Lens juggling, kit realignment (Nikon)

Me²

Me²

Messages
863
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
First off my primary interest lies with Landscape Photography which above all else I don't want to lose sight of. Recently however I have moved to trying a spot of Wedding Photography, I've enjoyed that and have decided to pursue that interest as well and have now got a few future bookings in the bag which I'm looking forward to. I'm looking at adjusting what I've got in my lens bag so it suits my needs with a good end result in terms of what I have in my wallet afterwards in mind, as right now, there is absolutely nothing.

What I've got in the bag: D700 & D800 both gripped.
Zooms: 16-35 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 (II)
Primes: 20 f/2.8D, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G

A point worth mentioning is that I've found that the 16-35 vignettes ever so slightly with my Lee filters when a 105mm CPL is attached to the front, for this reason my starting point when I've got a CPL on there too is 17mm or 18mm, which gives rise to a question.

1) I'm weighing up selling the 16-35 and the 20 and replacing them both with the older 17-35 f/2.8, which in my mind will cover me for both Landscape and low light Wedding situations. Normally the 20 would be my indoor ultra-wide solution and the 16-35 stays at home.

2) I love the 50, but I just haven't bonded with the 85 and the recent addition of the 70-200 makes me think that will be used even less now, so I'm thinking of parting company with that too.

Shipping out the 16-35, the 20 and the 85 and shipping in a 17-35 should hopefully see me just as well catered for and a wallet somewhere in the region of £600-£700 better off.

Other things to consider, I'm young and don't mind lugging weightier lenses and if the wallet was to stay empty, it wouldn't be a disaster. Being a bit of gear head generally means I'm used to it.

So, I want to throw this scenario up to the wider experience pool of the board and ask simply, what would you do?
 
The 35 f/1.4? I'd love it, but that option doesn't make my wallet happy!
 
The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is the 35 to go for if you want that. I'd keep a 16-35 over a 17-35, the only lenses I'd get rid of it for are the 14-24 (downside filters are expensive) and the Zeiss 21 (downside prime and manual focus). Your kit list is very good, not much if anything needs changed. Maybe get rid of the 50 and 85 for a 50 1.4G if you were being picky.
 
Yeah, I'd take the 16-35 over the 17-35 any day (well I did, I have a 16-35).

Sure it loses a stop in speed but it has (supposedly) 4 stops in VR so that more than compensates.
 
Interesting ... I have the 17-35 and know it to be a good lens that should do the job for you if you can find a good example at the right price.

How satisfied are you with the 16-35 for your purposes? If you're using it for landscape on a tripod I don't suppose that you're too worried about VR, but for weddings?

I love my old AF 85mm f/1.4 as a quality portrait and general purpose lens. It's less intimidating for the subjects and easier to handle than the 70-200, so I'm a bit surprised that you haven't gelled with your f/1.8 version.

Can you buy the 17-35 and try it before you sell on the others? I suspect not, so you'd have to commit and sell them before can be sure that you won't regret making the change. If I was nearer to Manchester you could borrow mine for a while. Do you know anyone with a 17-35 so you can see what it's like?
 
IMO, I'd unload the 16-35 and the 20. 24 is plenty wide for pretty much anything wedding related. I'd probably keep the 50 and the 85 for the occasion where you need the stop of light... VR isn't going to be much help for weddings because it doesn't do a thing for subject motion.

If you don't have a couple flashes/stands etc then that's where I'd spend the money.

Of course, this does eliminate the UWA for landscapes, but I don't personally use them for that anyways.
 
The thing with the 17-35 is its a fairly old design and has quite a different look compared with the 24-70/70-200, I had one a short time and didn't really like the way if rendered compared to the more modern designs, less bite and contrast and the colours were just not as good. I'd stick with the 16-35 if I were you.
 
It's a good point that you don't really need a UWA for weddings and given the primes you have you could just sell the 16-35 and have £700 in your pocket.
 
Nawty said:
It's a good point that you don't really need a UWA for weddings and given the primes you have you could just sell the 16-35 and have £700 in your pocket.
Click to expand...

But the OP said ...

Me²;5632711 said:
First off my primary interest lies with Landscape Photography ...
Click to expand...
 
I went all primes with the D800 and use the Zeiss 21mm for landscape and for ultra wide I have the Samyang 14mm which is relatively cheap (£250 used), but a great little performer when you correct distortion in Lightroom. If you sold the 16-35 and the 85 you could get the 14-24 and have the Nikon trinity of f/2.8s.
 
Laudrup said:
The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is the 35 to go for if you want that. I'd keep a 16-35 over a 17-35, the only lenses I'd get rid of it for are the 14-24 (downside filters are expensive) and the Zeiss 21 (downside prime and manual focus). Your kit list is very good, not much if anything needs changed. Maybe get rid of the 50 and 85 for a 50 1.4G if you were being picky.
Click to expand...

I am known here as "anti-Sigma" and to be fair I will be getting one of these. Over Canon L in my case.
 
I've got the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G and was considering ditching it for a Sigma. The new Art line looks to be shaking things up for Sigma.
 
Laudrup said:
I went all primes with the D800 and use the Zeiss 21mm for landscape and for ultra wide I have the Samyang 14mm which is relatively cheap (£250 used), but a great little performer when you correct distortion in Lightroom. If you sold the 16-35 and the 85 you could get the 14-24 and have the Nikon trinity of f/2.8s.
Click to expand...

Now there is something very tempting about that, but I'm going to have to price up a fancy filter holder for that to work out.

I've no experience of the 14-24 myself, nor do I know anyone personally with it. I did meet someone once who shot Canon and had one he used with an adapter, but I never saw the lens in the flesh with my own eyes. Everything I've read though basically boils down to the fact that it is a wondrous piece of kit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top