2 fast primes or one fast zoom?

[PhotoXopher]

Folks, I need your opinion here...

I have:
Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

What I'm considering:
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

Would this be a good move? I'm losing some speed but I think I'm OK with that since I could go to one useful lens.

Uses:
General around the house kid photos.
Family events/holidays.
Portraits

I'd need to sell the two primes to get the zoom, I appreciate your input here.

[TPF Sponsor]

[itznfb]

i personally don't find primes useful. so i would sell them and buy the zoom.

[NateS]

I would rather have the zoom, but for the 80 bucks that you'll get out of your 50mm f1.8, I'd say keep it and get the zoom (save another month if needed). Shooting at f1.8 is fun and I sold my 50 when I bought the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. I plan to pick up another used 50mm f1.8 so that I can switch it up.....I miss the stupidly shallow DOF.

[PhotoXopher]

I'd be selling them for $200/$100 (35/50), that's the going rate around here anyway. That'll leave me about $100 to pitch in toward the new zoom.

[gsgary]

I'd be selling them for $200/$100 (35/50), that's the going rate around here anyway. That'll leave me about $100 to pitch in toward the new zoom.

Personaly i would rather have the primes, but i would keep the primes and buy the zoom, because if you are shooting inside you will need the bigger aperture, horses for corses

[JerryPH]

I *love* my primes, they absolutely kill all my non-primes. That said, there is the question of convenience vs maximum picture quality and a fast lens.

If you want the best shots possible, primes are your tool. If you shoot a lot in low light, primes are your tool.

If you do not shoot in low light situations often and are not interested in moving back or forth on your legs instead of the fingers, and are not really picky about quality or getting the best out of your camera, then a lens with zoom is what you want. This is not to say all zooms are crap, some are very close to prime quality... but those are the ones with 4 digit price tags where the first number is at least 2, 3 or higher.

[musicaleCA]

I'd keep the primes too. Especially for portraiture, because you've got the space and the time to frame a shot perfectly without zoom.

That said, I can see how shooting kids around the house and doing family events and holidays would be easier with a zoom.

[itznfb]

This is not to say all zooms are crap, some are very close to prime quality... but those are the ones with 4 digit price tags where the first number is at least 2, 3 or higher.

for nikon... other than "high power zoom" as nikon calls it they don't have lenses that expensive. their best lens the 14-24mm f/2.8 is only $1,800 and there isn't a prime out there that will out perform it other than being a couple stops faster.

[ANDS!]

Having both the 35MM and the 50MM seems like a waste. I would sell the 35MM and keep the 50MM for when you need that extra glob of light. You're almost losing 2-stops of light with that F/2.8. That's the difference of 1/20th of a second versus being able to go to 1/80th.

And Nikon makes quite a few ridiculously priced lenses currently on market, although indeed they are generally of the telephoto zoom, or telephoto prime category.

[PhotoXopher]

True, true... I love that 35mm but I may have to do just that. I don't do much for wide angle shooting (not that 35mm is all that wide), it's just that most of what I do is up close and personal, if not I throw on the 70-300.

[usayit]

Depends on you... the photographer

As this thread shows, some prefer prime and others prefer zooms. I like both and it depends on what I am shooting. In general, I like primes but chasing kids around is easier with zoom.

Most photographers I cross paths with generally like the convenience of a fast aperture zoom so I am more inclined to recommend going with the 24-70 f/2.8.

Personally (just stating my opinion)...

1) 35mm and 50mm do not match up very well. I am more inclined to use a 35mm and 85 or 75 ish focal length (cropped sensor M8).
2) The 24-70mm focal range is a bit short for my tastes.
3) I (Canon shooter) will travel with a walk around 24-105L f/4L AND a 50mm f/1.4. You might want to consider something similar.

[itznfb]

True, true... I love that 35mm but I may have to do just that. I don't do much for wide angle shooting (not that 35mm is all that wide), it's just that most of what I do is up close and personal, if not I throw on the 70-300.

what is it that you love about the 35mm?

[PhotoXopher]

Nothing that I don't love about the 50mm I guess... plus I don't have to get as close with a 50mm.

It's just a nice lens and I've only had it for a couple of months

[blash]

Being on a crop body, I'd think your 35mm prime would be good enough for indoor shots. A normal lens is generally what you want for indoor candid pictures (hell, my parents used a 50mm prime 15 years ago on their consumer film SLR) - going wider's not going to help you much. Also considering the fact that you shoot indoors, fast glass is going to be more help to you.

If you really need something wider, B&H sells the 28mm f/2.8D for $170 used. But if I were you, I'd go and rent (maybe $20? not even that high) a lens that includes the 28-75 focal range, bring it home, twist the zoom barrel between 28 and 35 and see if you really do need that difference. Above 50 on a crop body is going to feel a little narrow for you indoors I think.

If I were you, I'd let the 35mm live on the camera for the candid shots and then switch it out for the 50mm when you have a planned, "say cheese!" kind of shot. Don't waste your money on the zoom.

[ANDS!]

He wants to do portrait photography as well. A prime is nice for portraits, however there are times when the prime can not frame the shot that you want, especially if you've got your light set up a certain way. A wide to tele lens is also more practical for real world everyday shooting.