1 Pro zoom or multiple primes?

[andy1868]

So i'm in a nice position where i have some money to sink into photography gear and i'm looking for some opinions. At this point I feel that the lenses are holding me back a lot more than my bodies, besides if I were to upgrade to a D800 now i would be left with the use of 1 lens :thumbsdown: Please bear with me as i feel this may turn into an essay! My current line up is as follows:

D7000
D200
Nikon 18-105
Tamron 17-50
Nikon 35 1.8G
Nikon 50 1.8D

Although i am currently shooting DX i am looking to upgrade to FX in the hopefully not too distant future (lets say for arguments sake, within 12 months from now.) Primarily, I'm shooting family and children studio and location sessions but I also have a fair bit of model/fashion shoots arranged (both in studio and on location and is something that i would love to be doing more of) along with some events too thrown in for good measure, although this isn't a main concern for me at this point.

I've been lusting over a nice Nikon 24-70mm which i feel would probably cover all my bases quite nicely. However, in the back of my mind i can't help but feel that i would be best off with using a variety of primes for the studio/modeling stuff then just stick with the 18-105 for events (i'm not a particularly "wide" shooter normally, the 18-35mm section of my 18-105 rarely gets used)

Here are my proposals, what do you think?

1. Sell the Tamron 17-50 and buy the Nikon 24-70 and use that for most of my shoots.

Pro's: Excellent Pro grade lens, versatile for children shoots where framing needs to change quickly, will provide a zoom for when i upgrade to FX, "better" quality
Con's: Expensive, not as long as the 85mm as i tend to shoot at the longer end, "only" 2.8 instead of 1.8 minimum.

2. Stick with the lenses I have but add an 85mm 1.8G to the list of primes and use those for the studio and modelling stuff, and perhaps upgrade the 50mm D up to a G version, either 1.8 or 1.4. Stick with the 18-105 for events.

Pro's: Cheaper option, better range for my current needs, would leave plenty of money over for the upgrade to FX and inevitable lusting after a 135 DC, leaves money left over for more light modifiers etc at this point in time.
Con's: Perhaps not as good a quality (opinions would be nice), not as convenient as zoom for family/children shots

3. Throw caution to the wind, save for a while longer and buy the 24-70mm and 85mm have have the best of both worlds for the moment.

Pro's: I get everything i want for the moment, would set me up nicely when i eventually upgrade
Con's: Delays the upgrade to FX and that lovely 135 DC

What it all boils down to is me wanting to have the best quality pictures i can manage, whilst maintaining the ability to shoot a variety of things.

If anybody is still reading then I applaud you and would really appreciate some feedback And oh look, it turned into an essay just like i promised it would

 

[cambsno]

I have a 24-70 and its a brilliant lens. Versitile and not far short of a prime IQ wise. That said the primes do help a lot as they go further than 2.8. Have a feeling it would not be long enough for you though.

Why not sell the 18-105 and the 35mm for say £200, thats what a 1.8 85mm D will cost, then get a 24-70 and sell the 17-50?

 

[andy1868]

hmmmmmmmm not a bad idea, i would perhaps save abit longer and try to keep hold of the 35 though, not only is it a fantastic little lens but i think my other half would be wearing my guts for garters as it was a present from her

i'll go and check prices on second hand 85mm D's and see if that will sway me more towards that, although i'm even more torn now there's one thing to be thankful of though, at least if i carry on deliberating i'll have saved more money to pay for everything i want

 

[LongLensPhotography]

For portraits I like primes. 85mm should be on your list - it's a real steal. You will sooner or later want a 24-70mm too.

 

[Moreorless]

One possibility could be to change your Tamron 17-50mm for a Tamron 28-75mm, the latter might have some issues at the boarders on a D800 but most of what I'v heard is that it holds up well on a crop and seems like it would give you more of the range you typically use for events.

 

[andy1868]

For portraits I like primes. 85mm should be on your list - it's a real steal. You will sooner or later want a 24-70mm too.

You understand completely, whether i buy an 85mm or not, i'm still going to want a 24-70 :bonk:

Moreorless, although the Tamron is a tempting option (and at that price, it IS tempting) i'm not sure if its going to be a side-step quality wise from the 17-50. The reason i was looking for the Nikon is the simple fact that i want the best quality i can afford, i can afford the Nikon so i think i should go for it and not be left wondering "what if?" The chances are if i bought the Tamron, i would still be lusting after the Nikon, especially after an upgrade to FX.

I've slept on it again since this post and i'm leaning towards an 85mm for now. Then either sell the Tamron and buy the Nikon 24-70 in the near future, or skip the 24-70 and spunk the money on a 135DC instead and shoot all primes i'm so confused :bonk:

 

[orangeframestudio]

You said in your post you rarely shoot 18-35, so if you did buy a 24-70 you would only be using the 55-70 range on ff.
I find I'm using my 70-200 as much as my 24-70 If not more since going ff.
So getting that 85mm before the inevitable 24-70 purchase may suit you better.

 

[specialman]

I'd have said go for a 17-55mm Nikon if you want best quality (buy used, you'll get your money back) but seeing as you highlight that you don't use much of the wide end of your current DX lenses, then a 24-70mm or a 24-120mm f/4 would suit and at the end of the day, if/when you do make a move to FX then there's no changing of lens. Plus, you get a bit more reach.

Are you looking at the 85mm f/1.8 solely for studio use or as an outdoorsy lens (or both)?

Personally, if you're looking to create a versatile portrait/event line-up then I'd be looking at the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR before anything else....

 

[andy1868]

just when i thought i was getting somewhere too you two go and throw 2 more lenses into the mix

Ben, the use of 55-70 is something that's playing on my mind. I don't want to spend £1200 for it not to suit my needs. I think it would work perfectly for me now, but it may not necessarily once i upgrade, i may need a 70-200 to cover everything i want. As Pat has said the 24-120 might be better for me, but it isn't something i've ever taken much notice of so i think some reading up is on the cards. Does anyone have any hands on experience of the two?

the 85mm would be for studio and outdoorsy/location stuff Pat if that makes any difference, i believe the G to be better on chromic abberation than the D which was one thing that was drawing me to the G.

A versatile portrait line-up is what i'm after, the events thing isn't something that i'm concentrating on particularly at the moment but there's definitely scope there to be a main feature in the future which is another positive for the 24-70 :/

i'm abit loathed to be buying a 70-200 while i'm still on DX for the simple reason is that the studio isn't that long, and i'm shooting alot of family stuff. I agree it would be excellent for children/baby shots but i'm not sure it's right for me just now. Once i've made the jump to FX it might be alot more viable.

 

[specialman]

Andy - I owned the 85mm AF and AF-D and both were truly outstanding optics in the sharpness stakes, and for screw-driven lenses, they focussed pretty quick but were let down by colour fringing wide open. In situations where the lighting wasn't all over the shop (i.e. lots of contrast and direct light) the fringing was never an issue, but outdoors with things like foliage and grey, lifeless skies, the fringing did show up. Easily fixed most times in software but still something to consider. Can't vouch for the G version though, although I can imagine the AF speed is improved with the built-in motor...

RE: 70-200mm.... agreed, if you are tight on space then you wouldn't get full value out of the focal length. But for outdoor portraiture, especially with moving subjects (kids etc) then the versatility of a zoom would probably be much more beneficial than a prime lens. I use my VR1 on DX and it's truly superb and to be fair, I do am lot of head & shoulders shooting on it but for upper torsos you really need four or five metres of working space between you and the subject (when shooting between 70-100mm), plus room for the background. The same roughly applies to the 85mm of course on DX... I generally end up shooting either on a 35mm f/1.8 or using the long end of my 17-55mm. Of course, accepting the distortion associated with those wider lenses is required...

Anyway, the rub is that the 70-200mm is a lot more money than a prime 85mm....

Slightly OT, can I ask why the prospective change to FX in the near future?

 

[andy1868]

For me, full frame means increased quality by the way of increased detail (especially in the case of a D800) improved dynamic range, better at high ISO, more control over depth of field. I also prefer the feel of the D200 in the bigger body, I know I could get a D300 but I'm not sure that would give me anything more than my D7000 other than a bigger body.

I know it may not be that much, it's not something that I want right now, who knows I may upgrade lenses and be perfectly happy with my current bodies. It's not a definite thing in any way, just something that I was looking towards. When it boils down to it I'm sure a lot of it is gear acquisition syndrome

 

[GHP]

I shoot mostly portraits, so I went with 85mm f1.4, 105, and 135 DC. I was going to buy the 24-70, but after spending out on those 3, I couldn't really afford it. So I went with a 35-70mm f2.8 as a "stop-gap" until I could get the 24-70.
The 35-70 is an old, solid, metal, pro lens which is very very sharp, a lot lighter than the 24-70, and best of all can be picked up for a fraction of the cost.
It would satisfy your 55-70mm desires maybe.
Just another one for the mix!