Nikon heads, would you.....

Digifrog

Digifrog

Messages
1,069
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Fellow Nikonians, would you sell your beloved 24-70 f/2.8 and buy the 35mm f/1.8G & 85mm f/1.8G? Bearing in mind you already own the 50 mm f/1.4G. Or do you think it's essential to have a good mid range zoom? I am toying with the idea of losing the 24-70 and buying these two primes. I am also toying with the idea of selling the 16-35 f/4 and buying the new 20mm f/1.8G with the proceeds.
 
I wouldn't as I like to have the 24-70mm available. However I have a 50mm 1.8 and want an 85mm 1.8 too.

You seem to favour the primes just from reading your post.

Why not have a look in LR and see how many of your favourite shots were taken on which lenses or at which focal lengths?
 
Depends what you shoot. I had a Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 and sold it as I never used it. I find I use the 16-35 and 70-200 the majority of the time as I shoot landscapes and wildlife. I also have the 50mm f/1.4 as a 'filler' focal length, but very rarely use that!
 
Is any lens really essential?
Nice to have, handy, useful, but essential?
 
Personally, I like the convenience of zooms and since I'm not a fan of super shallow DoF, wide apertures are less of an attraction to me too, hence my choice of the 24-120 f/4 over the 24-70 f/2.8. I used to use nothing but primes but back in the late '70s, good zooms were few and far between so I didn't have any since they were also not cheap! Rarely changed lenses on the fly as it were, mainly because I was an M42 user and lens changing was a bit fiddly and slow.
 
DBT85 said:
I wouldn't as I like to have the 24-70mm available. However I have a 50mm 1.8 and want an 85mm 1.8 too.

You seem to favour the primes just from reading your post.

Why not have a look in LR and see how many of your favourite shots were taken on which lenses or at which focal lengths?
Click to expand...

I don't favour either per se. It's a weight thing. I mainly shoot landscapes and I'm finding I am going out more often NOT taking the 24-70 + 16-35 because of weight. I am beginning to prefer travelling light, hence primes. My favourite shots unfortunately have nothing to do with the focal lengths they are taken at, but I guess I sway more towards the wide end generally.

Ed Sutton said:
Certainly not.

I'd get the 28/1.8 instead of the 35. :)
Click to expand...

I had considered that. But presently my 16-35 covers the 28. I don't like using the 16-35 at the top end.

kendo1 said:
Is any lens really essential?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Nod said:
Personally, I like the convenience of zooms and since I'm not a fan of super shallow DoF, wide apertures are less of an attraction to me too, hence my choice of the 24-120 f/4 over the 24-70 f/2.8. I used to use nothing but primes but back in the late '70s, good zooms were few and far between so I didn't have any since they were also not cheap! Rarely changed lenses on the fly as it were, mainly because I was an M42 user and lens changing was a bit fiddly and slow.
Click to expand...

Yes, changing lenses more often may be a bit laborious. Zooms are convenient.
 
Digifrog said:
Fellow Nikonians, would you sell your beloved 24-70 f/2.8 and buy the 35mm f/1.8G & 85mm f/1.8G? Bearing in mind you already own the 50 mm f/1.4G. Or do you think it's essential to have a good mid range zoom? I am toying with the idea of losing the 24-70 and buying these two primes. I am also toying with the idea of selling the 16-35 f/4 and buying the new 20mm f/1.8G with the proceeds.
Click to expand...


I did precisely that last year. Sold my 24-70 2.8 and bought the Sigma 35 1.4, and Nikon 85mm 1.8G. I've been happier with those, I rarely feel I need wider than 35 on FX, but might give something like the new 20mm a go at some point.
 
Cagey75 said:
I did precisely that last year. Sold my 24-70 2.8 and bought the Sigma 35 1.4, and Nikon 85mm 1.8G. I've been happier with those, I rarely feel I need wider than 35 on FX, but might give something like the new 20mm a go at some point.
Click to expand...

I did the same plus I bought a 50mm 1.8 Nikkor. I persevered for a while but felt that the 24-70mm was brute of a lens to handle.
 
I have never got on with zooms as they are quite heavy which takes a lot of the fun out of photography. 35mm is a handy focal length but the 1.8g seems a bit basic although image quality is good - not keen on the way they have completely removed the distance scale which is OK if you only use AF but I generally prefer MF.
 
So I take it your life depends on it then... :)


Both options, prime or zoom, are good. With primes it's easy enough, normally, to move your position. The wider aperture is useful but not essential
I just use what I have at the time.
 
The whole 'use what you have' or 'best camera is one you have on you' thing annoys me a bit. There's no harm in wanting to try something else. I had all zooms at one point, now I have only primes. Either will work, of course! that's not the point though. Otherwise we'd all stick to the kit lenses, because ... they do the job ... :/
 
boliston said:
35mm is a handy focal length but the 1.8g seems a bit basic although image quality is good - not keen on the way they have completely removed the distance scale which is OK if you only use AF but I generally prefer MF.
Click to expand...

That's the DX 35mm - the FX one has a distance scale and is a really impressive lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top