My wife has to travel to London for work, I get to tag along for 6 days! Whooooo Hooooo! So I have my trusty D700 and can't decide which glass to bring. I wouldn't call my zoom lens glass, poo glass would be a better term. It's a Sigma 28-200 f3.5. I would love to have the nikon 24-70 2.8 but $ is a little tight these days. So the 85 1.4 or the 50 1.8? What's your vote? Please don't say both. Thanks guys and gals!

--Micah

How about the 24-85 (either version)?

All I have is the 85, 50 and 28-200 poo glass.

Uhm, the 85/1.4 will cost like ten 50/1.8s ... 50 mm will be more useful for general photography with a D700. I wouldn't go to a big city without a wide(r) angle though.

Take advantage of the full frame sensor and to some shopping on old manual focusing glass! A 24/50/105 kit will set you back for almost nothing, will cover almost every situation and IQ is better than most zooms - and also a lot lighter and more discrete.

Edit: Didn't see your last post, thought you're about to buy new glass.

Well, I'd go with the 85mm if you expect to take pictures mainly of people, or the 50 if you're not sure what you'll be seeing.

I'll be by myself most of the time, so taking pictures of strangers might get me beat up. the 50 is nice an light. Sounds like the 50 is my best bet.

Too bad you can't grab a manual focus 24mm f2.8 or something for the wides.

What does that bad boy cost?

Hmm, not that cheap after all. Just had a look at graysofwestminster, a Nikon UK dealer, and they've got a used 24mm ai for 450 US. Not sure why it's that expensive but hey. You can get a brand new 28mm af-d lens costs around 270 US from bhphotovideo in the states.

Try to find a used Tamron 28-75 2.8 I love it on my D700.

Sounds tempting. That $270.00 could buy me a few beers in the UK.

24-85 2.8-4 or tam 28-75 2.8 both light and versatile

Just shoot with the 85 f/1.4 Or if you must travel light, then the 50 f/1.8 will do just dandy!

Take shots that suit your lens, or get a Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4. Cheap and sharp (if you get a good one) and light and wide... I personally would take all of them...

are you buying a new lens? if so you might also want to take a look at the sigma 24-70 either the new one or the old one without hsm (i have that one and it lives on my D700).
If you stick with your old lenses i'd take the poo glass with you and the 50mm prime.
Poo glass or not, you will make some fine images with it. you have 12mp. probably most will be resized for web or small print, so don't bother about the poo glass. it will do fine. Even a large print will still be ok with a little work. enjoy and share some poo

Micah25 wrote:
Sounds tempting. That $270.00 could buy me a few beers in the UK.

In London? You'd be lucky to get tipsy on that!!
What's wrong with taking both the 85 and 50? Not sure about the 85, but the 50 can be carried around in a pocket, it wont weigh you down.

you could rent the 24-70 if that is the fl you want

good idea.

You can rent from www.fixation.com or Calumet, though they might want a credit card deposit equal to the price of the lens.
UK prices are not particularly high - excluding tax
Our lenses are advertised including import duty and VAT - increasing prices by about 22% compared to USA prices which do not include State and City taxes.

I would buy a Tamron 28-75 2.8 and sell it back if money is an issue...

On the other hand, if you hesitate to spend $300 while owning a D700, how are you going to survive in London, one of the most expensive locations in the world ? eating and drinking for 6 days in London will cost you much more than any lens...

Guy

I'd go with the 50mm on full frame - it's wide enough for most stuff (you can always stitch a couple of frames together if you want a w/a shot), small enough to tote and fast enough to deal with all that standard lousy weather without having to go to very high ISO. You also have enough MP's to handle fairly extreme crops without significant loss of detail.

Just a caution - the UK has some unusual laws regarding pictures of people even in public places which you may want to check out on the net.

Oosty wrote:
Just a caution - the UK has some unusual laws regarding pictures of people even in public places which you may want to check out on the net.

Well, this appears to be a common myth, backed up by anecdotal evidence.

Here is a link to the UK Photographers Rights Guide

Sometime ago I approached my MP about some issues, and got a letter back from the Home Office telling me that there was NO restriction on photography in public places, and NO rights to privacy (i.e. not having your photo taking) in a public place. It is up to the Chief Constable to ensure that all officers are aware of the laws and to enforce them correctly.

The Police do not have the right to delete photos from your camera without a court order.

Security staff at public buildings (or even private land) do not have the rights to confiscate your equipment either. If in doubt, they need to call the Police and let them deal with it.

However, you need to make sure you don't break other laws, like blocking the pavement and/or roads or access to other places with things like Tripods. using a Tripod on most public areas in London (especially on the bridges etc) is not permitted because it unduly blocks movement of people/traffic.

Read the above link for more info....

I don't really understand the question, do you have three lenses and only want to take one? If so then as others have said the 50mm really doesn't add anything it's so small.

I was in London in January and pretty much had my 18-200mm on my D90 all of the time, I don't know that I could limit myself to one prime.

Just to be different I'd take the Sigma and the 50mm, the glass may not be as good but that's because you are getting flexibility, would you rather take a chance on missing the picture you want just because you didn't have a wide enough or long enough lens.

DaveEP wrote:
Oosty wrote:
Just a caution - the UK has some unusual laws regarding pictures of people even in public places which you may want to check out on the net.

Well, this appears to be a common myth, backed up by anecdotal evidence.

Here is a link to the UK Photographers Rights Guide

Sometime ago I approached my MP about some issues, and got a letter back from the Home Office telling me that there was NO restriction on photography in public places, and NO rights to privacy (i.e. not having your photo taking) in a public place. It is up to the Chief Constable to ensure that all officers are aware of the laws and to enforce them correctly.

The Police do not have the right to delete photos from your camera without a court order.

Security staff at public buildings (or even private land) do not have the rights to confiscate your equipment either. If in doubt, they need to call the Police and let them deal with it.

However, you need to make sure you don't break other laws, like blocking the pavement and/or roads or access to other places with things like Tripods. using a Tripod on most public areas in London (especially on the bridges etc) is not permitted because it unduly blocks movement of people/traffic.

Read the above link for more info....




Or refer to P.82-84 of issue 78 of Digital Camera Magazine which puts it in a nutshell

Oosty wrote:
Or refer to P.82-84 of issue 78 of Digital Camera Magazine which puts it in a nutshell

Not all of us buy magazines because it's (mostly) the same stuff that just goes around and around - especially in the UK mags that are all published by just one or two large publishing organisations.

If I didn't know better, I'd think they all use the same articles over and over - sent back and forth between different magazine staff, and just reworded slightly. I gave up buying them a long time ago.... but still chuckle in WH Smiths each month when they repeat the same stuff time and time again.

So, maybe the magazine tells you something that the free online information doesn't, and hopefully it was worth paying for.