I have owned many zoom lenses including my favorite, the nikkor 17-55; but have recently gotten rid of my entire kit and re-entered with a low budget DSLR kit (damn economy!). With just a d70 + nikkor 35 1.8, I want to stay away from zoom shooting and force myself to explore the prime shooting style. I normally shoot wides and portraits. I was thinking this list would be suffice and cost effective.
D70
Nikkor 35 1.8
NIkkor 85 1.8
Tokina 11-16 2.8
I like the range of the 85mm, but am wondering if the 105 is a better FL for candid portrait shooting, except I would give up the extra aperture?
I'm currently shooting a D300 with an "experimental prime kit" as I'm calling it. I'm looking at shooting down the road with a 24/50/85 1.8, but for now I have a 24 1.8, 30 1.4, 50 1.8, and 80-200 2.8.
I've shot with a friend's 85 1.8 and I love it. It's a great lens, not only for portraits but for sports and many other things. It should do a fine job covering your long range, plus it feels very balanced on the camera.
The 11-16 is practically a "must-have" for DX if you shoot wide. I'm waiting to decide whether I like the 24 or 30mm more and will trade the one I like less for the 11-16. Even if you are shooting it exclusively at 16mm f/2.8, that's a 24mm equivalent on FF, which is a wonderful focal length.
I think you have the right idea, and the 85 is less expensive than your 105mm options, unless you are using a 105 AI, in which case I would still go with the 85 because the D70 doesn't have a good enough viewfinder to MF a 105 consistently, IMO.
I think that the prime kit youve listed is perfect for dx. Its optics are great, cheap and lightweight. i would go for the 85mm, to much distance from 35mm to 105mm.
I am using the Nikon 12-24mm F4 that I purchased used as my wide. Very nice with my primes; 35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8, and 105mm F2 DC. It replaced my 20mm F2.8 AFD which I liked but was not really wide on DX.
I liked my 85mm F1.8 but it is either a 105 or an 85 for me and right now I have the 105 F2 DC again.
Honestly, if you could shoot with 2 primes, the 35mm and 85mm focal lengths work very well. At least for me. So I would pick up those two, the f/1.8 versions of each.
Nov 02, 2009 at 06:09 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Avi B wrote:
Honestly, if you could shoot with 2 primes, the 35mm and 85mm focal lengths work very well. At least for me. So I would pick up those two, the f/1.8 versions of each.
+1 and maybe throw in a 50 f/1.8 if you need a little more granularity in your steps. At $100 it's worth it.
Meh, you dont need the 50 if you got a 35 and a 85. That's kind of my point. You get the "normal" range out of the 50 and you can shoot lots o' things and the 85 provides telephoto for those times when you need it.
Andre Labonte wrote:
+1 and maybe throw in a 50 f/1.8 if you need a little more granularity in your steps. At $100 it's worth it.
I agree. What is a "budget" prime kit without a 50/1.8? The 50 is still the best bang for buck performer. One could argue that the 35/1.8 may be the new "bang for buck" king, considering the AF-s, better optical performance, likely more usable FL on DX, all for only $70 over the 50. But when you can pick the 50 up for less than $100 pre-owned, why not?
Thank you all for the feedback, it really put a nail in my decision. I went ahead and purchased a 50 1.8 and 85 1.8, together. This will put me in the respective DX ranges of 35/50/85. I have a feeling the 50 may not be used as much, if it doesn't, I will sell it at the same rate I got it. No big deal
Thanks, and now on to save for the tokina! (or possibly the nikkor fisheye!?)
So far I only have the 150 macro. I'm tempted to get the 35 over the 30 because of the price but I think 30mm will work better for me. I had the nifty 50, and whilst it was great optically, I really didn't like the focal length so I let it go. I had a Nikon 28mm 2.8 for a while too, and even though the focal length is perfect for me I found the 2.8 aperture too slow for what I wanted so I got rid.
I also have a Sigma 10-20 and a Nikon 18-70 that I'm not going to sell because 1) I love UWA and 2) it's just too handy and useful.
My FX prime kit is 20, 28, 40, 105. If I were to go DX on a budget, I'd probably go with the following: Toki 12-24, 35, 85 (or Tamron 90, but I wouldn't go any longer). I think the 12-24 is a great lens and much more flexible than 11-16 (but I don't need 2.8 in that range).
EDIT: I shoot mostly street photog and landscapes and this covers both nicely, but your needs may vary.
You'll love the 50 on dx more than likely. On dx it's a short tele.
I have the 28/50/85/135 range covered in my primes and i shoot with the 50 and 85 the most, the 28 50 and 135 were what i shot most with on film and primarily the 28, but I did alot more "walking around " shooting then. but I still love the 28 and wouldn't give it up.
I'm a DX user shooting a D90 + the 35mm f/2 AFD and 85mm f/1.4 AFD. For primes-only shooting, I couldn't be happier. For the times when zooming with my feet isn't an option, I find them limiting... but always, their image quality is amazing and I'm very happy with them.
I have this same kit plus the Sigma 50 1.4 and it works great for me. I have a Tamron 17-50 for a cheap 'convenient' lens. No question, the 50 gets the least attention
