I feel like I'm missing something

[jaomul]

I'd personally think it's a waste having both a 50 and 60, but if you need the macro then maybe.

I know it's very easy to spend lots and as I go on I'm finding less lenses are doing the job.

If it were me, and others will differ, I'd probably buy something like a Panasonic fz1000 or similar. My reasoning is it covers a multitude of shooting options and may just put the fun factor back into your photography. I love DSLRs, but I'd like (at times) to have a simple light easy option. Ymmv

 

[nerwin]

I'd personally think it's a waste having both a 50 and 60, but if you need the macro then maybe.

I know it's very easy to spend lots and as I go on I'm finding less lenses are doing the job.

If it were me, and others will differ, I'd probably buy something like a Panasonic fz1000 or similar. My reasoning is it covers a multitude of shooting options and may just put the fun factor back into your photography. I love DSLRs, but I'd like (at times) to have a simple light easy option. Ymmv

But unfortunately...the 50 1.8G cannot digitize film. The 60 2.8G would allow me to finally digitize some 35mm negs that I have no prints of. It's going to yield better results than my crappy scanner and it doubles as a regular prime lens. I dunno.

 

[jaomul]

I'd personally think it's a waste having both a 50 and 60, but if you need the macro then maybe.

I know it's very easy to spend lots and as I go on I'm finding less lenses are doing the job.

If it were me, and others will differ, I'd probably buy something like a Panasonic fz1000 or similar. My reasoning is it covers a multitude of shooting options and may just put the fun factor back into your photography. I love DSLRs, but I'd like (at times) to have a simple light easy option. Ymmv

But unfortunately...the 50 1.8G cannot digitize film. The 60 2.8G would allow me to finally digitize some 35mm negs that I have no prints of. It's going to yield better results than my crappy scanner and it doubles as a regular prime lens. I dunno.

You know yourself what you want/need. I was only saying if it were me.

Is it not easier to digitise film with a scanner (genuine question, I'm not to familiar with the process

 

[nerwin]

I'd personally think it's a waste having both a 50 and 60, but if you need the macro then maybe.

I know it's very easy to spend lots and as I go on I'm finding less lenses are doing the job.

If it were me, and others will differ, I'd probably buy something like a Panasonic fz1000 or similar. My reasoning is it covers a multitude of shooting options and may just put the fun factor back into your photography. I love DSLRs, but I'd like (at times) to have a simple light easy option. Ymmv

But unfortunately...the 50 1.8G cannot digitize film. The 60 2.8G would allow me to finally digitize some 35mm negs that I have no prints of. It's going to yield better results than my crappy scanner and it doubles as a regular prime lens. I dunno.

You know yourself what you want/need. I was only saying if it were me.

Is it not easier to digitise film with a scanner (genuine question, I'm not to familiar with the process

Its easier with a scanner. But the quality isn't as good as a DSLR + Macro lens. Unless you spend a LOT of money for a high end scanner and that's something I wouldn't use for a long period of time. I think getting this lens would be a good multi purpose lens honestly. Has that same field of view that I like, but can focus much closer than my 50mm can. Don't care about taking true 1:1 macros, just like being able to focus closer on a flower whereas my 50 1.8 hits its limit.

 

[john.margetts]

I've been slowly turning away from shooting cars using my ultra wide angle. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it just looks weird. It just distorts the car so much, unless you use that distortion in your favor.

Assuming that that you are using a 'full frame' camera, the angle of view of a 16mm lens is about 110°. Whether you view that on a screen or on paper, the angle of view of the picture is about 47°. Mapping 110° onto 47° is always going to cause distortion.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk

 

[cgw]

Then get the 60mm Micro Nikkor--or even an Ai-d 55/3.5. My 40/2.8g gets lots of use on a D7200. Utterly superb--and far quicker--for scanning 120 b&w negs. The ability to actually focus seals the deal. Civilian film scanner technology is dead in the water.

 

[Derrel]

After 40-plus years in the photo game, I'll offer a suggestion:Stop buy and selling s***, and start keeping it, and using whatever is needed, as appropriate. Problem solved. If you want prime lenses, buy them, and keep them. For years. That's what a person does. Buying, them dumping doesn;t make much sense. Same with zooms...stop trading away stuff, and start keeping stuff around long enough to learn how to fully utilize it, when and as it is needed.

There are otyher utility zooms lenses besides the heavy, bulky, conspicuous, 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor. Many different smaller lenses out there to choose from, at lower price, smaller size,lighter weight. 28-80, 24-85, 28-105, 24-85, 24-120, and more--from different eras, and different price points, multiple models.

An 18-35 is out there too, the new model for full-frame is decent...lightish, smallish, good performance. EACH of the wide-angle lenses is its ____own_____ focal length! 16mm,18mm,20mm,24mm,28mm,35mm: there are SIX different, well-recognizxed wide-angle lens lengths in a 16-35mm zoom lens; add in the older 17mm, and the 21mm length, and the 25mm length, and there are NINE recognized lengths, with a LOT of angular difference between them! So...start learning to utilize the 16mm-35mm zoom lens for what it is...a multi-focal length zoom. 16,17,18,20,24,28,35...all are VERY different lens lengths.

What you are missing is experience in the focal lengths; a 17mm ultra-wide, an 18mm extreme wide, a 20mm wide-angle, a 24mm wide-angle, a 28mm wide-angle, and a 35mm semi-wide, those are the SIX, very different lenses within the 16-35mm. There is plenty to learn about and to utilize...you're missing out on the fundamentals of lens angle of view AND on far/near relationship rendering within the focal length range of the zoom...look at the 94/84/74 degree angular views of just three of the settings!

 

[nerwin]

After 40-plus years in the photo game, I'll offer a suggestion:Stop buy and selling s***, and start keeping it, and using whatever is needed, as appropriate. Problem solved. If you want prime lenses, buy them, and keep them. For years. That's what a person does. Buying, them dumping doesn;t make much sense. Same with zooms...stop trading away stuff, and start keeping stuff around long enough to learn how to fully utilize it, when and as it is needed.

There are otyher utility zooms lenses besides the heavy, bulky, conspicuous, 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor. Many different smaller lenses out there to choose from, at lower price, smaller size,lighter weight. 28-80, 24-85, 28-105, 24-85, 24-120, and more--from different eras, and different price points, multiple models.

An 18-35 is out there too, the new model for full-frame is decent...lightish, smallish, good performance. EACH of the wide-angle lenses is its ____own_____ focal length! 16mm,18mm,20mm,24mm,28mm,35mm: there are SIX different, well-recognizxed wide-angle lens lengths in a 16-35mm zoom lens; add in the older 17mm, and the 21mm length, and the 25mm length, and there are NINE recognized lengths, with a LOT of angular difference between them! So...start learning to utilize the 16mm-35mm zoom lens for what it is...a multi-focal length zoom. 16,17,18,20,24,28,35...all are VERY different lens lengths.

What you are missing is experience in the focal lengths; a 17mm ultra-wide, an 18mm extreme wide, a 20mm wide-angle, a 24mm wide-angle, a 28mm wide-angle, and a 35mm semi-wide, those are the SIX, very different lenses within the 16-35mm. There is plenty to learn about and to utilize...you're missing out on the fundamentals of lens angle of view AND on far/near relationship rendering within the focal length range of the zoom...look at the 94/84/74 degree angular views of just three of the settings!

Yeah, you're probably right Derrel. Sometimes you don't realize things until you talk about it.

 

[nerwin]

Then get the 60mm Micro Nikkor--or even an Ai-d 55/3.5. My 40/2.8g gets lots of use on a D7200. Utterly superb--and far quicker--for scanning 120 b&w negs. The ability to actually focus seals the deal. Civilian film scanner technology is dead in the water.

I'm really supprised how sharp negatives are when taken with a DSLR and macro lens. It's pretty astonishing really. I'd love to see old photos that's been hiding in negatives.

 

[SquarePeg]

While I agree with the advice to stop buying/selling, I will answer your question because I do think you have a gap. You need a 105mm 2.8. It's my favorite Nikon lens by far. If I'm remembering correctly you are the one who mentioned being out in your yard shooting flowers the other day? And you want something to use for macro? The 105 is it!

 

[nerwin]

While I agree with the advice to stop buying/selling, I will answer your question because I do think you have a gap. You need a 105mm 2.8. It's my favorite Nikon lens by far. If I'm remembering correctly you are the one who mentioned being out in your yard shooting flowers the other day? And you want something to use for macro? The 105 is it!

I owned that lens before, I didn't really enjoy it a whole lot. Great lens, but I felt the longer focal length made it limited for me. I like to show more in the scene rather that completely isolate it.

I probably don't make any sense. Haha.

 

[Derrel]

You did not like the 105mm 2.8 Nikkor macro lens....maybe a shorter lens, like the Tamron 90mm macro, would be good for you on FX? The 60mm Micro~Nikkor lenses, both AF-D and the newer G-series, have been well-reviewed. I have had the 60/2.8 AF-D macro for 10 years or so; good lens for small-scale landscapes, but honestly, too short in my opinion, for 35mm negatives; the working distance of the 60mm puts the negative VERY close to the front of the lens. With larger negatives, like 6x6 or 6x7 or 4x5 sheet film, the 60 would be fine.

There is a BIG, noticeable difference between a Nikon 50mm lens and a Nikon 60mm macro lens...

I get the idea of wanting a new lens to satisfy a funk, or to get you moving in a new direction; I've done that myself,several times over the past decades; NEW stuff can light a fire under a person! Maybe a new lens is not the right answer? Maybe an accessory or two, like flash stuff? New speedlight and TTL connecting cord? Or a new flash and a remote triggering system? I dunno...

Maybe you need to do some research, and look into say, Thom Hogan's rational lens sets article or whatever he titled it; there are some ways to build a lens kit that many people have used. For example...the 16-35 and the 70-200 are both fine zooms, but the 50mm is rather pedestrian...is it possible you'd like an 85mm? Or the 90mm Tamron macro? Or maybe you just need an extension tube set from Kenko?

Or MAYBE you ought to look into some manual focus Nikon glass from the Ai-S era?

 

[nerwin]

You did not like the 105mm 2.8 Nikkor macro lens....maybe a shorter lens, like the Tamron 90mm macro, would be good for you on FX? The 60mm Micro~Nikkor lenses, both AF-D and the newer G-series, have been well-reviewed. I have had the 60/2.8 AF-D macro for 10 years or so; good lens for small-scale landscapes, but honestly, too short in my opinion, for 35mm negatives; the working distance of the 60mm puts the negative VERY close to the front of the lens. With larger negatives, like 6x6 or 6x7 or 4x5 sheet film, the 60 would be fine.

There is a BIG, noticeable difference between a Nikon 50mm lens and a Nikon 60mm macro lens...

I get the idea of wanting a new lens to satisfy a funk, or to get you moving in a new direction; I've done that myself,several times over the past decades; NEW stuff can light a fire under a person! Maybe a new lens is not the right answer? Maybe an accessory or two, like flash stuff? New speedlight and TTL connecting cord? Or a new flash and a remote triggering system? I dunno...

Maybe you need to do some research, and look into say, Thom Hogan's rational lens sets article or whatever he titled it; there are some ways to build a lens kit that many people have used. For example...the 16-35 and the 70-200 are both fine zooms, but the 50mm is rather pedestrian...is it possible you'd like an 85mm? Or the 90mm Tamron macro? Or maybe you just need an extension tube set from Kenko?

Or MAYBE you ought to look into some manual focus Nikon glass from the Ai-S era?

I heard that it you buy one AIS lens, then you have to buy them all. Haha

I enjoy my 3 lenses I have now, but I guess I'm looking for something to have fun with..something different.

I have yet to try the 85 1.8 on full frame. I owned that lens many years ago on DX but it was just too tele for me. Who knows, I could enjoy shooting 85mm on FX.

I don't care so much about shooting at 1:1. I just want to be able to focus closer than my 50mm or 35mm can. Maybe grabbing a set of Kenkos would be better for occasional close up shot. Cheaper too. But think @Braineack said he has extension tubes with an 85mm and quite like it. Maybe it was someone else who said it, I don't remember haha.

That voitlander 45 f/2 is nice though, but more than what I want to spend lol.

What would be a fun AIS lens?

 

[Derrel]

Yes, an AF-copled extension tube in 12mm or 20mm length would be very useful (lengths are approximate...I have seen 11mm and 12mm and 13mm tubes, and longer tubes of 20mm to 25mm legnth for the middle-length of a 3-0tube set; the 36mm or longest tube...ehhhh, not too useful.

Fun Ai-S lens? one real GEM is the 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S. Super lens, SMALLER than the giant macro 105/2.8 by far."Pretty pictures".

I dunno...the 300/4.5 ED~IF is neat, but it's a 300, but is low-priced. The 24/2.8 Ai-S is neat, but an AF-S G is a better lens. The little 135/2.8 Ai-S is super-sweet, used to be cheap, but newly discovered on YouTube by thousands, price has gone way up.

The older 80-200 f/4 Ai-S zoom is nice, sharp,low-cost, smallish. 85mm f/2 Ai-S is SMALL. Light. looks like the 35/2 Ai-S and the 85/2 Ai-S were built on the same barrel and ring system...almost identical in size and appearance.

The 200/4 Ai-S is low-priced, skinny barrel, light, easy to shoot.

The 45-P f/2.8 is a GOOD lens, optically (I own it, and know, from experience, there's a ton of negative BS about this lens on the 'Net), and it has a CPU contact setup, but it is manual focus lens but meters automatically, and it works well with the 12mm Kenko extension tube as a close-focusing, close-range lens for small objects. "Pretty pictures".

In autofocus lenses, you might VERY much like the 85/1.8 AF-S G on full-frame...it shines on FX...and you're right; on DX it's like apprx. a 127mm E-view...very narrow angle. 85mm lens is BEST on FX, as an 85mm or short telephoto lens! On Dx, it's like a shortened 135mm "medium" telephoto. The difference between a short telephoto and a medium telephoto is like the difference between a wallet that has a $50 and a $100 bill...a VERY real, and a very noticeable difference!

 

[nerwin]

Sure I could say my 70-200 has 85mm covered but it's not 1.8.

Hmm. You've giving me some food for thought though.