User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Nikon 35 1.8 + 85 1.8 OR 24-70 2.8

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Sep 2011
    Location
    Far North Coast
    Posts
    43
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Nikon 35 1.8 + 85 1.8 OR 24-70 2.8

    Hi guys,

    Hubby wants to get me a new lens for Christmas (yay!) but I'm a bit torn between a few. We were planning on winning Tuesday's lotto but as that fell through I'm going to have to choose...

    I have a 50mm 1.8 already and really enjoy using it. I don't mind using my feet to zoom but I do get frustrated that I can't get right up close (people shots)

    My first thought was 24-70 2.8 but now I'm thinking 35 1.8 + 85 1.8. Is this a prime overkill? I love taking portraits and beach shots. I'm not into street photography, wildlife, sports etc so would a zoom be a waste on me? I know that having to switch between lenses might mean a few missed opportunities but as long as I get a handful of quality shots I'm ok with that..

    What are everyone's thoughts?

    Oh, and I also have a Tokina 11-16 which I use for landscapes and some people shots (when I want something that looks a bit different)
    Last edited by SharNSW; 08-11-2012 at 8:51am.

  2. #2
    Account Closed Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    1,639
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    24-70/1.8?

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    23 Sep 2011
    Location
    Far North Coast
    Posts
    43
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oops, my bad

  4. #4
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Shar, the 35mm is great little lens and can be bought very inexpensively. It offers somewhere near the "traditional normal" field of view on a DX body and can also be used reasonably well on an FX body with some corner light fall off and vignetting.
    The 85mm has a very good reputation from the images and reports that I have seen so far and in combination with the 35mm would make a very competent DX portrait kit.
    The 24-70 is an excellent lens and suits FX cameras perfectly for the focal length range.
    I think that the final choice on picking lenses to suit really comes down to the depth of your pockets and your needs with regard to either zooming with your wrist or your feet. My choice would be to go with the faster aperture primes solely because of the low light ability and subject isolation available at F/1.8.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  5. #5
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What camera are you going to use these lenses on?

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    23 Sep 2011
    Location
    Far North Coast
    Posts
    43
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance B View Post
    What camera are you going to use these lenses on?
    D7000. (may or may not upgrade in future. I'm pretty happy with it)

  7. #7
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    D7000 is a great camera. Being DX, the 24-70 will give a different Field of View to that of what it was intended to be on FX as on DX it will only be slightly wide at 24mm but be a mid tele at the long end. However, this may suit your requirements. The 35mm f1.8 will be like a normal FOV on DX and the 85mm f1.8 will be like a mid tele lens.

    My opinion here is based on what I would require, so, for my requirements, if I were using these lenses as a dual walk around lens kit, I would find 35mm not wide enough and the 85mm f1.8 may be too long as well. The other day, I went to Sculptures by the Sea and found that the 35mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.4 were a perfect combo for that application, but I am shooting FX and the same lens on DX would need to be 24mm and 55mm, not 35 and 85. As a walk around two lens kit, 35mm and 85mm on FX (24 and 55 on DX) is perfect, IMO. So, as a walk around kit, I would think the 24-70 f2.8 a better choice as far as range is concerned.

    As for IQ, there is little doubt that the prime lenses will give you a better IQ and also more control over DOF, as they are f1.8 lenses, and you can basically shoot wide open or half a stop down and get some very nice shallow DOF shots.

  8. #8
    Member AnthonyIneffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jan 2013
    Location
    Langwarrin
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The 24-70 f2.8 is an excellent lens used by many professionals as their main lens. It is very expensive and overkill for a D7000. However, it will hold its value and be perfect for a D600 or D800 should you wish to upgrade. I would love to have a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 if I could justify it. The 35mm f1.8 has significant distortions and ugly bokeh in many situations. It is a cheap lens which is great for use as a main lens for snapshots, but it is not what you would use for quality work. My opinion only.

  9. #9
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AnthonyIneffable View Post
    It is very expensive and overkill for a D7000.
    Expensive is relative to the depth of your pocket or credit limit on the plastic, so yes it may be expensive for some but I would never use the term "overkill" when mating it to a D7000. Excellent camera, excellent lens + skilled operator should equal superb images.

    Quote Originally Posted by AnthonyIneffable View Post
    The 35mm f1.8 has significant distortions and ugly bokeh in many situations.
    Bokeh, or as I would rather phrase it, out of focus background rendition is an extremely subjective quality and what some people love, others hate. I can't say as I have seen any images from that lens that have made me want to throw up because of thee OOF renditions.
    I would be rather interested to see some images posted by you that show the "significant distortions" as I find that the lack of said distortion is one reason why I really enjoy using that lens on a DX body.


    It is a cheap lens which is great for use as a main lens for snapshots, but it is not what you would use for quality work. My opinion only.
    Glad it is your opinion other wise I might have been tempted to never use that lens for anything more than rubbish snap shots in the future.
    Last edited by I @ M; 05-01-2013 at 1:40pm.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    13 Mar 2012
    Location
    Flinders View
    Posts
    435
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Nikon 35 1.8 + 85 1.8 OR 24-70 2.8

    I have a 7000 and mated to my 35mm 1.8, I find it to be a great little lens. Bokeh is pretty good IMO and I'm not sure I have ever seen any unfixable distortion. If you own a DX Nikon body, for it's measly sum of less than $200, you should own this lens. Unless of course you want the 1.4 variant.
    Cheers,
    Ian

    All the 7's: D700, D7000, D70

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    07 Apr 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    316
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am lucky enough to have both the 24-70mm f2.8 and the 35mm f1.8. I find that I have the 24-70mm almost permanently attached and will only occasionally use the 35mm when I need a faster lens or don't want to carry the larger zoom.

    The 24-70mm is an excellent and very high quality lens whether you use it on a crop sensor or not. It also has the benefit of compatibility should there be an FX upgrade in the future. It is considerably heavier and more expensive than each of the 35mm and 85mm, which may be a consideration. Whilst it is two stops slower than the prime lenses, but I have found that I tend to stop down the 35mm to improve sharpness anyway, reducing the relative advantage.

    Hope this helps with your decision.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    05 Jun 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    421
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have also been wondering about the idea of the 24-70mm for my D7000, however today I finally bit the bullet and bought the 17-55mm f/2.8 which is very close in crop to the 24-70mm for the D7000 and I love it! I also bought a polariser filter (Pro Hoya) with it however the weather has been very rainy here to try it out...looking forward to posting some photos up from it when the weather is good again.

    I've been wondering too about moving to Full Frame, and realised if I had to be asking if I need FF, then I didn't need it afterall...so, I'm happy with my current body...

    I went to Georges in the city and they have two ex-demo models there for $1100 each. The price seemed right to me, they looked in new condition so I got one of them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •