Help me decide...

[sarah_19_nz]

better research this 35-70 too Thank you

 

[Mach0]

better research this 35-70 too Thank you

If your using a crop sensor you can get away with the old 70-300 lens hood or the 85 1.8d metal hood. It works well( not so much mounted on fx)

 

[astroNikon]

Thank you, I'm off to research this 17-55mm I'm going to keep practicing with the 50mm 1.8d, as all the research I have done proves that it should be right up there with all the other 50mm's and I just need to use it correctly! I have no filter over my 50mm. Thanks!

the G version does not have the aperture ring adjuster thing on the lens. It's only internal and all the Nikons adjust it electronically.

the "D" is part of the AF / AF-D which is for distance information sent to the camera for flash photography.

and the "AF" part of it is the screw auto focus - our D7000's have a focus motor built-in so we can use AF/AF-D lenses.

the newer AF-S lens do not have a screw auto focus and use a faster lens internal motor, electronically controlled.

I'm sticking with the AF and AF-D lens as they are cheaper than their AF-S counterparts but only work fully on D7000 and higher Nikons.

 

[astroNikon]

btw, you will see Nikon 35-70 / f2.8 are the good ones

be careful not to look at the Nikon 35-70 /f3.6-5.6 or something like that. They apparently are not very sharp.

 

[astroNikon]

I should also mention, there are 2 versions of the 2.8 lens, and older "push pull" for the focal length and the "newer" rotating collar for the focal length. They are apparently both good, just depends what you like. Most of my lenses have the rotating collar I have one old pre 1999 push-pull a 75-300 which is considered a nice and sharp lens throughout.

 

[Mach0]

I should also mention, there are 2 versions of the 2.8 lens, and older "push pull" for the focal length and the "newer" rotating collar for the focal length. They are apparently both good, just depends what you like. Most of my lenses have the rotating collar I have one old pre 1999 push-pull a 75-300 which is considered a nice and sharp lens throughout.

If you arentalking the 35-70 I think they are all push and pull.

 

[sarah_19_nz]

Grief! what a hard choice... I think I am leaning toward the 17-55mm 2.8. Quite a pricey lens. Will I regret it??? arrrgghhh help! lol

 

[tirediron]

I'm going to go against the grain here; the 17-55 is indeed a good lens, BUT... IMO, it's not really a portrait lens. You're only going to use the last 8mm or so for portrait work. The two premium portrait lenses IMO are the 85mm 1.4 (or 1.8) and the 70-200. Both of those are pretty dear; my suggestion would be to look for an 80-200 f2.8D; it's an older lens, but it's built like a tank and has excellent optics AND will be MUCH cheaper than all of those options.

 

[sarah_19_nz]

I think my main problem is that I don't have much room (studio space) I have a max of 4 meters between me and the model. This is quite limiting right? an 85mm would be too long?? even at 70mm I don't think i could get back far enough?

 

[Mach0]

I'm going to go against the grain here; the 17-55 is indeed a good lens, BUT... IMO, it's not really a portrait lens. You're only going to use the last 8mm or so for portrait work. The two premium portrait lenses IMO are the 85mm 1.4 (or 1.8) and the 70-200. Both of those are pretty dear; my suggestion would be to look for an 80-200 f2.8D; it's an older lens, but it's built like a tank and has excellent optics AND will be MUCH cheaper than all of those options.

I love my 85 and the 70-200 is next on my list. I've rented it and its sweeeeet. Just heavy lol

 

[tirediron]

I think my main problem is that I don't have much room (studio space) I have a max of 4 meters between me and the model. This is quite limiting right? an 85mm would be too long?? even at 70mm I don't think i could get back far enough?

Ahhh, well, that is indeed a sheep of another colour! In that case, then yes, the 17-55 is a better option given the lack of space.

 

[astroNikon]

I should also mention, there are 2 versions of the 2.8 lens, and older "push pull" for the focal length and the "newer" rotating collar for the focal length. They are apparently both good, just depends what you like. Most of my lenses have the rotating collar I have one old pre 1999 push-pull a 75-300 which is considered a nice and sharp lens throughout.

If you arentalking the 35-70 I think they are all push and pull.

that explains alot .... :lmao:
'ya never know until it's in your hands !!

 

[sarah_19_nz]

I REALLY REALLY want the 70-200mm 2.8 for outside and on location shoots SO BADLY. Unfortunately it isn't the right choice for me at the moment. I'll keep buying the occasional Lotto tickets though. Back to the 17-55mm 2.8... any other 'thumbs up' for this lens?

 

[djacobox372]

The newer 50mm 1.8g, is noticably sharper at 1.8 and f2 than the 50afd version or the 35g.

I'd stay away from the old 35-70mm, they're prone to low contrast and internal hazing. You're better off with the newer tamron 28-75mm 2.8.

That said I would urge you to consider a 80-200mm 2.8 afd, the older push pull versions are only $350-400. As long as youre not shooting action it focuses fast enough.

 

[Mach0]

The newer 50mm 1.8g, is noticably sharper at 1.8 and f2 than the 50afd version or the 35g. I'd stay away from the old 35-70mm, they're prone to low contrast and internal hazing. You're better off with the newer tamron 28-75mm 2.8. That said I would urge you to consider a 80-200mm 2.8 afd, the older push pull versions are only $350-400. As long as youre not shooting action it focuses fast enough.

To extend on this- buying from a reputable source is a good option and can minimize the chances of a crap copy. My 35 -70 is mint and I got it from KEH.