Help me buy some glass....

PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
edited February 20, 2012 in Cameras
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:
  • Nikon 16-85
  • Nikon 35 f/1.8
  • Sigma 50-150 f/2.8
  • Nikon 70-300 VR
I don't want to change anything there. I've thought about adding a macro lens, a fisheye, a tilt-shift, or a lensbaby. I'm open to any suggestions about which way to go. 95% of what I shoot is of my kids and family. 4% is landscapes. 1% is for a non-profit that does tours of Civil War battlefields.

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
«1

Comments

  • ThatCanonGuyThatCanonGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2012
    Not anything in particular, but I like to get creative with wide, fast prime lenses. If you get one with really close focus, you can get some good effects (shooting PJ stuff, people, and landscapes with a close foreground subject). Like a 20mm 2.8 or something on FF. But the options are limited for DX crop sensors.

    Your only prime is a 35, the crop sensor takes that to 50mm. Maybe a 24mm f/2 or something like that?
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,129 moderator
    edited February 9, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    ... keeping my D7000 ... 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
    I don't want to change anything there. ... 95% of what I shoot is of my kids and family. 4% is landscapes. 1% is for a non-profit that does tours of Civil War battlefields.

    ...

    [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 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.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2012
    Your only prime is a 35, the crop sensor takes that to 50mm. Maybe a 24mm f/2 or something like that?

    Thanks - I'll looking into it!
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    Since you shoot mostly kids and family, I have to question why you unloaded your only standard zoom?

    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.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,129 moderator
    edited February 9, 2012
    Fair 'nuff. The next thing I might recommend is a longer focal length macro. It's great for close focus and some portraiture. (Keeping with the whole kids and family theme.)
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2012
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    Fair 'nuff. The next thing I might recommend is a longer focal length macro. It's great for close focus and some portraiture. (Keeping with the whole kids and family theme.)

    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.
    Seymore wrote: »
    Well, I've found that older manual focus prime glass gets me thinking and spurs my creativity. Of course, YMMV...For me, I prefer wider. Including the Nikkors 16FE/2.8, 20/3.5, 45GN/2.8, Bushnell (Tamron) 21/4.5 or Russian MIR 35/2.

    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).
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2012
    No question whatsoever. The new Nikon 85 f/1.8 AFS-G. It is the weakness of your 16-85, heck it compliments your ENTIRE kit perfectly.

    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 first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,129 moderator
    edited February 9, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    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. ...

    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.)
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
    edited February 10, 2012
    For macro. A 105vr is a great lens. Fun to use and fantastic on fx for portraits and product shots. one of my favorite lenses is my 10.5 fisheye. Lots of fun to shoot with.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited February 10, 2012
    For Family
    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.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • jzieglerjziegler Registered Users Posts: 420 Major grins
    edited February 10, 2012
    You might consider the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro as a different option. The working distance on it is similar to their 90mm macro, according to the specs. At f/2, you get a stop faster than your Sigma 50-150, making it a good option for portraits if you need the extra stop.

    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
  • zoomerzoomer Registered Users Posts: 3,688 Major grins
    edited February 10, 2012
    50 1.8g doesn't cost much and is a fun lens.
    You look pretty well set up for lenses.
  • QarikQarik Registered Users Posts: 4,959 Major grins
    edited February 10, 2012
    I agree with matt..your kit is not complete with out a fast portrait lens. That said..if you want to foster creativity, try the nikkor 45mm PC. It is mild macro lens as well.
    D700, D600
    14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
    85 and 50 1.4
    45 PC and sb910 x2
    http://www.danielkimphotography.com
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited February 10, 2012
    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.
    This is a very good point, actually. If you're shooting more candids and lifestyle portraits than "official" portraits, something in the 20-24mm range would be great on a crop sensor for more environmental portraiture. Nikon is hopefully just a few steps away from making a 24 f/2 FX or 24 f/1.8 DX lens, I'd kill to have either of those lol...

    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2012
    Wow guys - thanks for all the great suggestions. Here are my thoughts...
    Maybe a 24mm f/2 or something like that?
    Seymore wrote: »
    Nikkors 16FE/2.8, 20/3.5, 45GN/2.8, Bushnell (Tamron) 21/4.5 or Russian MIR 35/2.
    Get a 24mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 prime lens.
    Nikon is hopefully just a few steps away from making a 24 f/2 FX or 24 f/1.8 DX lens

    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.)
    ziggy53 wrote: »
    The next thing I might recommend is a longer focal length macro.
    Nikon 85 f/1.8 AFS-G
    Zerodog wrote: »
    A 105vr is a great lens.

    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?
    jziegler wrote: »
    Tamron 60mm f/2 macro
    zoomer wrote: »
    50 1.8g

    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.
    Qarik wrote: »
    try the nikkor 45mm PC
    One vote for tilt-shift. I'd have to find a pretty good deal on this one though...
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2012
    Here are some current options:

    Sigma 10mm f/2.8 Fish - $400
    Zeiss ZE.2 28mm f/2 - $1050
    Nikon 35mm PC-E - $1600
    Nikon 85mm Micro - $400
  • jzieglerjziegler Registered Users Posts: 420 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    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.

    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
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2012
    Thanks Jim - that's very helpful and consistent with what others have told me about working distance.
  • DeVermDeVerm Registered Users Posts: 405 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2012
    I recently did a short walk around with a fisheye and wrote a blog entry about it: http://www.sv-jedi.org/sv_jedi/2012/02/a-fisheye-lens-aboard-a-boat.html

    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...
    ciao!
    Nick.

    my equipment: Canon 5D2, 7D, full list here
    my Smugmug site: here
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2012
    If you're considering a double-duty lens, I would AT LEAST get something with stabilization to make up for what you'd miss by not going f/1.8. The Sigma 105 2.8 OS has been getting very rave reviews, especially for the price compared to the Nikon / Canon.

    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 first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2012
    I had the (old) 85 f/1.8 for a while and sold it. In my memory it was because 1) I couldn't ever get focus right because of the narrow DOF and 2) 85mm was always too long for indoor portraits (where I really need the low light lens). But as I look through my LR database, I see that I got quite a few keepers with that lens.
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    I had the (old) 85 f/1.8 for a while and sold it. In my memory it was because 1) I couldn't ever get focus right because of the narrow DOF and 2) 85mm was always too long for indoor portraits (where I really need the low light lens). But as I look through my LR database, I see that I got quite a few keepers with that lens.

    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 first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    Is a 24mm really going to add that much to my kit beyond what the 35 can do?

    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.

    camp11020a-XL.jpg

    camp11035-XL.jpg

    camp11032-XL.jpg

    IMG5433-XL.jpg

    IMG7792-XL.jpg

    IMG8263-XL.jpg

    This guy also makes a compelling case for wide primes:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=38762824
    (I also just sold the Sigma 30 f/1.4 because it hardly ever got used.)
    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!)
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • GrainbeltGrainbelt Registered Users Posts: 478 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2012
    DR200? thumb.gif
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2012
    Grainbelt wrote: »
    DR200? thumb.gif

    Ayuh. And a french fry cutter.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2012
    Thanks for the continued input - I'm reading all of it and still thinking through the decision.

    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.

    PDM7376-L.jpg

    PDM7243-L.jpg
    (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.)
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 17, 2012
    Yeah, I tried the 18-70 (and 18-200) when I first got the D7000. I think the 16-85 beats them both head-to-head.

    Also, for this scenario, f/4.5 isn't fast enough...
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    Thanks for the continued input - I'm reading all of it and still thinking through the decision.

    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.)

    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 first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2012
    Well, I found a Nikon 28mm f/1.4D AF for $2400, which appears to be a deal for this particular lens. eek7.gif

    I guess I'll be waiting on the DX versions...
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2012
    This guy also makes a compelling case for wide primes:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=38762824

    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.

    clap.gif
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited February 18, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    Well, I found a Nikon 28mm f/1.4D AF for $2400, which appears to be a deal for this particular lens. eek7.gif

    I guess I'll be waiting on the DX versions...

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.