24-70 f/2.8 or set of primes?

[nerwin]

I've been looking through my old photos and I noticed all my best shots were taken with a prime lens and I think the reason behind that is because prime lenses slow me and down makes me think more about the composition than a zoom lens.

Ever since I got the 24-120 f/4 VR, I very rarely take it off. It's a great lens..no doubt but I find the 24-120mm range too much and I never really liked "do-it-all" lenses.

I plan on selling it and getting the 16-35 f/4 VR which is what I really need for my kind of photography but I'm also thinking about picking up a couple prime lenses too. But I honestly can't decide which way I want to go.

My orginal intentions were to get the 16-35 f/4 and sell the 50 1.8G and get the 35 f/2D (which I had and LOVED) and also get the 85 1.8G which I also had but on DX and found it that it was too long. But I do like that focal length on full frame. Great for really wanting to separate the background from the subject for portraits and other things. I'm working on getting some lighting gear so I can try to get feet a little bit wet in portrait photography.

However, a friend of mine suggested to get the Tamron 24-70 2.8 SP VC and I did some research on that lens and it seems to be a stellar performer. I seen it used around $750-850 on eBay. Its doable but pushing my budget really...really tight.

I also considered getting the Tamron 24-70 2.8 and Nikon's 18-35G and keeping the 50 1.8G. But the thing is, I'm going against my orginal intentions with the 35mm and 85mm. Also, the Tamron 24-70 is quite large and heavier than my 24-120 f/4 VR. I mean...atleast it has a zoom lock and its a 2.8 which is a plus. But I don't see it being that great of a walk around lens. I really loved the 35 f/2D as a walk around lens because its so light and compact.

Some also have suggested keeping the 50mm and getting the 24 2.8D and the 85 1.8D but I honestly don't see the point in the 24 2.8D because if I'm going to be shooting that wide, I'd use my 16-35 f/4 anyways!

I'm in no rush to make any changes, but I'll be getting that 16-35 (or 18-35G, depends) very soon because I plan going on a hike this September and wanted an ultra wide!

All suggestions have be great which makes it really hard to decide which way I want to go.

16-35 + 35 f/2D + 85 1.8G?
16-35 + 24 2.8D + 50 1.8G + 85 1.8D?
16-35 + 24-70?
18-35 + 24-70 + 50 1.8G?

I don't know!!

 

[astroNikon]

at least you haven't sold your camera.

I'd say get the 16-35 then hold off on the rest until you become comfortable with that. Then see if you use your 24-120 any as you seemed to not use it much above 50mm.

when I went through lens I had the 24/2.8D. Loved it small compact size. But my 24-85 @ 24 had less distortion, so I got rid of the 24 prime. But if you go prime 24/50/85 that is a good trio to have.

 

[nerwin]

at least you haven't sold your camera.

I'd say get the 16-35 then hold off on the rest until you become comfortable with that. Then see if you use your 24-120 any as you seemed to not use it much above 50mm.

when I went through lens I had the 24/2.8D. Loved it small compact size. But my 24-85 @ 24 had less distortion, so I got rid of the 24 prime. But if you go prime 24/50/85 that is a good trio to have.

I know a lot swear by the good ol' 24 2.8D, but I'm really on the fence about 24mm and 35mm. They are quite different on full frame. The 35mm focuses pretty close, I think it has a rep ratio of 1:4 and I think the 16-35 f/4 is as well.

Nikon doesn't make a faster, light and compact 24mm do they? I know they have a 24 1.8G but it looks quite large and probably heavier than the 24 2.8D. But that would be a fun lens too. 24mm at 1.8..could get very creative with that. But not in my budget...

You might be right, it might be better to just get the 16-35 and go from there. If I could, I'd keep the 24-120 f/4 BUT the zoom creep is really, really annoying the heck out of me. Tried lens bands and don't do a bit of a good. I can't stand it extending ALL THE TIME when walking, so it's really gotta go. Nikon screwed up with that lens, they really should've implemented a zoom lock.

 

[astroNikon]

The prime AF-D are nice and compact primes.
The AF-S G all have the focus motor in the lens, electronic aperture control all which take up more room thus are larger. So for AF compactness the AF-D are it.

The 24mm has a 1 foot close focus. I don't know the 35mm close focus. I really enjoyed the 24mm AF-D & 50mm AF-D compactness.

But I have so much overlap at 24 & 35mm it made no sense. The 18-35, 24-85 both overlap.
So other than a fast aperture I had the 24 & 35 twice covered.
But give yourself some time to get a new lens into the setup that you have.

 

[nerwin]

The prime AF-D are nice and compact primes.
The AF-S G all have the focus motor in the lens, electronic aperture control all which take up more room thus are larger. So for AF compactness the AF-D are it.

The 24mm has a 1 foot close focus. I don't know the 35mm close focus. I really enjoyed the 24mm AF-D & 50mm AF-D compactness.

But I have so much overlap at 24 & 35mm it made no sense. The 18-35, 24-85 both overlap.
So other than a fast aperture I had the 24 & 35 twice covered.
But give yourself some time to get a new lens into the setup that you have.

I never thought much about the 24 2.8D but I'm finding kind of interesting and its really affordable. Seen really nice copies on ebay around $200! From my understanding, that lens focuses insanely fast. (but its wide anyways, not much to focus lol) But I'm really considering that lens because it might be great option for milky way shots. Sure..its not a 1.8 but it is wide enough and 2.8 is still faster than f/4. Plus if I stack the shots, I reckon I can get some nice milky way shots with that lens.

 

[goodguy]

I own the 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8G and I hardly ever use them, the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G is just too good for me to want or need the primes.
The primes are sharper but not by much, the primes are faster but the D750 low light performance is so good I really don't need the extra light and the D610 is almost as good as the D750.
So I personally would recommend getting the 24-70mm 2.8 over a set of 2 or 3 primes but that's my view and my style of course.

 

[nerwin]

I own the 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8G and I hardly ever use them, the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G is just too good for me to want or need the primes.
The primes are sharper but not by much, the primes are faster but the D750 low light performance is so good I really don't need the extra light and the D610 is almost as good as the D750.
So I personally would recommend getting the 24-70mm 2.8 over a set of 2 or 3 primes but that's my view and my style of course.

Its really tough decision for me because not a huge fan of the weight of both Tamron and Nikon's 24-70 2.8 lenses but I also never really liked zoom lenses, I've always found fixed lenses to be more fun and forces me to make it work and that's how I get my best shots, I just feel lazy with zoom lenses.

 

[goodguy]

I own the 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8G and I hardly ever use them, the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G is just too good for me to want or need the primes.
The primes are sharper but not by much, the primes are faster but the D750 low light performance is so good I really don't need the extra light and the D610 is almost as good as the D750.
So I personally would recommend getting the 24-70mm 2.8 over a set of 2 or 3 primes but that's my view and my style of course.

Its really tough decision for me because not a huge fan of the weight of both Tamron and Nikon's 24-70 2.8 lenses but I also never really liked zoom lenses, I've always found fixed lenses to be more fun and forces me to make it work and that's how I get my best shots, I just feel lazy with zoom lenses.

So it looks like you know what you want so go and get the prime lenses you want

 

[astroNikon]

So it looks like you know what you want so go and get the prime lenses you want

... Without starting another thread about it

 

[Gary A.]

Primes are different than zooms in more ways than most imagine. The obvious is that primes are simpler and sharper, zooms are much more complex and much more convienent.

For me, it is more about your passion for photography. A similar image will be better, maybe not significantly better, but nonetheless better at some level, with a prime than a zoom. Using primes is more difficult than using zooms and requires more thought and anticipatory thinking than with a zoom.

While I have zooms, I use them like primes, either fully extended out or fully retracted in. Recently, I have decided to replace my zooms with primes. (But it is easy for me as I learned photography with primes.)

 

[nerwin]

So it looks like you know what you want so go and get the prime lenses you want

... Without starting another thread about it

Sorry...I guess I just like to think out loud and that involves posting on here. But I think I figured out what I want to do.

 

[table1349]

My answer is a simple one. YES

The zoom for when you need convenience.
The primes when you want the best possible image quality.

 

[nerwin]

My answer is a simple one. YES

The zoom for when you need convenience.
The primes when you want the best possible image quality.

Yes to what? Both? Haha.

 

[table1349]

Yep, both.

 

[nerwin]

Yep, both.

Well I'm just going to aim for the 16-35 f/4 first and then decide if I should get a set of primes first or a fast zoom first. I'll probably get primes first honestly since I don't do that much that would require the convenience of a zoom. I could always grab that 24-85 VR for next to nothing on eBay just to have in the bag.