Which lens would you pick in my situation?

Charmdesign

Let's say you could only pick one lens to shoot with for a long while. Which would you go with? I'm just wondering what lens I might get to go with my next camera when I upgrade to FX. I have a old manual focus prime, 50mm 1.4g that I like but I wonder if I am only going to get one lens for awhile if I shouldn't get a fast zoom? I guess budget matters. I probably could afford the 50 before a nice fast zoom.

WestEndBoy

What subjects do you like to shoot? Subjects dictate lenses dictate cameras.

Charmdesign

Natural light babies and family, and also landscape and nature, and I would like to do some macro stuff in nature. I am all over the map haha. Practically speaking, immediate needs: shooting my daughter, turning one in two weeks. Would like something that works well in low light and creates nice bokeh. I pixel peep so something fast nice and sharp. A fixed aperture zoom might be good for a toddler, also later to sneak up on her/ not get in her face. Or maybe the nifty 50. In the summer I hit the trails and shoot flora and some landscapes. I just enjoyed doing a newborn session and want to do more of those and possibly get into some natural light family portraits. I only recently started using Flickr to share here. Although I haven't had a chance to add much to it since when I created it years ago, it represents what I have enjoyed. http://www.flickr.com/photos/howdelighted/

TaoTeJared

There is generally a large gap between "what you want to shoot" & what you actually do. Personally I love 50mm and like the 35mm focal length. I always have a need for a 24 & 85/90 at times as well. Then there is that time I want to shoot a tree across a field where 300mm is what is needed. Just one? Why?

I spent two weeks on vacation shooting almost every shot with a 24-120 f/4. I was rarely disappointed and I found many occasions where 70mm would have been way too short. Having just one prime could have worked, but not well. Actually more that I think about it, although I shoot 50mm almost every day, I barely had it on at all because it simply did not work for the situation. If I had a endless budget, on my trip I would have rather had the 28-300mm VR to cover everything. There is something to be said having one big super zoom. Lots of trade-offs though too.

There is always some form of the same academic discussion that all you need is just a X (24/35/50/85) prime, but I think it is just stupid and comes from people's lack of understanding history. Henry Cartier Benson is evoked all the time that all he used was a 50mm and that is pure BS. I have seen photos of him (not the staged ones) where he has usually 3 cameras and seen interviews where he stated he carried a 24, 35, 50 and a 90 or 135 if he needed the reach. Most of his great photos are with a 50mm though, but his work made him use more than just that. A good photographer envisions what they want, and then they execute and try to create that vision for others to see. Limiting one's self all the time is like giving a mechanic just a pair of pliers and that is it. Sure they can do many things, but the amount of things that it doesn't work for mounts by the second.

By reading your thought process and the other threads you have posted on, I hate to say it, but you will have more than one lens, in the next couple of years. Making smart buying decisions on lenses that you will use for a long time, or for a short time that keeps it's resale value, is what you should focus on.

If you really want a prime, really what you are suggesting for really sharp, good bokeh & macro, the 60mm macro fits that. Works as a good portrait lens on DX as well before you move up. I think it is a too often overlooked lens that does multiple duties very well. Wide to tele FX Zooms on DX are a pain and really don't work well. I always bought DX zooms used and sold them for almost the same price before I moved to FX.

BTW, Pixel peeping is not something to aspire to do or something anyone I have ever seen/heard suggests it is "a good thing" to be doing. It is a very bad habit.

Golf007sd

The short answer to your question: 24-70 2.8.

Long answer....well I will just echo TTJ. His response works for me

paulr

Hi Charmdesign If your moving to FX cameras and you just want to use one lens, I find that from over 10 professional lenses i own the Nikon 24-70 2,8 is the one that I use most. Again it depends on your subject matter, however apart from the lack of long reach this lens produces incredible results. You only have to look on Ebay and see that the deprecation factor on this lens is very low. So you could buy one, test it for a few months and if it does not suit your photography ,sell it. But I think you will find it's a keeper.

sevencrossing

For me the 24 -120 f 4 vr

but if you don't need VR or 120mm

the 24- 70 f 2.8 might be better

bear in mind people recommending the latter ( the Son) may also own the Father and the Holy Ghost

both the 24 -120 and 24- 70 are very popular lenses, there no hidden disadvantages
the differences are clearly given in the specification of each lens

if you don't need any thing wider than 70mm then go for new 70 - 400

A full time profession friend, who works for well know national newspaper, would recommend the NIKON AF-S 28-300 mm f / 3.5 - 5.6 on a D4 no, not the best glass in the world, but as he says, it gets the job done

Msmoto

My thoughts are 24-70/2.8.

adamz

I would say N24-120/4 vr, gives you a little bit more for macro.

ChasCS

+1 AF-S 24-120mm.
As it covers most of everything you desire, and then some...

You are looking for a new lens at a very good time...

WestEndBoy

If you are shooting your baby a lot then you shooting in low light. You need as fast as possible so you can shoot without a flash. If your MF 50 1.4 is servicable, then that will be your go to. I assume you sold your 50 that was "iffy".

Next would be the 24-70 2.8, still relatively fast (but 4 times slower than a 1.4) and flexible. If you buy an F4, you will be using flash a lot.

TaoTeJared

One lens that has worked well for DX and a move for FX is the 70-200vr. Love that lens. Doesn't fit the bill what you are asking for but if you are looking for future smart buying decisions, that is one.

70-200vr

24-120vr f4

henrik1963

Only one lens for FX? 24-70 2.8 no question.

But you will end up buying more :-) Next up is 70-200 2.8 VRII - like TAO the first pro lens I got when still shooting DX - but then I had the 16-85 DX

adamz

24-70/2.8 is not build enough to handle kids... it's way to fragile. 17-55/2.8 maybe.

Elvishefer

Super zoom for 'everything', although I wouldn't go that route again having tried it.

The holy trinity solves your focal length and quality problem for most photographic situations, but not on a budget where you're considering 50mms.

My personal all-rounder would be a 35mm prime, something light and good.

In the end, I think if you're serious about photography you'll wind up collecting a vast array of focal lengths - it just might take you a few decades to get there.

Gareth

I would probably go for the 35mm 1.8G (the new one) and maybe get the 85 1.8G. The 24-70 is too big to be youur only lens.

WestEndBoy

I would probably go for the 35mm 1.8G (the new one) and maybe get the 85 1.8G. The 24-70 is too big to be youur only lens.

I really like this recomendation. It would complement your 50 nicely. In fact is AF is important, buy the new 35, the 50 and the 85 all in 1.8 for the price of the 24-70 2.8 and you will have superior image quality and three times as fast. Just no zoom.

I make this recomendation as I am mindful of your previous posts and know how concerned you are about image quality.

tcole1983

For me with a 21 month old daughter. 17-55 f2.8 is what I carry the most. If I want to do more portrait stuff I use my 105 f2.8 but it is also a little versatile with it's macro capabilities. Between those two lenses I can shoot 90-95% of my shots. My other two lenses have uses but if I don't want to lug everything around.

tcole1983

I haven't looked recently but for about what I paid for my two lenses is probably equal to the 24-70. 17-55 used and 105 refurbished. Cost me around $1600.

Kyyo24

Another +1 for the 24-70 f2.8

adamz

totally agree with tcole1983 - the 105/2.8 macro is a great lens. one more solution, that I use on my young one is manual 50/1.2 - great bokeh.

Photobug

Another +1 for the 24-70mm F/2.8.

We have two grand kids 5 and 3 and my go to lens is the 17-55 F2.8 on my DX body. For full frame, I would go 24-70 2.8.

WestEndBoy

totally agree with tcole1983 - the 105/2.8 macro is a great lens. one more solution, that I use on my young one is manual 50/1.2 - great bokeh.

I love the 1.2. It is the sharpest Nikon 50 at F2 or greater. I like the bokeh a little better on the 1.4G though.

Charmdesign

Wow I really appreciate all the responses!

So I am going to put that 24-70 2.8 on my list...my rationale is that I like the aperture on it (love to shoot open), and it seems to be in the range of focal lengths I use most. (possibly a little short, I will have to think about this more as I wouldn't mind a little further reach...but still want to keep it fast...) )I have the manual version of that I will sort of play with in between now and when I save up for it. I think I'm going to have to start with the 50mm. I would've probably started with a zoom for versatility with a toddler, however its a little out of budget right now but my next purchase!!

jshickele I did return my copy to B&H as it was back focused and due to the holidays I didn't have time to mess with fine tuning. I think I'm going to order another copy and hope things work okay this time (fingers crossed). I'm still considering the 50 1.8 to save a little since but I don't think I will be happy without that 1.4 option.

The 60mm was mentioned. It looks up my alley. Also the 50 1.2. I probably will just use my manual 50 1.4 for instances like the newborn shot. (Or maybe I won't use my old one now that I am considering a new one?).

for vacations I like the idea of an all in one super large range zoom. I also like the idea of 100 macro! (Both later down the line).

I will pour over these responses tonight. These were my initial thoughts. I guess budget is dictating this one, but this thread was great because it gives me a game plan!! Now I need to research this holy trinity everyone keeps talking about.

adamz

Holy trinity: 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and if u want to be pope get 200-400/4

WestEndBoy

Now I need to research this holy trinity everyone keeps talking about.

My original plan was to get a D4 with the holy trinity. I thought, I will have myself covered for everything. I have the 14-24 2.8 and someday will buy the 70-200 2.8 along with one or two teleconverters. I just don't imagine that I will every buy a 24-70 2.8. With a 50mm, I can zoom with my feet.

As an example, someday I will have a "vacation" kit that will include a 17-35 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and a 70-200 2.8 plus tc. This way I have "less than 35" and "greater than 70" covered with zooms. For the 35-70 range that I am missing I either zoom with my feet or throw on the 50 or crop with the 35. I think I will find that using a 50 in the 35-70 range works really well. Plus I have a sharp low light option that the holy trinity does not provide.

I present this view because it is contrary to what is mostly being presented in the thread. Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 is popular and is suitable for most people, but they have a certain photography style. I am simply encouraging you to keep an open mind and to think carefully about what your own style is, not what everyone else's is. If it involves a 24-70, that is great.