1 Zoom into four primes

aquarian_light

I have a 24-120/4 VRII
I also have the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8
Considering selling the 24-120 and getting a 24/2.8D and the new marvelously reviewed Sigma 150/2.8 Macro. Thoughts? I'm leaving room in my line up for one of the DC lenses... 105/2 or 135/2 and the 'prickly sharp' Sigma 35/1.8 down the road. I do mostly portrait work and and a few events/concerts what not... the 150 would negate my need for a 70-200/2.8. On my D800 I'll just crop it in if I need closer, and the compression difference for portraits between 150mm and 200mm isn't that significant either. I'll just get the 300/4 eventually for the higher compression. That and I can get both these lenses (24/2.8D & 150/2.8Macro)for around $1,100 all together. Get $900 ish for my 24-120 and thats only $200 for a lens upgrade.
I did consider the old nikon 180/2.8 but decided on the sigma 150 because of the OS and the Macro. Are there any lens options I'm overlooking? I spent a fair amount of time looking at the old wide angle AF-D lenses and the 24/2.8 seems to be one of the better ones for a decent price.
Tamron does have a 180/3.5.... but thats only a 3.5, not much of an upgrade from my f/4. The sigma 180/2.8 is huge, heavy and expensive.
I don't really care how fast the wide angles focus, I'll be leaving it in manual and hyperfocusing the whole time for landscape and wide-angle environmental full body portraits anyway. (need a lens between 18mm and 24mm. leaving room for a 35 before the 50. wider than 18mm on FF is just too wide for anything I do on a consistent basis)
The tele however will be a bit more demanding. Need a 150-200 range lens. Doesn't need to be able to do sports, just be confident enough enough in its focus lock to keep up with singers and guitarists dancing around on a dim stage (which is why the tamron/3.5 was out of the question, not enough light to the focus sensors. Reports say it focuses quite slowly)
Any lenses I've missed?
An options I've over looked? In my line of work I don't need the convenience of a zoom, I need the precision, light weight, and clarity of a prime.

Gareth

I'm not sure having a 150 would negate your need for a 70-200. When you need zoom you need zoom. It's not about convenience, it's about getting the shot. I seldom use my 70-200, it's the least favourite of my lenses, but there are times when I need it.

aquarian_light

I do portrait work however, and 998 times out of 1000 have the time to switch lenses. I bought the lens before I really had a niche in portraiture and bought the 24-120 for the exact reason you mentioned, its a 24-70 with a longer tele and a smaller f-stop (which isnt a problem since I'm comfortable pushing my D800 to 6400 even up to an 11x14) but now that I have that niche, I find myself either using the primes I do have or leaving the zoom in one of 4 places for the entire shoot; 24, 50, 85, or 120, and sometimes I wish the 120 end was longer.
But that's all besides the point, I've made that decision, I'm just hoping for first hand experience with some of the lenses that I mentioned or some suggestions on lenses I may have missed.
The two lenses I mentioned are sparsely reviewed, but whats there is good. local shop doesnt have them so I'd have to order them, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

JJ_SO

Nikon's 200/2 is too expensive and heavy for your purposes? Just asking.

I see myself in a similar situation. I often leave the zooms at home except the 14-24. But in mid-range I've only the 24-85. And if the shot is not blurred by movement, I can crop out of the Sigma 35 a lot and still not changing lenses. Once I should do a comparison between cropped Sigma and zoom. Can't say anything to 24D , only asking, is it wide enough for your purposes?

aquarian_light

oooooh yeah, nikon 200/2 is WELL out of my budget lol
24mm is definitely wide enough. seems just about right for capturing the subject's surroundings while not loosing the subject as the subject. wider than 20-ish the subject gets to small or too distorted when I get close enough, and 28 is too close to 35 to warrant having.

heartyfisher

I have the old 150 macro.. its my fav lens.. i use it mainly for macro(70%) , portrait/stage (10%) street(20%) and general Tele. The new one has OS ! was thinking of upgrading but the OS does not give me much advantage unless I do more low light street or portrait. which I would like to do ( so I was thinking of getting the 70-200 F4 or F2.8 which should up the portrait & Street %. )

I find the 150 Focal length nice.

24mm is the most popular Focal length for a reason. The 24D F2.8 ?? I don't think its got great reviews it may even be a step back from your 24-120. Maybe you should consider the 16-35 F4? or just keep that 24-120. or get the 24-85 kit.. F3.5 is not that much worse than F2.8. and a bit better than F4.
One option may be just to get the 35F1.4 and the 150. save up for the 24 1.4 ! I guess 24mmD may be a stop gap lens to replace the 24-120 till you can cover it properly :-)..

300mm sounds like a great plan for you.

GL with your choices..

safyre

I shoot quite a bit of portraits as well. I have a DX camera, and the primes I most frequently use are the 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4. If I were to get two more primes, I'd probably get the 24mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.8. If I were shooting FX, I'd probably go for a 135 f/2 also. Sounds like you've got a good idea on what you need.

JJ_SO

The TO already has a 85/1.8. Could we all, me included, use a bit more care while reading not only the last few posts but the first one, too?

he also has FX and wants a lens between 150 and 200 mm which excludes 135. In that range I know Zeiss has to offer the usual fantastic, but pricey and AF-less Sonnars. @aquarian_light already has the Sigma 150mm in his focus. I don't know of anything better, given price and performance.

aquarian_light

Thanks @JJ_SO
two things - awesome 'focus' pun
-I've landed on keeping the 24-120 for now and supplementing it with the 150mm, I'll have to save up a little longer tho.
Eventually I do plan on upgrading the zoom to a couple of primes... maybe when I can get myself the nikon 24/1.4 and the 35/1.4
Have myself a nice kit eventually. 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2, 150/2.8, 300/4 and maybe even throw in a 16mm fish eye for good luck. But that's several thousands of dollars down the road. The rental store guys have already gotten to know me on a first name basis. I might get invited to a BBQ or two of theirs by the time I'm done renting. I'll just have to live with the slow zoom for now. I've got a concert I'm going to be shooting tonight, getting tired of being stuck with 50mm and 85mm after dark.

TaoTeJared

It is always interesting to read what others shoot especially when the subjects are similar to your own. I have been going non-stop for a couple of months now and my subjects/work have migrated to opposite ends of the spectrum from last year and even within the last 6 months. From my experience, I think keeping the 24-120 is a smart decision.

Mid-range zoom
One thing I have learned is that having a zoom within the 24-70/120 range (FX) is a necessity unless you only shoot in a controlled environment. I enjoy and want to shoot mostly primes but situations arise (time constraints, environment, subject, etc.) that swapping primes becomes so inconvenient that it can affect the energy of the subject or lose opportunities for good shots. That doesn't mean you need the latest or greatest zoom though. Just something in that range and even the VR 24-85 could be just fine. What I also found in the last few months, is that most of my photos are at f4-5.6 with the zooms - solely due to the needed DOF. (note: when I'm shooting with the zoom, it is with flashes or never need to go above 1600 iso, so high ISO is not a concern.)

I use an old Tokina 28-70 f2.6 that I love for portraits (low contrast but high micro contrast-think of it as skin is smooth but eyes/hair are sharp). I also have the old 24-120 vr1 and the older 24-85ED AFS for that range. I use both of those for test location shots or pre venue scouting and family stuff. Neither were the best lenses (slight understatement) and they are two of the few lenses that actually looked worse after I got my D800. My Tokina went on the fritz and was without it for 6 weeks and I was stuck with the old lenses. Using the 24-120 I realized I really prefer the 24-120 range as the extra 50mm of zoom really gave me more opportunities for some great shots where changing lenses was unrealistic, and I was unable to use my feet to get closer. Also remember zooming you can get better bokeh.

150 macro
I haven't used the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro but I do use my 105vr quite a bit. The only thing I would be concerned about is the focus speed and locking accurately on a subject that is not at macro length - all macros are sharp. The 105vr is very fast, accurate, and rarely hunts. If that is there, then I would say it is a good option. As for replacing a 70-200, I would say no to that one with what I encounter. Aside from the macro ability, as a portrait studio only lens, it could, but for conditions where it is less controlled...well it is the same reasons why I say there is a need for 24-70/120is lens. The zoom range one could easily get by with the 70-200 f/4 though and still keep the bokeh.
Just a note on DOF (FX): 150mm & 8ft from subject gives: 2.8 dof of 1.66" vs f4 of 2.34" vs 5.6 is 3.3". Typically the tip of your nose to eye is 3" and back of ears to tip of nose is about 4.5" head on and side profile is generally about 5". Depending on the type of work, having part of the head OOF may not be good. Having groups of people where you need 3-4 feet of DOF, lower apertures are hazardous.

24mm
I used a 24mm f2.8 for years and loved it for DX (35mm equiv). As a good walk around lens, I love it. It was much better than the 28mm AFD for sure. It died before I got my D800 so I'm not sure how it would fair on it. I think it would be fair to say cropping more than 50% would pull out it's shortcomings - not intending to say it is bad or not a good option though. Sigma makes a 24mm 1.8 macro (1:2.7 or something like that) that I have always kept an eye on ebay for a cheap one. I have the Tokina 16-28 as well, and looking back on images, the 24mm setting on the Tokina is much better - but of course it is much larger as well. For walk around, not needing 400% zoom sharpness, I think it is a great little lens that I wish Nikon would update. VR please

fisheye
I use a Sigma 15mm fisheye that is a great niche lens, especially for young children and anything you want to exaggerate features with. You can usually find them used for very cheap (sub $500 even to $250 if you are lucky.) I have had mine for years but keep running across may celeb pros who have it as well. That has just given me some self-reassurance that keeping a lens that I only use a dozen times a year, is a good thing.

aquarian_light

Well thought out Tao
Mid Zoom
I can agree to a point, my walk around is my 50mm. end of story. I've never found a situation where I wanted a longer FL or a shorter one on any of my photo walks around town. need wider I stitch a pano, need longer I crop. unless of course I want compression differences, but I'm 999 out of 1000 perfectly happy with the compression 50mm gives me.

150 macro
I almost never need to worry about quick focus. if it's slow, as long as it doesn't hunt. At concerts like the one I did tonight, I just find the framing I want, sit there with focus and exposure locked and wait for the musician to move/give me the expression I'm looking for. No need for anything lightning fast. Just no hunting lol so in that essence, It could replace my need for a 70-200, because with the 150, I wouldnt need that 70-200 lens or it's snappy focus or zoom convenience. I'm either setting up my shot and waiting, or I am walking around with my 50, or I am working with a model who for sure has the time to let me switch primes lol

TaoTeJared

I'm with you on the 50mm - I probably use that lens the most. I could almost justify getting the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 if it were AF. For that price though I could get a Canon 5d MkIII and a 50mm f1.2 and probably be better off. That is an amazing low light camera. I wish Nikon would come out with a high end 1.2 AF - make it $2k I could care less - as long as it had AF I would buy it.

The only models I work with get paid with candy so their attention span goes from questionable to sugar high bouncing off the walls to nap time in a blink of an eye. If/when I did work with more cooperative subjects I would use primes but sometimes you are stuck with what you got.

It's interesting to hear how you shoot concerts. Makes me wonder if I would shoot them different now with the D800 as last I shot for them I had a D300/D700 and cropping was less of an option. I did shoot with my 105vr a few times but just swapped over to the 70-200 as it gave me more opportunities and the venues I worked for gave me only small areas to work from. The Focus locking/speed/accuracy is key though. That is what usually keeps me from many 3rd party lenses. If that is not there, then I just keep searching.

heartyfisher

@TaoTeJared "It is always interesting to read what others shoot especially when the subjects are similar to your own." So true.. Thanks guys! I am almost about to pull the trigger on a 70-200 F4 to replace my Sigma 150. It will also probably replace(with the help of my TC14) my old Tamron 200-400 F5.6. (just doesn't get used cos it too big !)
Re the 50mm .. I cant say i like that FOV its not wide enough or long enough for me :-)
Ok .. off to take some pictures with my 12-24 .. catch yous laterz !

TaoTeJared

Re the 50mm .. I cant say i like that FOV its not wide enough or long enough for me :-)

lol - always needing wider or longer...my dream lens would be a 35-85 F/1.4 and the size of the 85 1.4.

tcole1983

If you want to move more strictly to portraits and think you won't need a zoom it could be done. Seems like you have a decent range covered, but if you ever shoot more then one out of ten times not in a controlled portrait session I think a zoom is a must.

I dumped my 18-200 for the 300 f4 and 17-55 F2.8. As much as I love my 300 F4 I still have my 17-55 on my camera almost always. I also love my 105 F2.8, but still it is constraining. I don't mind switching lenses either and I will if the situation arises, but you don't have to shoot portraits with a prime. I have seen plenty of msmoto's pictures with the 24-120. And I routinely use my 17-55. So I guess if you feel like there is something to gain without the zoom...otherwise I vote to keep it and collect a prime or two more when you get the chance. I like my mix of primes and zooms. They all have a purpose, but I would hate to not have a zoom.