Which lenses to get next?

Pavvyben

Hello,

So I'm about to buy a Nikon D800 (to go along with my Nikon D3, which might be ageing a bit now, but I still think it produces great photos!)

I'm in a slight predicament as to what would be best to purchase next.

I currently own the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8 VR, and I'm tempted to purchase both the Nikon AF-S 14-24mm F2.8 and Nikon AF-S 24-70mm F2.8 together, but I might do the 24-70 first and then get the 14-24 after if I buy them seperately.

I shoot mainly equestrian events, and the 70-200mm is pretty perfect for that. I sometimes have to use a teleconverter if it's a bit short, but it's usually ideal.

However, the 70-200mm F2.8 VR II is supposed to be even better than the VR I that I own.

So the question is, what would you upgrade/purchase next? Is the VR I still a decent enough lens compared to the VR II? Will it be good on the D800 in terms of IQ?

Obviously, my main goal is to get the 'holy trinity' of Nikon lenses, which I'll be able to do over the next few months. And then I'll be moving onto primes!

The 14-24 I've used before and I absolutely love that lens. It's so good, and opens up tons of creative opportunities.

Any advice/info you can give me would be great!

Thanks,

Ben

Golf007sd

Welcome NRF Ben. I highly recommend getting the 14-24. You are quite right that it opens up tons of creativity.

Best wishes...

Vipmediastar_JZ

I was in the same boat over a year ago 14-24 vs 24-70 and I choosed the 24-70 then the 14-24. Let me just tell you that the 14-24 is taking over my photography vs that lens. I just did some street and did some panning shots, long shutter shots, angle shots, looking up shots and I have great expecations with it.
I wished I had purchased the 14-24 first.

TaoTeJared

I got the Tokina 16-28 and love the lens. It actually has a bit less distortion than the Nikkor and matches the sharpness at F4 on up. F2.8 is not bad at all, but the Nikkor is a bit better. The built quality seems to match or be better than the Nikkor. At about $650 it is about $1,000 cheaper with basically no trade-offs. It is worth the look. One thing to keep in mind is if you want to use filters with the lens. Golf007sd and I know the pain (very expensive) to get those.

My vote is for the 24-70 range. It is just so useful you can't pass it up. Because I have many primes for DOF, I went the 24-120vr F4 route instead for the extra reach and have never looked back. The Tamron 24-70 VC lens is also very good as well.

On the 70-200vr question, I have the Version 1 (& D800, same as you) and I have tested the new VR II and didn't find any real compelling reason to upgrade at all. If my lens died tomorrow, I would get the new version just because of the warranty, but to shell out extra $$ to upgrade, would be just to say I had it.

bland

I currently own the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8 VR, and I'm tempted to purchase both the Nikon AF-S 14-24mm F2.8 and Nikon AF-S 24-70mm F2.8 together, but I might do the 24-70 first and then get the 14-24 after if I buy them seperately.

Welcome Ben and I agree with your three choices. I'd get the 14-24 last because you'll find more usage with the 24-70.

WestEndBoy

Buy the 14-24 then buy a 5O 1.4 and use your feet to zoom from 24-7O. Of the holy trinity, using your feet between 24-70 is the most practical. You will be able to shoot indoors with a flash and save a thousand.

You will notice in my signature that I have a 14-24 2.8, 20 2.8 and 28 2.8. I use the zoom indoors where I find 14-17 useful and the primes for landscapes where I rarely need wider than 20, f 5.6-8.8 is ideal and I can use my 3 stop, 5 stop and 10 stop Singh Ray glass filters instead of the non-glass filters typically available for the zoom.

Ade

The gap between 24mm and 50mm is quite large and very often when you are shooting indoors you will not be able to "move back" far enough with a 50mm to get the shot that you need.

An alternative is to get the 16-35/4 plus the Sigma 50mm/1.4 Art.

spraynpray

Buy the 14-24 then buy a 5O 1.4 and use your feet to zoom from 24-7O. Of the holy trinity, using your feet between 24-70 is the most practical. You will be able to shoot indoors with a flash and save a thousand.

You will notice in my signature that I have a 14-24 2.8, 20 2.8 and 28 2.8. I use the zoom indoors where I find 14-17 useful and the primes for landscapes where I rarely need wider than 20, f 5.6-8.8 is ideal and I can use my 3 stop, 5 stop and 10 stop Singh Ray glass filters instead of the non-glass filters typically available for the zoom.

Let's face it if you go into a shop and say I'll buy a 24-17 f2.8 and a 14-24 f2.8 if you give me a 50mm f1.4 they should say 'Oh, OK then'!

Pavvyben

Keep the advice coming guys! Thank you for all your comments so far.

I probably should have said what my other lenses were.

I have a Nikon AF-S 50mm F1.4G, Nikon AF 85mm F1.4D as well, along with the Nikon AF-S 600mm F4 VR. And a Nikon 1.7x TC

I love the 50mm F1.4G. It's a really great lens for the tiny price tag in comparison to other decent Nikon lenses.

JJ_SO

If I want to have only D800 and "standard zoom", I'm quite happy with Sigma 24-105/4 Art. The OS (=VR) is in my hands at 105mm better than with 70-200/4 G and that was better than 70-200/2.8 VR I, in aspects of shake reduction. Of course, if you need faster shutter speed, it has to be f/2.8.

If I want to cover 14-200, I take 14-24, Sigma 35/1.4 and 70-200/4. I like wide angles and close-ups wide open, therefore I prefer the 35 and use the D800's reserves to crop, if walking a bit closer is not possible.

manhattanboy

Hello,

I shoot mainly equestrian events, and the 70-200mm is pretty perfect for that. I sometimes have to use a teleconverter if it's a bit short, but it's usually ideal.

[ ]

The 14-24 I've used before and I absolutely love that lens. It's so good, and opens up tons of creative opportunities.

If you are not buying a package lens with the D800, then why not get the camera first and get used to shooting with your existing lenses. You might find that the 70-200 is good enough, or you may be tempted to crop heavily (and no longer need the TC) and want something that is sharper. I've collected a bunch of lenses that are nice but are not my preferred shooting partners. I would put your money into what mm's you do the most, as ultimately that is what you care about shooting. You can always rent some of the other lenses if you really needed them for something, such as the creative opportunities you speak of.

autofocus

I agree with comments on the 14-24. I have it and love it. I have the 24-70 as well. Very convenient for indoors. You mentioned shooting equestrian events. I shoot motocross and wanted more reach to cover more areas of the track when I can't get there. That said, don't count out the new Nikon 80-400mmG. Rent it and see if it meets your needs. I love it for action/sports shooting. The VR is incredible and autofocus is as fast as my 70-200 VRII. Below taken with the new 80-400mm.

spraynpray

@autofocus: Although I agree the new 80-400 is a very good lens, your Canada Goose shot is way over sharpened - you can see the increased contrast (halo) around its head and neck plainly even at that small size.

Msmoto

I like Ade's idea of the 16-35mm f/4 VR, plus the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens. And the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art lens should be considered as well.

autofocus

@spraynpray- In all fairness and full disclosure here is the same photo (.NEF) cropped 100%, and saved as JPEG. I do appreciate the critique however, and please don't read into this as bearing any malice. I sincerely do appreciate any critiquing of my photos. I may not always agree but I do understand there will always be differing levels of what is aesthetically (not technically) appealing.

kyoshinikon

Im on the 14-24mm boat...

spraynpray

@autofocus: Hi Chuck, no problems here. So you are inferring that there is no processing of the above photo? If that is the case, what is that white line around the top of the gooses upper neck and head? It looked like a clarity or sharpening boost to me.

Regards,

Andrew.

michael66

@autofocus: Hi Chuck, no problems here. So you are inferring that there is no processing of the above photo? If that is the case, what is that white line around the top of the gooses upper neck and head? It looked like a clarity or sharpening boost to me.

I'm assuming that you are referring to this one;


Actually, I'd like to know what that is too. I have seen that slight glow around darker objects in raw images when I zoom in. Some kind of funky artifact from converting to jpg? @autofocus, could you check your software settings?

It does look like some sharpening was done here, but it looks different;

autofocus

@michael66- Honestly I can't see the artifacts on my laptop. Settings are default in ACR so there is a small amount of sharpening. I did set all to zero and zoom however it makes almost no noticeable difference. I did crop (100%) and save as jpg.

Sorry to original post for highjacking the thread and this will be my last comment here. More than willing to discuss further elsewhere.

michael66

@autofocus Quite right about the hijacking and doing this on another thread.

@Pavvyben I'd listen to PitchBlack. It's been a while since he shown us horses, just fillies of a different sort. And I don't want that to stop!

The only thing I do not like about the Tamron is that it uses a larger filter. That means I have to have two Hoya HD polarizers. If you do go that route, I would seriously check out your copy. I had a weird problem where mine would be inconsistently sharp. I took it to Tamron out on Long Island. The report I got back was that there was debris inside the lens and it had to be disassembled.

On the other hand, the Tamron version of the 24-70 has better DxOMarks. YMMV.

manhattanboy

I'd listen to PitchBlack. It's been a while since he shown us horses, just fillies of a different sort. And I don't want that to stop!

Had to look up what a Filly is, but so true, and kudos on the great post.