Nikon Holy Trinty

[KmH]

Looks like Nikon lens nirvana is costing about $5560 new, these days.

AF-S 14-24 f/2.8G ED $1830
AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ED $1830
AF-S 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR $1900

Add the 300mm f/2.8 ($5300) and it's $10,860.

For those on a budget:

AF-S 12-24 f/4G IF ED DX $900
AF 24-85 f/2.8-4D IF $700
AF 80-200 f/2.8D ED $1100

Total: $2700

 

[cfusionpm]

What would that be for Canon?

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - $1800
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L - $1300
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS - $1900

Total of $5000.

 

[table1349]

What would that be for Canon?

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - $1800
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L - $1300
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS - $1900

Total of $5000.

Add the Canon 300 f2.8 at $4,100 and its $9,100.

That leaves enough for a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and one Canon TC or with out the Tokina both Canon TC's and a 580 EX II. :mrgreen:

 

[usayit]

or...

Canon 17-40L
24-105L
100-400L

or..

Canon 24mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.4
135mm f/2L

or..

12mm Heliar
35mm Summarit
75mm Summarit

or

28mm Ultron
35mm Nokton
50mm Noctilux

or

28 Summicron
50 Summicron
90 Summicron

or

Leica 21mm Summilux
35mm Summilux
50mm Summilux
(I wish)

or

Pentax 645 45mm f/2.8
75mm f/2.8
150mm f/3.5

or

Takumar screwmount 35mm f/2
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8

or

Takumar screwmount 50mm f/1.4
200mm f/3.5
500mm f/4.5

or

... hmm kinda fun...

 

[Montana]

I still don't understand why its called a holy trinity. LOL The "trinity" would be different for everyone. I wouldn't want my trinity to be 3 2.8 zooms. Prices sure are getting outragous though......supertelephotos are nuts. Glad I already have mine.

 

[itznfb]

I still don't understand why its called a holy trinity. LOL The "trinity" would be different for everyone. I wouldn't want my trinity to be 3 2.8 zooms. Prices sure are getting outragous though......supertelephotos are nuts. Glad I already have mine.

it's considered the Holy Trinity because it's 3 zoom lenses that cover 14-200mm with basically Prime level IQ throughout. so just about everything is covered perfectly. no other lens combination is setup this way. only the prime lovers and nitpickers will disagree.
however, the 200mm prime is better than the 70-200 at 200mm. and the 85mm 1.4 is better than the 70-200 at 85mm.

oh yea... and the 50mm 1.2 is better than the 24-70 at 50mm but it lacks AF. i do feel the 24-70 is better than the 50 1.4 and 1.8 though.

 

[JerryPH]

Looks like Nikon lens nirvana is costing about $5560 new, these days.

AF-S 14-24 f/2.8G ED $1830
AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ED $1830
AF-S 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR $1900

Add the 300mm f/2.8 ($5300) and it's $10,860.

For those on a budget...

The main point with those 3 (and that holy trinity thing always cracks me up), is that they are all full frame lenses. So if someone bought them for use on their D300, when they upgraded to a full frame, all their lenses are 100% compatible.

 

[JerryPH]

... and the 50mm 1.2 is better than the 24-70 at 50mm but it lacks AF. i do feel the 24-70 is better than the 50 1.4 and 1.8 though.

I have the Nikkor 24-70 and the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 is better at 50mm without doubt. It also does wider than F/2.8 (obviously... lol). The bokeh and sharpness of that lens are incredible.

I can use the 50mm F/1.4 for 50% of my wedding day if I wanted to... it's that good.

That said, my next lens is either the rumored Nikkor 35mm F/1.4g or the Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8

 

[PhotoXopher]

Bah, I have the Sigma 18-250 and have all that covered in one lens for under $600.

Disclaimer before getting flamed:
I do love the lens, but I also realize its limitations and also how the above mentioned trio are superior firepower.

 

[itznfb]

Bah, I have the Sigma 18-250 and have all that covered in one lens for under $600.

Disclaimer before getting flamed:
I do love the lens, but I also realize its limitations and also how the above mentioned trio are superior firepower.

 

[itznfb]

That said, my next lens is either the rumored Nikkor 35mm F/1.4g or the Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8

the 35mm f/1.4 is terrible compared to newer lenses. especially on your D700/D3. you'd be much better off with the 28mm f/1.4.

 

[JerryPH]

That said, my next lens is either the rumored Nikkor 35mm F/1.4g or the Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8

the 35mm f/1.4 is terrible compared to newer lenses. especially on your D700/D3. you'd be much better off with the 28mm f/1.4.

How could you know? It's not even been released yet! I think you are thinking about something other than the 35mm F/1.4G which I hope comes out soon.

 

[itznfb]

That said, my next lens is either the rumored Nikkor 35mm F/1.4g or the Nikkor 14-24 F/2.8

the 35mm f/1.4 is terrible compared to newer lenses. especially on your D700/D3. you'd be much better off with the 28mm f/1.4.

How could you know? It's not even been released yet! I think you are thinking about something other than the 35mm F/1.4G which I hope comes out soon.

hmm.... i traveled to the future! yes i did miss the G. i thought you were talking about this guy: NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4 from Nikon

i haven't even heard any rumors of a new revision though.
however it does make sense with the so so performance of the f/2 being the only current Fx option. there is definitely a need to an updated 35mm 1.4.

 

[JerryPH]

Bah, I have the Sigma 18-250 and have all that covered in one lens for under $600.

Disclaimer before getting flamed:
I do love the lens, but I also realize its limitations and also how the above mentioned trio are superior firepower.

(just not at F/1.4... )

 

[JerryPH]

yes i did miss the G. i thought you were talking about this guy: NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4 from Nikon

I was pretty sure that was it.

i haven't even heard any rumors of a new revision though.

From my local strobist group:
Flickr: Discussing Entire Nikon 2009/ 2010 DSLR Product Roadmap Leaked in Montreal Strobist
It's also been noised around the net a lot for the last couple of months. I think something was posted here too, I just cannot find it.

I'd like to think that in the future, the big three could be the 35mm F/1.4, 50mm F/1.4 and 85mm F/1.4 as an alternate to this "holy trinity".