mauriceramirez wrote:
Plenty of DWF in the house, yo. Little busier here. I'm guessing its not as intimidating for some.
As for my Nikon primes, I love the 105VR and can recommend it highly, and don't want the ubiquitous 70-200 anymore. Tried the 85 f1.4 and it didn't come up to my 85L experience so I returned it. I find Nikon's prime selection to be lacking, but its not as much an issue since the 24-70 is THAT much better. Totally done buying if a 35 f1.8 comes out.
-m
Hi there everyone.
Now I don't feel like such a stranger.
I bought the 105VR today. My thinking is that with the Nikon 24-70 welded onto my (new) D3, the 105mm VR would be the perfect complement on my D700 when I shoot the bride's prep.
A general zoom + portrait lens / maco lens.
Then I don't have to haul out the monster 70-200 VR at the bride's house.
And I think the 105 VR might just be more flexible a lens than the 85mm f1.4 (which I dearly love.)
Neil,
That does sound like a nice combo. I'd like to know what you think of the 105VR as I've heard people split down the middle between the VR and the previous model.
14-24mm (not a zoom)
50mm F1.4D
180mm F2.8 (in for repair right now)
I'm waiting for a 105mm F1.8 to come out in the future. I may switch the 50mm F1.4D for the new Nikon 50mm F1.4G or the Sigma after the price stabilizes.
I presently use only the 85mm f1.4 but if I were starting from scratch I would get the 105mm f2 VR lens instead. The 135mm f2 DC is a great lens but more for portrait work than weddings.
Unlike Canon, Nikon has zooms with outstanding image quality AND reliability with its 14-24mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 zooms. I was one of the lucky few when shooting Canon to find a decent copy of the 16-35mm f2.8 (another photographer returned the first 3 copies he got and had to send the 4th copy to Canon for adjustment). When I shot with Canon I used the Tamron 28-75mm because I did not want to deal with the chronic AF problems with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 lens. I tried the Canon 24-120mm f4 IS at one wedding and found it too slow a lens and returned it.
So the Canon shooter has nice primes available but many are forced to use primes to avoid the problems with Canon zooms. With Nikon zooms are a much more attractive option and with ISO 4000 providing excellent IQ, f2.8 is good enough for me. I like f2 with 85mm and longer lenses for bokeh reasons primarily.
elkhornsun wrote:
I presently use only the 85mm f1.4 but if I were starting from scratch I would get the 105mm f2 VR lens instead. The 135mm f2 DC is a great lens but more for portrait work than weddings.
Elkhorn - just curious why you feel you would prefer the 105mm F2 to the 85mm F1.4. Reason I ask is, I also feel the same way - I'm not a huge fan of 85mm FL - I like 100 and up for portraits (on full frame). I have even used 300mm for portraits and the bokeh is very beautiful with the longer FL's.
i just got 105 VR as well (after so many folks raving about it) and am loving it - very crisp images. (gotta check the bokeh thing).
i am learning to shoot with 2 cameras (one wide zoom/prime and one longer prime - either the 85 or 105, not sure yet).
so my issue is really on the wide side: as i can't afford the 28/1.4 and with the limited selection of primes (IMHO the weekest side of Nikon) i dunno if to go for the 35/2 (which i never owned) or just shoot with 17-35/2.8 instead?
(i do also have sigma 20/1.8 which i love on FF but that's too wide for most of the time)
I picked up 35 F2 today, and loving it! I plan on using one D3+35 F2 & second D3+85 F1.4 for the reception and using D3+24-70 & second D3+70-200 during the day. I'll let you know how that works out, the New Years eve wedding should be interesting.
shindig wrote:
i'm sure the 35/2 is a great lens but that's just one stop away from wide zooms, isn't prime supposed to be prime glass?
it is just damn shame that in this day and age there is no 1.4 or 1.2 version of 35,24, and the uber-expensive 28mm one is ancient as well
ok, ok - stepping down from my soapbox for now - just keeping my fingers crossed, that's all!
I agree that it is a shame that Nikon doesn't have comparing primes to Canon, but after trying the 35 F2 today coupled with ISO6400 from D3, all I can say is I am in love again... You are right that 1 stop is not much, but think of the light weight you will be carrying Vs. 24-70, also when time comes, 1 stop is one stop.
Just keeping my fingers crossed that rumors regarding fast primes from Nikon will prove to be true!
You are right that 1 stop is not much, but think of the light weight you will be carrying Vs. 24-70, also when time comes, 1 stop is one stop.