...
What would you do? I realize I am talking to total strangers with different reasons, but thought I would throw it out there! :o)
Cheers!
Lens dilemma, help me out purlease
(40 posts) (14 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
If you don't have 35mm 1.8 yet, I would get that lens and keep the other lenses.
Pete
Posted 3 years ago # -
I say go for a lens that will give you more reach like the new f/2.8 70-200 VRII. I wouldn't replace the f/1.8s you have just for f1.4s. It's not worth it since your doing just fine with what you have. The 70-200 is a great portrait lens too.
Welcome to the forum Pamela (aka ukreal1) :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thank you for the replies so far. Well, the thing is I like shooting close, I LOVE the 50mm and the 85 is a little tight for my comfort style so I don't think I want the 70-200. I was thinking about the 35 BUT it's DX and I don't want to get any more DX lenses, just in case ya know LOL. That 85 'cream machine' keeps playing on my mind. I have gotten used to the distance more with the 85 1.8 and if I ever go full, it will be how my 50 looks now...I also like to shoot quite wide open...
Posted 3 years ago # -
The F/1.4 lenses really give a noticeably narrower dept of field, but 1/3 stop exposure difference won't help you much unless you shoot lots of low light stuff like concerts.
Give the new 35mm a try, sounds like you need some sort of wide angle lens.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The 35/1.8 is great lens, a bit wider than what you have, focuses very closely, is extremely compact and inexpensive. If you do get an FX body in the future, you could resell it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Welcome ukreal1!
What about the 35mm ƒ/2? Though it's a touch slower, it has full FX capabilities and will work on older Nikons, as will all of your other lenses.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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)Posted 3 years ago # -
For your style it looks like the 85mm f/1.4 on a full frame camera would be what you would be happiest with (if you had unlimited budget). It'll get you about the same perspective as your 50mm on a DX crop, and give you much nicer boke and the option to get significantly shallower depth of field. That said, as the new version should come out shortly I'd take a wait and see approach on the 85mm.
Have you looked at the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D? It gives you the same 2/3 stop improvement over your f/1.8 and costs a hundred less, but you lose AF-S. If you don't have complaints about the AF on your f/1.8 it's not a big issue and you can use the saved money for more kit!
Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree with the 35 1.8 suggestions, but it sounds like 1.8 might not be fast enough for you. If you don't mind not having autofocus, the 50 1.2 AI-S is still made, and it's a beautiful lens. Someone gave me one, and I liked it okay but I sold it to buy the 35 1.8. The 35 is an awesome lens: sharp, lots closer minimum focus distance that the 85 1.8 (which I also love), and I'm blown away by the flare control--you can shoot it into the sun without losing too much contrast.
Posted 3 years ago # -
When I sold the 50 1.2, I put up a gallery and it's still here if you want to have a look. These were also shot on a D300, and it wasn't so bad without autofocus since the camera AF sensor is still working while you're focusing and will tell you when you're there (though it's still not always right--at 1.2 the DOF is paper thin).
Posted 3 years ago # -
50mm 1.2 is a great lens, I use it on the FM2. I mounted the lens on the D40 once, but I hate it because the viewfinder is so small, I have trouble focusing at 1.2.
I got the 35mm 1.8 and I love it for the D40. If you are planning on upgrading to FX, I wouldn't go for the 35mm 1.8.
Gosh, I need me some film!
Posted 3 years ago # -
if you plan on going FF soon, don't get "too" over burdened with the DX lenses. . .
I had the itch recently, wanted a mid-range that could be used on both my D200 and a D700. . .instead of the 28-70 or 24-70 from Nikkor, went with the 35-70 2.8. . .at around $500 used, a great steal of a mid-tele and works well on our DX bodies (looks like you like to shoot more tele than wide?). . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
On your D300 that 85 is really a 127mm lens. The reason you prefer it is that it gives you more reach over the 50 which is more like a conventional 85mm (75mm). All the photos in your portfolio are portraits taken up close, outdoors, and in good light. Buying another 85mm and 50mm just for f/1.4 won't improve your shooting style.
At f/1.4 you'll get eyes that are in focus but the nose and mouth are not.
The thin DOF is great for separating people from backgrounds but longer focal lengths do the same and give you higher DOF on your subjects. So you still get great creamy backgrounds but your shooting at f/4 for example. I rarely ever shoot below f2 when doing portraits and only when I purposely want a soft, but not blurry, image.The 70-200 f/2.8, 105 f/2, 135mm f/2, 200mm f/2, and 180mm f/2.8 are all great portrait lenses and do not distort people like wider lenses will (big heads small arms & legs, etc.)
As Shivaswrath has said, your style is telephoto not wide angle. It just seems like you don't know it is :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think Niko's talking sense.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What?! Just because I find the whole Ricoh GXR idea interesting I'm suddenly the crazy one around here? :^)
Posted 3 years ago # -
I meant you were making sense, Niko. I don't think you're crazy just because you have crazy ideas about the GXR.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago # -
That's right Shivas, I've got "guns" to match my abs :^)
Poor Pamela, she's running away from the forum now!
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
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 !! :-)Posted 3 years ago # -
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. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
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 :-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
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...Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
