What do you shoot? Don't buy a lens just because you are "missing" a particular focal point, if you never shoot subjects at that range.
For example, I like people photography, so I need the fast primes like the 35 f/2D and the 50 f/1.4D. I don't need 300mm or higher. Just for the occasional use of long glass, on the Canon side, I owned the Sigma 50-500. It fit the bill.
Just thinking aloud on this topic here.
I'm just looking at the shots that I managed to shoot with my new "defector" model D2h over the holiday. I started my Nikon life with the 20 F 2.8 and the 50 f 1.4. I like to shoot a lot of low light stuff like Tom so I am going to try to slowly get the fastest primes I can afford. The 50 f 1.4 was a no brainer and a natural first step.
The 28 for me was for versatility to have something wide ( wide for me ) but the rest of em' I want so as to have a good portrait set of lenses for low light.
It's good advice to carefully consider what you like shooting. I plan to get one other lens for "versatility" - the Sigma 80-400 5.6 ... so I can shoot some sports too. my main targets are the 85 1.4, the 105 f 2.0, the 35 f 2.0 (or sigma 30 1.4) and perhaps even the 135 f 2.0 later.
That seems to me to be the perfect portrait setup. Any ideas if the old manual focus 85 f 1.4 may not be a good idea instead of the auto-focus model? I'm tempted to consider that as well.
Here is a shot with the 50 f 1.4 at f 2.0 that I grabbed of my sweetie. Not bad imho.
First I thought that it may be kind of soft at or near wide open but I'm starting to like it as I look at some pictures with it. Definately a lens to have. (The wall shots were not as good )
The 28 for me was for versatility to have something wide ( wide for me ) but the rest of em' I want so as to have a good portrait set of lenses for low light.
...
It's good advice to carefully consider what you like shooting. I plan to get one other lens for "versatility" - the Sigma 80-400 5.6 ... so I can shoot some sports too. my main targets are the 85 1.4, the 105 f 2.0, the 35 f 2.0 (or sigma 30 1.4) and perhaps even the 135 f 2.0 later.
...
Just checking that you're not referring to the 28mm f/1.4 in that first part? If it is, why are you considering the 35mm f/2 or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4?
Holes? What holes? Yeah, I see a big one--go get the 500 f4 AFS...or maybe the 10.5 f2.8 FE...??
The size of the hole is relative. Decide what you like to shoot, and adjust you lens arsenal accordingly. Portrait wise, the hole is small, IMO Nature photography/macro/wide angle landscape wise, the whole is big?
Just got back from a short trip and would like to thank everyone for their feedback. I usually shoot dog sports (field trials) and I'm going to get a longer lens but I have been asked to be a second shooter at a couple of weddings. The 85mm f1.2 seems to be the lens it need, any thoughts?
I agree with Tom. Forget filling in numeric "holes" and get out there and shoot. After a few weeks you'll know pretty darn well where you want more, different, wider, longer. As is you have two very nice and rather fast lenses that should cover a lot of ground.
-Tom
vwap ... yeah that was a typo. I've got the 20 f 2.8 for the wide end (at 30mm)
I would love the 28 f 1.4 but the price is too much for me. I would rather save for the 85 f 1.4 and the 105 f 2.0 which I would use more. now if money was no object ....
