Which lens would you pick in my situation?

Charmdesign

Funny you mention this. I was just looking back at some photos from the summer with my kit 18-105 lens. I tried to spot trends. In one instance, I noticed that I had "zoomed" with my feet in one photo, and in another, I has used a larger focal length. I liked the 50mm, with me closer than the longer focal length. I don't know why but I tend to keep gravitating towards that focal length. I also loved my 50mm back in the day of film. Part of what is complicating this is that I want to buy something to transition to FX. I also have it think about this....if I like 50 on a crop, does this mean I should get the 85mm!? I'm starting to feel guilty about all the trying I'm doing. I mean, I already returned a bad copy of a 50 thanks to B&H having a liberal return policy. When I went in to best buy, they took a d610 and d800 out of the box for me to handle. (!) I was flabbergasted but excited. The thought of returning stuff sort of makes me feel like I am abusing the system, heh.

I keep vacillating. It's like, I need to "try" before I commit. With their return policy it is almost like a cheaper rental even with shipping but it feels wrong so I am trying to think all this out. I liked the 50 outdoors for the most part. I liked it indoors too, but it was tight. Acceptably so I suppose. I sort of want to get the 1.8 50 to save money and also because of first bad experience but lord knows I probably will wonder about 1.4.

Ya know, my 18-105 was awesome all summer long. It was insanely sharp outdoors. It wasn't until the weather cooled down and I was forced indoors that my camera started to fail me. I've spent the entire season frustrated I couldn't achieve result like I did over the summer. I don't have all the focus modes mastered on my d7000 and yet I am heavily considering the plunge to the d800 so I can photograph indoors finally! I hope this isn't foolish. Maybe it is. To honest, I have awesome photos with my kit lens, outdoor portraits of my daughter and some nature. But I have only been shooting for about a year, this spring. Reading the forums you quickly get the idea that the d800 is a pro camera, it is heavy and you should invest in bettet glass first. I'd feel like an idiot for getting the d800 when I don't have my d7000 mastered, for ex. I have yet to try AF-C. (I didn't need it until now).

To paint the picture more, (and maybe lobby for a rec to go FX) I am not new to photography principals so I had a head start over your average "new" photographer. I took college classes over a decade ago. I also have a fine arts degree...graphic design so I have an "eye" and know design principals. As a web designer, I know a lot about pixels / tech concepts and I have a mastery of Photoshop. Learning LR, thus has been more streamlined. So this is all part of why I think in a years time I made it this far. Focus modes are what I have left to master....

This way my long winded way of saying, if you were me, knowing my frustrations not being able to shoot indoors in winter in the Midwest, low light, would you get a used FX body and 50mm 1.8 or would you just get one expensive zoom that is faster than what I have. Sorry to be long winded and I hope this doesn't convolute the lens discussion which has been great. I don't really want redundancy of two zooms similar in range, but I simply can't shoot my kit lens inside and it is driving me nuts. I am willing to spend the money on a used FX if that will solve my problem. Note that I don't want a DX specific lens and I am not crazy about 35mm as evidenced by analyzing my photos this year.

I am obsessing now. You guys have been tremendous. Thanks!

WestEndBoy

First, if you are shooting a 50 on a DX, that is like an 85 on an FX and I would consider that pretty tight for indoors or even the street. However, maybe your option is to get a used or refurbished D600 or D700 and then buy a 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. The 50 is a classic and will not be tight like your "35mm equivalent 85 - the 50 on your DX" is on your DX camera. The 85 is what you are used to.

The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is only a half stop. You will be hard pressed to tell the difference between 1.4 and 1.8. To see what I mean, go to the store and put a 1.4 on a FX camera. Turn the aperture priority on and select 1.8. When you look through the viewfinder, you are looking at the scene at 1.4. Then press the "Depth of Field Preview" button on and off while looking through the viewfinder. You will hardly be able to tell the difference. Select 2.8 (the holy trinity) and do the same thing. You will notice quite a difference. Put another way, shooting at ISO 2000 on a 1.4 will give a similar result as shooting at ISO 3000 on a 1.8. While not insignificant, if you are on a budget making hard choices, it is a reasonable compromise. Remember that simply going to FX from DX will give you at least a stop. Also, the bokeh/depth of field is very similar between a 1.4 and 1.8.

I am looking at a used "Nikon D600 DSLR Camera (Body Only)" in "9 Shows signs of use, but very clean" condition for $1,299.99. This is a very good option. In the new section, a 50mm 1.8G is $216.95. A 85mm 1.8G is $496.95. For $2,000 you have a very nice kit with a couple of key focal lengths and I am temped to recommend it. If you have a slightly higher budget, spring for the 50mm 1.4G that you sent back. If you have another $700-800, buy a brand new D610. Or you could buy the 85mm 1.4D (not G) which is a fabulous lens.

This is what I would personally do, but beware, my shooting style is a certain way which may not be yours. If you want to see my shooting style (as it relates to focal lengths), find me in the "Photo a Day: January 2014" section, click on a photo and follow the link to Flickr. Most of those photos were made with my 50 and 85 and you can view the EXIF data to see. If you don't like what you see, then I would discount my advice accordingly.

Back to the $2,000 all in option, you could experiment with that for a year or two. You will then have a better idea of what you need (actually want, few people need a camera). Keep in mind that the image quality with this option will be on par with a D800 using the holy trinity and perhaps a little better, except you only have two focal lengths to deal with.

Also beware my bias. I am a 50mm/85mm/prime fanboy (I am only voicing what some of the other members are thinking).

Good luck Charmdesign.

Charmdesign

Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. I completely agree with your ideas it sounds right up my alley and very reasonable! Thanks for 'getting me'. I will check out out on Flickr and I hope to beef my Flickr up soon so I can share more as I go on this journey!!

adamz

Please forget about the AF-S 50mm/1.4 from Nikon as it's a piece of crap - at least comparing to the 50mm/1.8. It's not as sharp, slower at focusing, heavier, bigger. If you want an auto focus 50mm with f1.4 there's only one on the market that will do the job, and that's the sigma. Unless you want to go a little bit more tele and than you have 58mm/1.4, though that's one is very expensive.

Being in your shoes, I wouldn't jump to FX right now. D800 is truly amazing camera, though it doesn't forgive. D600 may be good for you, though AF is slow and you have to watch for oil dusts - that can be frustrating. D700 - would be a perfect camera for you, though it's reasonably bigger comparing to d7000.

What I would do right now, is to get the 35/1.8 af-s from nikon - trully amazing lens. get the 50/1.8 and get 85/1.8. this will allow you to shoot at home. The 1.8 DOF on DX cameras is pretty similar to 2.8 on FX cameras. So you could shoot the lenses wide open and have a little bit of DOF.

As for the difference between 1.4 and 1.8. I wouldn't say it's marginal. If you need it, than the difference is visible... maybe not on camera screen, but who is comparing lenses and DOF over there??? IMHO, the main reason to go for 1.4 is subject isolation, but that's a different story.

henrik1963

If there is any chance of you upgradig to FX at some point I would not buy any DX lenses.

50 1.8 vs. 50 1.4 - for most people there is very little difference. I use a 50 1.8 on my D800 and it is a solid performer. And I think the same goes for 85 1.4 vs. 85 1.8. You pay a lot more for 1.4 lenses but you gain very little in real world shooting.

As for indoor shooting: You can go high iso + fast prime lens or you can use a flash :-) Indoor at night the high iso + fast prime strategy is pushing it on a D800. A good flash is much cheaper than buying a high ISO camera :-) As with guns - dont point the flash at people :-)

Go use what you have untill you can buy what you really want - dont buy second best - you will end up buying the best and thus waste money buying things twice :-)

All the best

WestEndBoy

I hear you on the 50mm 1.4G Adamz. It chokes me that Nikon does not make a professional grade 50mm. As you can see from my signature I like professional grade lenses but have settled for my two 50s. The new 58 has me thinking about this view. However, this is not that easy. If I was going to deviate from 50mm, I would ideally want something a little wider (say a 45) than 50, not something a little tighter (the 58). My compromise might be to buy the 58 and a 35. In fact, if Nikon came out with a new 35 that reestablished it's lead over Sigma, it might buy the 58, 35 AND a DF tomorrow. I would put the sharper of the two on my D800 ( probably the "new 35" in this scenario) and the other on the DF and carry them both at the same time for street photography. Now that would be fun!!!!

Charmdesign, how does this relate to you? While the 50mm 1.4G is not a professional grade lens, I think it is going to far to call it a piece of crap. We are talking about a $450 consumer grade lens, not a $2,000 professional grade lens and I actually think the lens is pretty good value. However, the important truth in Adamz's statement is his comparison of the 1.8 to the 1.4. I agree and that is a testament to how good the 1.8 is and how good the value is. So buy the 1.8 and have no regrets.

I also agree with Adamz's last paragraph. I have lots of 1.4 in my kit for the reasons he describes. However, you have a budget, unlike me, so you have to make compromises. 1.8 instead of 1.4 is an excellent compromise in my view.

WestEndBoy

If there is any chance of you upgradig to FX at some point I would not buy any DX lenses.

50 1.8 vs. 50 1.4 - for most people there is very little difference. I use a 50 1.8 on my D800 and it is a solid performer. And I think the same goes for 85 1.4 vs. 85 1.8. You pay a lot more for 1.4 lenses but you gain very little in real world shooting.

As for indoor shooting: You can go high iso + fast prime lens or you can use a flash :-) Indoor at night the high iso + fast prime strategy is pushing it on a D800. A good flash is much cheaper than buying a high ISO camera :-) As with guns - dont point the flash at people :-)

Go use what you have untill you can buy what you really want - dont buy second best - you will end up buying the best and thus waste money buying things twice :-)

All the best

To Henrik's last paragraph, I agree. I like to say "the poor pay twice." I suggest that you buy a used D600 and if buying used gives you pause, then stretch and buy a new D610. You should get at least 8 years out of either option if you take care of your kit and don't succumb to the temptation to upgrade.

Now if you really wanted to stretch and we fleshed things out a bit more, I predict that you might end up with a Df with the 50mm 1.8 kit. I lay awake at night fantasizing about shooting that with my 50mm 1.2 MF in M mode. But that is a whole other story and perhaps a whole new thread.

Elvishefer

The holy trinity favors photographers who don't have the luxury of time, or the ability to change lenses due to a hostile environment.

I got mine because I started down the path of working photographer, and then got sidetracked. In hindsight, primes might have been 'better'. That's a qualified statement because you have to be more picky than 99% of people to really see the difference in the final output in a straight up comparison. Award-winning photos are possible with both types of lenses.

Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying your lens choice should be tempered by your future photography plans and goals.

If it will remain a hobby for you forever, find your favorite focal length, get the best prime you can afford and go at it. Get the best body that fits your needs that you can afford, and don't get caught up in gear lust.

If it will be a job, buy as the job demands.

sevencrossing

In hindsight, primes might have been 'better'. .

yup

but the complete set of Nikon f1.4 primes, plus the 105 f2.8 macro, a 200mm f2 , the 600mm f 4 and may be a Nikon 6mm F/2.8 Fisheye; is going cost you

henrik1963

For specific work primes may be better. The 105 2.8 macro comes to mind. But for most all-round shooting including travel I don't see a benefit using primes. For traveling = walking a lot D800 + 24-70 2.8 takes care of most things. I can walk all day with that combo and be ready in a sec. Having a small bag with 2-3 primes to do the same work is a PIA as you have to change lenses a lot.

If I think I need it I add a AW 400 back with 14-24 2.8 + 70-200 2.8 + a carbon tripod + SB900 - I don't want to walk all day with that combo :-)

On the other hand if I want to go light D800 + 50 1.8G will have to do - more work as you have to move your feet :-)

Fast zooms winns in the end for me. Consumer zooms vs. 1.8 primes - the primes win :-)

As for 1.4 primes? They are way to expensive for what you get -You really have to have a need for 1.4. And you have to have a bag full of them to do the work of one 24-70 2.8.

YMMV but thats how I see it :-)

ChasCS

I have been studying the lens threads and am enjoying the many refreshing replies, right here as well.

I was intrigued by this lens, but have not heard many speak of it?
Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX VR II Zoom Lens

The blurb:
The AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm, the next generation of Nikon’s all-time best-selling premium high-ratio zoom, combines an 11.1X zoom range with VR II to provide DX-format enthusiasts with an extremely versatile zoom range in a compact form-factor. Nikon enhanced the construction of the lens to include a zoom lock switch, allowing photographers to secure the lens barrel at its minimum length, eliminating the natural gravitational effect that can draw the barrel downward during transport. VR II image stabilization helps to prevent blurry photos in a variety of lighting conditions, furthering versatility of the lens. Along with these features, Nikon’s exclusive Super Integrated Coatings reduce instances of ghosting or flaring. Whether shooting artistic landscapes or vacation snapshots, this lens provides fast and quiet AF operation with the help of Nikon’s SWM technology.

Designed to be a one-lens solution and weighing in at a mere 565 grams and only 96.5mm in length, this lens provides an extraordinary picture angle of 27-300mm (35mm equivalent) when mounted on any Nikon DX-format cameras. Additionally, the optical formula contains two ED glass elements and three aspherical lenses to minimize chromatic aberration and distortion. The resulting images exhibit extreme sharpness, extraordinarily vibrant colour, high fidelity and crisp contrast.

Sounds very reasonable priced too, at around $750.00

Nikon placed that "creep lock" on the new 80-400mm too, all though I haven't seen it move if unlocked, while in a vertically positioned stature.
Perhaps later in life. As these are quite stiff when new.

tcole1983

ChasCS the 18-200 is probably the most under rated lens that Nikon has. It really isn't as bad as what people make it seem. It isn't super great at anything, but for a single lens that does most everything it works. I used it lots and I liked it. I sold mine to fund other lenses later, but I still miss the convenience of it. I thought my copy to be fairly sharp, but some of the complaints have been it isn't sharp, also noted CA and distortion. The old saying for it is, it does good at lots but not great at anything. It really is a convenience lens that cover a large usable range. I loved mine when driving around for work. Pick up my camera and shoot anything from a landscape to animals and everything between. I never had the lens creep problem and I had the first version.

I actually don't know of anyone here that would recommend it...just because it seems to be lumped int he lackluster performance category.

bigeater

People who haven't been to the midwest probably can't appreciate how dim the interiors are here. i don't know if it's because builders install smaller windows than in other parts of the country, or the way people here love their curtains, or because of all the clouds, or because there are no mountains to bounce light laterally, but inside I'm lucky to use 1/40th and 2.8 at ISO 1600. And that's a good day. A lot of time I just crank it to 3200 or 6400 and let the noise fall where it may.
Given the light levels you're working in I would say skip the 2.8s and buy either the 28, 35, or 50mm 1.8, especially if you're shooting fast-moving toddlers. The 50mm 1.4 G is a great lens, but it is quite slow to focus. Or just buy a used SB600 and bounce it off of ceilings and walls at low power. Your photos will be much crisper. Babies get used to flash pretty quickly.

tcole1983

I still think most worry too much about gear sometimes. The best pro stuff is nice, but you can really do lots with any lens. At this point in time I don't think there is a single Nikon lens being made that is "bad". There are better and lesser lenses, but even the 18-200 that some seem to detest can take good pictures.

This was with a fuji S5200 P&S


This was my 18-200


105 F2.8


300 F4

Charmdesign

Thanks for sharing.

Yes! Super dim and the need to shoot at least at 250 for shutterspeed...the noise from ISO is killing me.

WestEndBoy

Thanks for sharing.

Yes! Super dim and the need to shoot at least at 250 for shutterspeed...the noise from ISO is killing me.

You must be trying to be super sharp or are using the long end of your zoom. You should be able to get pretty sharp photos at twice the focal length of an FX prime - have not really thought through how this works on a DX, probably 3 times would be equivalent. Some recommend that 1/50 is acceptable on a 50mm FX.

Ade

For kids… keep that shutter speed up! I've been doing a ton of kids / toddler photography for the past two months, they are constantly moving!

heartyfisher

I have the old creepy 18-200 .. IQ wise its tested the same as the creep-less version. but after using it for so long i tend to know what I can get away with..however, on my D7000 I have replaced it with the 18-140, sharper, better bokeh, much better CA, much better contrast and colours..

But, the 18-200 has got a new lease of life on my Nikon V1 ! its just about welded onto it now.. the Nikon1 sensor sits in the "sweet" spot .. and it gets real sweet! its a 48-540mm FOV !! goodness me!

Rx4Photo

Hi Charmdesign,
I'm a bit late to the thread but I'd like to say that you've gotten excellent guidance here. No doubt, a lot to consider with your next lens purchase. I'd like to add, and repeat what you've already been advised, and that is if you're planning to move to an FX camera then the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is probably your BEST lens to consider for now. This lens is amazing for what you like to shoot - from landscapes at small apertures, families at medium apertures, and babies at f/2.8. At f/2.8 the bokeh is decently smooth and not jittery as it could be at f/5.6. It focuses lightening fast as well. Keep in mind that your child at almost 1year old will only get faster and faster and you will kick yourself for missing photos if your lens doesn't focus as fast as you'd like.

Among other lenses, I have the Nikon 28-300mm super zoom and the speed of focus is just frustratingly slow for fast kids so I don't even use it for that. You'll miss shots. If you get a D800 or the next generation of it then fine-tune the 24-70mm (if necessary) and the image quality is phenomenal.

Hope this helps.
R.J.

Charmdesign

JShickele - I looked back in LR and made a collection of my favorite images. There were a couple at focal length 35, a bit more at 100, and the most, by far at 50mm. I was about to decide on the 50mm when I finally thought, if I move to fx sooner than later, the 85mm is probably going to be my favorite. Part of what complicates this is I need to decide how I want to spend my money if a move to fx is more important than spending a boatload on lenses. Ah, the age old debate how often is this in threads!? Let me throw this wrinkle in. I am considering doing this a business, (newborn and babies, family portraits) to get a little extra money. At this point I am not there but it is something I *think* about for the future. Right now I am just honing my skills and enjoying this as my passion. Documenting my daughter/ everyday life. It is true I am looking for really sharp images, and my light is exceptionally low. I can get decent results with a 50 1.4.

RX4photo - what you set about baby getting faster really hit home...2.8 is open enough I think for my tastes. The lens sounds great. I have liked the versatility of my 18-105 lens, I like the options. Just the option for opening it more. The thing that I can't get over is the price on that lens. For about $600 more I can get a used d800. So that is tempting.

tcole1983

If portraits was the focus I wouldn't hesitate to get the 85 f1.8. Just from my experience...at 55 f2.8 on my 17-55 I don't really like it. A longer focal length also always makes it easier to get nice bokeh where you have to shoot more wide open at 50. Just my $.02 I am by no means a pro.

It is the best fast and longer lens. The next thing are the older 105 and 135 F2 and then the expensive 200 F2. If I planned to shoot lots of portraits it would be my lens...for me I deal with my 105 F2.8 because it is so close to 85, but if I didn't have it I would have the 85. I just never really hear many people in love with the 50...even the F1.4.

WestEndBoy

If you are going to go into business photographing babies and children, I would think that primes would be pretty good, as you can select your own framing etc. and you will get the great image quality, low light capability and depth of field flexibility that a fast prime has to offer (1.8 should be enough). However, I am not a professional, so you should listen to what some of them have to say.

One thing I would think about, if I recall correctly, you currently have one 50mm prime (which will have the same field of view on your DX as an 85mm will on an FX) and a zoom with variable aperture (probably a 3.5-5.6 or something similar). You may be shooting most things on your 50mm because it is a superior lens to your zoom, both in image quality and flexibility (low light capabilities, not zoom), not because it is the focal length you like. My favorite focal length is 50mm on my FX, but if all I had (see my signature) was my 85 and 28-200, I would shoot my 85 the most, not the 28-200 at 50. I would think about that. I bring this up because the 50mm for most people is a good all round lens, while an 85 is generally considered a portrait lens, but a little long for general use.

Another thing to consider, the 50mm 1.8 is very inexpensive. If you are going to make a mistake, it is the cheapest mistake to make. Also, these lens will have a high resale value, so your cost is minimized if you decide to change.

I don't agree with R.J. on his advice. But as I said, I am a prime fanboy. There are lots of people on this site that will agree with R.J. I just don't think that the bokeh is going to be that great on a 2.8 in the 24-70 range. On the long end of a 70-200 2.8, sure, but not the wide end or even shorter. I have also never considered the flexibility of being able to zoom down to 24 from 50 or up to 70 from 50 worth the sacrifice in image quality (or cost, take your pick) or speed. But R.J.'s advice and similar advice in this thread is worthy of consideration and in fact the best advice for many people.

Also a note to regarding R.J.'s comment about auto-focus and capturing the moments. If you put your D800 on P Mode, AF-C and 4 frames per second, you are not going to miss many shots. I shoot my own 8 year old like this, except I select A Mode and the slowest aperture that available light will allow.

I completely agree with TCole1983.

Cheers.

Ironheart

A 50mm f/1.4 for a FX or perhaps a slightly wider

Thanks for sharing.

Yes! Super dim and the need to shoot at least at 250 for shutterspeed...the noise from ISO is killing me.

Are you processing specifically for noise? (you are shooting raw right?) There are some really good noise reduction plug-ins and standalones, but I've found the humble NX2 program to be pretty good ad killing it.

adamz

please don't compare prices of lenses vs camera bodies. I cheap lens on d800 will make the whole combo looks cheap. a pro 2.8 zoom on cheap camera will allow you to deliver superb results.
as for d800, no matter what you hear and see, it's a one tough camera to master - it doesn't forgive you in bright light, not to mention low light situations.

Rx4Photo

I don't agree with R.J. on his advice. But as I said, I am a prime fanboy. There are lots of people on this site that will agree with R.J. I just don't think that the bokeh is going to be that great on a 2.8 in the 24-70 range. On the long end of a 70-200 2.8, sure, but not the wide end or even shorter. I have also never considered the flexibility of being able to zoom down to 24 from 50 or up to 70 from 50 worth the sacrifice in image quality (or cost, take your pick) or speed. But R.J.'s advice and similar advice in this thread is worthy of consideration and in fact the best advice for many people.

Also a note to regarding R.J.'s comment about auto-focus and capturing the moments. If you put your D800 on P Mode, AF-C and 4 frames per second, you are not going to miss many shots. I shoot my own 8 year old like this, except I select A Mode and the slowest aperture that available light will allow.

Perhaps I was a bit brief in my comments about bokeh with the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. Sure, if shooting at 24, 35, 50mm at f/2.8 the bokeh is not all that amazing - especially if compared to the 70-200mm - but if shooting the 24-70mm at the 70mm end at f/2.8 of a subject relatively close to the minimal focus acquiring distance of the lens then the bokeh will be "decent". It's definately a multi purpose lens and and that's the point I was attempting to convey. IOW, it will get the job done if it's the only lens on your FX camera - from landcapes, couples/families, babies up close.

Regarding P Mode, AF-C and 4 frames per second - excellent practices but still; the mere speed of initlal focus acquisition on the 24-70 still wins me over every time I use it.

One thing I'd like to add is that this board is excellent for getting great advice but often times the advice exceeds the financial abilities of the person asking for it. I joined when the old board was up (Niko Doby days) and after I asked which lens I should get for my D7000 someone suggested the Holy Trinity ( 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200mm f/2.8). Needless to say, that was way over my head. So whenever I offer advice I do like to try to cater it to the specific question and not assume more. I've since been fortunate enough to acquire several high end Nikkor, Zeiss, and Sigma lenses and if I were to now shoot for bokeh rendering it wouldn't be with the 24-70mm but it's still a good, fast focusing, multipurpose lens.