Options
Help me buy some glass....
Bottom line: Among non-standard (exotic) lenses - I'd love to hear what you've enjoyed shooting and what lenses inspire creativity in you.
Since Matt wisely talked me into keeping my D7000 (out of buying a D700) and since I've pared down my lens collection so significantly - I've got a little bit of $$ burning a hole in my pocket. I'll likely rent before I buy but I'm not sure what to try first.
My standard "kit" is set:
Please let me know what you've enjoyed shooting, especially things that foster creativity.
[Update]I thought it might also be helpful to list the lenses I've had and recently sold:
- Sigma 30 f/1.4
- Tokina 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 300 f/4
- Nikon 17-55 f/2.8
Since Matt wisely talked me into keeping my D7000 (out of buying a D700) and since I've pared down my lens collection so significantly - I've got a little bit of $$ burning a hole in my pocket. I'll likely rent before I buy but I'm not sure what to try first.
My standard "kit" is set:
- Nikon 16-85
- Nikon 35 f/1.8
- Sigma 50-150 f/2.8
- Nikon 70-300 VR
Please let me know what you've enjoyed shooting, especially things that foster creativity.
[Update]I thought it might also be helpful to list the lenses I've had and recently sold:
- Sigma 30 f/1.4
- Tokina 12-24 f/4
- Nikon 300 f/4
- Nikon 17-55 f/2.8
0
Comments
Your only prime is a 35, the crop sensor takes that to 50mm. Maybe a 24mm f/2 or something like that?
Since you shoot mostly kids and family, I have to question why you unloaded your only standard zoom? That is my normal first recommendation and the Nikkor 17-55mm, f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX is an excellent example of that genre.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks - I'll looking into it!
I kept the 16-85. The longer reach was much more useful to me for portraits than the f/2.8. I liked the 17-55 but I've been thrilled with the 16-85.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Ziggy - on DX are you thinking something around 105mm? I had looked at the 60mm macro for a long time but became convinced by those who say it requires you to be too close to your macro subject.
Thanks Chris - that's helpful! So two votes for a wide prime with a nod toward MF. I could see how that would require some extra thought (which is rarely a bad thing).
The 16-85 is f/5.6 at 85mm. How annoying.
The 35 1.8 DX is great for low light at medium close distances, but it'll leave a bit to be desired if you need background separation from a distance, or of course shutter speed from a distance.
The 70-300 is really just a "broad daylight" lens, or at least a "decent light" lens. You're probably not reaching for it much in low light, especially when you have the Sigma 50-150 to call upon.
The Sigma 50-150 2.8 is nice, but sometimes you just need that little extra bit of shutter speed, or shallow depth, OR you just don't care to lug around heavier lenses. The new 85 1.8 AFS-G is probably also going to be just a little bit more snappy and accurate to focus than the Sigma, too.
I honestly can't think of any other lens that compliments your kit as nicely. If you were into macro I'd suggest one of the mid-range Sigma OS macro lenses like the new 105mm 2.8 OS, which is probably a good alternative to the 85 f/1.8 and even the Sigma 50-150, since it's stabilized. But for someone who shoots more portraits and candids, stabilization isn't going to help as much as sheer aperture and shutter speed. And again I cannot speak highly enough- Nikon's new AFS-G primes are WICKED GOOD at nailing focus in low light!
I would say "happy deciding" like I usually do, but honestly this one is a no-brainer. Happy, um, ...waiting for the 85 1.8 AFS-G to hit the shelves!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
For either DX or FX I generally recommend something around 100mm (-ish), if you are using it for true macro images. The reason is that at 1:1 it doesn't matter whether you are shooting DX or FX with regard to light placement. (Well, it does matter a little, but not enough to make a different recommendation.) The longer focal lengths just get you better opportunities and options for putting your lights.
100mm is also a very good focal length for head shots and head-and-shoulders.
Macro lenses are also excellent choices for stitched panoramics, because they generally have very low distortions and stitch easily and cleanly.
I wound up choosing the Tamron 90mm, f2.8 Macro and I have not regretted the decision, even though that particular lens has a recessed front element, negating some of the advantage of the 90mm focal length and light placement for true macro distances. It's still a very capable lens at a bargain price. (Mine was old and used but works nicely.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Get a 24mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 prime lens. This will give you 36mm effective FOV, which is a classic reportage focal length. And if you ever go FF, it will still be very useful.
Why? I know, it is fun to take tight portraits of your children's flawless, angelic faces, and then look for your reflection in their pupils. I have thousands of those. But I've realized something now that I am finally going back and making albums of my best pics since getting my first DSLR in 2006, when my kids were 4 and 1.... you only need like two to four of those portraits per year. In retrospect, the shots that are the most fun to look at are the ones that tell a story of where they were, what they were doing, and who they were with. What the house looked like. What the old car looked like. What Gramma and Grampa and all the kids' relatives and friends looked like. The kids pore over these shots now.
With my 24-70 zoom, it's so easy and tempting to just zoom right in. Since I got a 35/1.4 (FF) I haven't used the 24-70 much. The prime forces you to think more and be more deliberate. 35mm strikes the perfect balance between wide and normal. It allows you to include more context and tell a story without looking unnatural or distorted or like you were too far away. I find when I put it up to my eye that it captures the whole scene as I see it. Yes, 50mm is the same as your eye, but it blocks out all peripheral vision. Feels like tunnel vision to me. You basically have that with your 35/1.8 (52.5mm effective).
Anyway, just get one. You could start with a cheap and/or used one to see if you like the focal length. It's a popular lens so you'll be able to sell it if you don't like it. But you will.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
For reference, my kit is:
Sigma 10-20
Nikon 35mm f/1.8
Sigma 50-150
Tamron 60mm macro
It's a combination that has worked for me, and I could see the Tamron being a good choice to match what you already have.
The new 85mm f/1.8G would be a great choice too. I've long thought about adding an 85mm.
Jim
http://jziegler.smugmug.com
You look pretty well set up for lenses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I agree that it's important to shoot kid pictures with context. Outdoors I have the 16-85 as my go-to and indoors I use the 35mm. Is a 24mm really going to add that much to my kit beyond what the 35 can do? (I also just sold the Sigma 30 f/1.4 because it hardly ever got used.)
This is the route I'm leaning, I think. Something in the 85-105 range that can do double-duty as a portrait and macro lens. The 85 f/1.8 has been on my "watch" list since it's announcement, but if I'm going to get something at this length why not get something with 1:1 macro?
I don't think there's enough difference between the 35g and 50g to warrant another purchase. I thought about the Tamron 60mm but people keep telling me that if you go macro you should go longer focal length than that.
One vote for tilt-shift. I'd have to find a pretty good deal on this one though...
Sigma 10mm f/2.8 Fish - $400
Zeiss ZE.2 28mm f/2 - $1050
Nikon 35mm PC-E - $1600
Nikon 85mm Micro - $400
That suggestion is (usually) primarily due to the short working distance of the short macro lenses. The Nikon 60mm macro has a working distance of 4.8cm. The 105 VR has a working distance of 15.4cm. That's a huge difference. The Tamron 60mm is about 10mm, somewhere in between. The Nikon 85mm DX is 14.5cm. Apparently the difference is that the Nikon 60mm loses focal length for close focusing, but the Tamron does not lose as much, so it maintains a longer working distance. Apparently the Tamron 90mm has about the same working distance as the 60mm has.
If there's another reason that the longer macros are recommended, hopefully someone will step in and explain that. My main point is that the Tamron beats the Nikon in this area, and also is a full stop faster, making it a very interesting lens. I haven't done any true 1:1 macro work with mine, but is has worked well for flower closeups and things like that.
Jim
http://jziegler.smugmug.com
I find a fisheye great, it's a whole new world of photography opening up, not just a bit different focal length. That said, I wouldn't give up my 100mm macro for one...
Nick.
my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
my Smugmug site: here
Personally though I'd rather have the 85mm. For low-light action, nothing beats sheer aperture. I can shoot steady when I need to, and "stabilize" myself. But I can't stop subject motion, only shutter speed can do that.
You're probably better off just getting a close-up filter to go with the 85 1.8, in my opinion. But that's just me who shoots more portraits and low-light candids than macro, these days...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
1.) The new AFS-G will defiinitely give you a lot more accuracy, especailly if you've upgraded your camera body too since you last used 85mm.
2.) Maybe get the macro then, if you don't use 85mm because you shoot more indoor portraits than outdoor. Maybe get the 50 f/1.8 AFS-G? I know you said it wouldn't be different enough from 35mm, but just consider it. Maybe rent it? Maybe try the f/1.4?
I think, however, it sounds like you still need to think a little more about what you're most interested in- macro, portraits, candids, nature, etc.
Personally, I've NEVER bought a lens that I had to sell later because I didn't use it enough, and so I would hate to advise you in a direction that ended in that for you. (again)
Honestly? Just keep shooting for now, and keep a tally of which "I wish I had..." type scenarios pop up more often than others.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yes. Going from 24mm to 35mm is a 46% increase.
Here's a few of my favorites with my 35L which I got last year.
This guy also makes a compelling case for wide primes:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=38762824
Probably for the same reason I do not have a 45mm or 50mm lens for my 5DII. It's just no-man's-land if you ask me. Simultaneously too long and too short too often, IMO.
('course, when I shoot my Grandad's IIIf which only came with a 50, I make it work!)
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Ayuh. And a french fry cutter.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I'm now more open to considering a prime in the 20-24 range. I tried an experiment today when I took my son to the zoo. Instead of taking the 50-150 f/2.8 I took the 16-80. Instead of trying to get sharp, isolated portraits (of him or of animals), I tried to get pictures of him with the "context" around him. I was tremendously disappointed in how the 16-80 performed. I got a few keepers from outdoor settings with lots of light but everything I took in low light failed. Even using ISO 3200 or ISO 6400 there just wasn't enough light with the 4.5 or higher aperture I was forced into using.
Before pulling the trigger (and renting) I need to try again with my 35 f/1.8 to see if that's wide enough or if 20-24 is really needed.
(I've also got to get a graduated filter and learn the proper technique for keeping skies from being blown out all the time in shots like this.)
Also, for this scenario, f/4.5 isn't fast enough...
I've heard rumblings of a Nikon 24 1.8 DX, and now a 18 and 20mm f/1.8 FX. The 24 1.8 DX has the best chance of being affordable since it's DX, and personally I'd LOVE to have one. I have very fond memories of my old 24 f/2.8 AIS on my D300, and I'd LOVE to have a 24 f/1.8 DX on a D7000 or something. Ahhh that'd be the greatest walk-around lens ever!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I guess I'll be waiting on the DX versions...
I wanted to (re)post the link to this guy's blog: http://www.thefamilyphotojournalist.blogspot.com/
For those of us who got into photography primarily to document family life it's a must-read.
KEH has the 24mm f/1.4G for $1739. We're getting closer...
It's funny that this thread started out with me looking for "exotic" glass that I didn't really need. Now, after reading the Family Photojournalist, I'm looking for what I expect to be the most important piece of glass in my kit.