If you had to choose one lens...

ac12 · Jan 27, 2018

24-120 f/4
It has a longer reach and is lighter than the 24-70 f/2.8. And is only 1 stop slower.

snowbear · Jan 27, 2018

Fast 85 or 105 prime for portraits. Use the DX zoom for other stuff until you can afford a second FX lens.

ac12 · Jan 27, 2018

As a GP lens, I would not select the 24-70 f/2.8. Too big and heavy.
Unless you are young and strong, where weight is not much of an issue.

Another alternative is the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5.
It is smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 24-120, but has less reach on the long end.

TylerF · Jan 29, 2018

Thank you all for the replies. I think I am going to get both a 24-70 for general purpose and then an 85 for portrait work. Taxes treated me a little better than expected this year lol. Really appreciate it!

shadowlands · Feb 1, 2018

Kudos on the 24-70. I have Nikon's (the non VR) and I adore it.

LWW · Feb 5, 2018

NIKKOR 80-200 AF-D FTW!

mrca · Mar 14, 2018

One lens is a compromise so I would recommend a zoom. The 24-120 4.o gives you plenty of width and enough length for portraits. The f4 isn't ideal, but not far from the 3.2 I find myself at to get both eyes sharp with a 135. 85 is too short for headshots for my taste, minimal compression. I shoot with the 135 2.0 dc and I like the compression, clearly more flattering, and bokeh is stunning. Lots of folks like headshots at 105 but for me that is improved upon with the 135. It is still short enough to speak with your subject. Sure, folks use 200 or 300, I have even used my 400 mm 2.8 but you need a walkie talkie to communicate with the subject. Literally on a shot with it on a crop d500 and 1.7 teleconverter, so 1000 mm equivalent had me 50 yards away. Got to test the transmission of my strobe triggers. What do I carry, a 50 1.4, an 85 1.4, the 135 2.o and a 70-200 2.8. I also pack a 24-70 2.8 or a 35 2.o in case I want more environment included. I disagree with the 24-70 for headshots, too short. 50 even worse. Remember, it's not the lens length that is determinative of compression it is your shooting distance to subject. We think we look like what we see in the mirror in the morning, so what is that, 2' counter, 2' back into mirror or 4 '. At 6-say 9 or 10 feet, the nose is compressed but not enough to be objectionable. Try standing at the counter, watch the nose and take a step back, then another. Watch the compression. The reason the 135 works for me is it pretty much fills the frame at 6-9 feet and I can communicate with the subject. Shoot at 4 feet and it doesn't enhance or may even distort the subject the other way. Want an example of that, use a 35 and get close enough to fill the frame and watch the nose get huge. I have never had anyone tell me they wanted their nose look bigger. But with the 135 they like the photo but don't know why. If you have a zoom, try head shot test shots at 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 , 12 and 15 feet zooming to fill the frame at each location. See which one you like. See where the nose stops being clown sized. See where the nose starts being obviously shortened. That should help you find the range of lengths you like.

JBPhotog · Mar 27, 2018

The new portrait king is the Nikon 105mm f1.4E with melt in your mouth buttery bokeh, it really is just stunning. The rendering of this lens is remarkable and it is crazy sharp. If it were me and I only had one lens, this would be it, it replaced my 1970's 105mm f2.5 AI.

ac12 · Mar 27, 2018

JBPhotog said:
The new portrait king is the Nikon 105mm f1.4E with melt in your mouth buttery bokeh, it really is just stunning. The rendering of this lens is remarkable and it is crazy sharp. If it were me and I only had one lens, this would be it, it replaced my 1970's 105mm f2.5 AI.

OUCH !!! At $2,200, it should.
Way too rich for my wallet.

mrca · Mar 27, 2018

JBPhotog said:
The new portrait king is the Nikon 105mm f1.4E

Based on what? For me it has a case of the "shorts." I love my 85 1.4 for 3/4 and less and 105 is just too close to that, the 135 is a better compliment to it. It also puts me too close to the subject for my taste. Of course, I guess I could take a step back and then crop but my 135 eliminates that. Also, I have seen some geek reviews that still found ca and didn't find the bokeh as buttery as the dc lenses. Portrait noble maybe.

JBPhotog · Mar 28, 2018

mrca said:
Based on what? For me it has a case of the "shorts." I love my 85 1.4 for 3/4 and less and 105 is just too close to that, the 135 is a better compliment to it. It also puts me too close to the subject for my taste. Of course, I guess I could take a step back and then crop but my 135 eliminates that. Also, I have seen some geek reviews that still found ca and didn't find the bokeh as buttery as the dc lenses. Portrait noble maybe.

I find the 85 too short so I guess it is a case of different strokes for different folks. The 85 f1.4 and 135 f2 also have CA some would say even more so than the 105 f1.4E and neither of them are as sharp as the 105 f1.4E. For me, bokeh is one factor in a lenses performance, combine that with CA control and sharpness and it is Nikons best short tele available today.

mrca · Mar 28, 2018

Exactly, gear has to suit the way you see and shoot. For weddings, and events where 3/4 length wouldn't be without the 85. The 135 puts me at the distance I like for headshot compression and ability to talk to subject. Plenty of sharpness in both including on an 850. The 105 length has been the go to portrait lens for many folks for years. But since I use the 85 the 5o mm gap is great and going the other way, I carry a 35 2.o if traveling light or a 24-70 but that is when I have to use them, otherwise I am at 50 and 85 1.4 or 135 3.2. The 135 has been made unchanged for 24 years for a reason, but hopefully that is the next lens updated but only if they improve it. They dropped the dc ring which I like to use to actually soften the focus. I also can screw on a softar filter.