Lens help!

MrsLittle · Feb 6, 2012

I know I'm being pretty annoying with my constant lens advice question but I want to make sure I get it right the first time and not have regrets.
So I already have the 50 1.8g and I was going to pick up another lens and couldn't decide between the 85 1.4 or 24-70. Looking at photos and the fact that I think primes suit me better, what do you think if I pick up the 85 1.4g and 35 1.8g to go with my 50? I just doesn't make sense to get the 24-70 when my 50 falls in the middle of that range and I don't need to go any wider than 35, since I shoot mostly portraits anyways.
Please tell this is a good choice.

Trever1t · Feb 6, 2012

the 50 is no replacement or even comparable to the 24-70. The 85 is one lens I really am looking to add to my small collenction. 85mm f1.4 (on an FX) is the most common "portrait" lens, highly respected. 24-70 is obviously more versatile. You decide!

cgipson1 · Feb 6, 2012

I don't consider the 24-70 and the 50 to be lenses you can compare really. To me the 50 is a low light general purpose lens... with limited application (for me, at least.. I use my 50 1.4 primarily only for studio work). The 24-70 rocks in situations where I need something fairly fast, light-wise.. and the ability to shoot fast changing subjects at a variety of distances. The 24-70 also does very well for portraits... and it is much more versatile in a crowded room, or in limited space then the 50 or the 85, especially on a crop sensor. Try shooting a full body portrait with an 85.. in the average living room.. you can't do it! Probably can't do it with a 50 either. It just depends on what you shoot, and how you shoot.. and only you know that.

Roughly:

If you need low light capability, or really killer bokeh... go with the large aperture primes

If you need real (Fast) versatility for a lot of different situations, as well as a good portrait lens.... go 24-70

Trever1t · Feb 6, 2012

I should add, I have both the 50 1.8 and the 24-70 and I've never used the 50mm for very much.

MrsLittle · Feb 6, 2012

Did you shoot those huge group shots with the 24-70? They are very nice. How is the 24-70 on sharpness and bokeh? Do you find it to be as good as a prime or close to an 85 1.4?

analog.universe · Feb 6, 2012

I personally love having larger aperture primes, so I would say yes, good idea. I actually have 24/35/50/85 and they're quite nice together, I never crave a zoom. The 24-70 is a workhorse lens. It gets a variety of shots quickly with reasonably high quality. However, a 1.4 prime gets you 4 times more light, and more options for creative depth of field. (and typically prettier bokeh, but I don't really know what the 24-70 looks like in that respect, could be awesome)

So I'd say 24-70 if you need quick shots of different types all day long, primes if you have time to mess around a little and want the most creative freedom.

MrsLittle · Feb 6, 2012

cgipson1 said:
I don't consider the 24-70 and the 50 to be lenses you can compare really. To me the 50 is a low light general purpose lens... with limited application (for me, at least.. I use my 50 1.4 primarily only for studio work). The 24-70 rocks in situations where I need something fairly fast, light-wise.. and the ability to shoot fast changing subjects at a variety of distances. The 24-70 also does very well for portraits... and it is much more versatile in a crowded room, or in limited space then the 50 or the 85, especially on a crop sensor. Try shooting a full body portrait with an 85.. in the average living room.. you can't do it! Probably can't do it with a 50 either. It just depends on what you shoot, and how you shoot.. and only you know that.

Roughly:

If you need low light capability, or really killer bokeh... go with the large aperture primes

If you need real (Fast) versatility for a lot of different situations, as well as a good portrait lens.... go 24-70

It confused me when i would see people make that argument about not wanting the 24-70 because they already had the 35 and 50. Since I don't own the 24-70 I was wondering that myself, whether they were even comparable in sharpness and quality.

Trever1t · Feb 6, 2012

the 24-70 is as sharp as about any prime within that range. It's of the highest quality and as mention a workhorse without sacrificing quality. BUT. It isn't 1.4f and to a portrait artist that's a big BUT.

You don't say what body you intend to mount this lens...

If I had to choose between one or the other for portrait use only I'd have that 85f1.4.

cgipson1 · Feb 6, 2012

MrsLittle said:
cgipson1 said:

I don't consider the 24-70 and the 50 to be lenses you can compare really. To me the 50 is a low light general purpose lens... with limited application (for me, at least.. I use my 50 1.4 primarily only for studio work). The 24-70 rocks in situations where I need something fairly fast, light-wise.. and the ability to shoot fast changing subjects at a variety of distances. The 24-70 also does very well for portraits... and it is much more versatile in a crowded room, or in limited space then the 50 or the 85, especially on a crop sensor. Try shooting a full body portrait with an 85.. in the average living room.. you can't do it! Probably can't do it with a 50 either. It just depends on what you shoot, and how you shoot.. and only you know that.

Roughly:

If you need low light capability, or really killer bokeh... go with the large aperture primes

If you need real (Fast) versatility for a lot of different situations, as well as a good portrait lens.... go 24-70

Click to expand...

It confused me when i would see people make that argument about not wanting the 24-70 because they already had the 35 and 50. Since I don't own the 24-70 I was wondering that myself, whether they were even comparable in sharpness and quality.

Primes are inherently better... much less complex! But the 24-70 (and the 70-200) are as close to primes as you can get. Without pixel peeping, you won't see a difference 99.9% of the time! Pro lenses are pro lenses... they are designed to deliver pro quality.. that is why they cost so dang much!

analog.universe · Feb 6, 2012

In terms of sharpness, those top zooms do rival the primes. The main difference in image quality between them I think is the more subtle subjective stuff. I feel like the 24-70 and 70-200 always produce clean straightforward shots, very reliable, but not exactly inspiring. Certain primes can render a scene with more flavor, whether it's bokeh quality, sense of depth, the style of the in-focus to out-of-focus transition... Which one is more appropriate all depends on your approach.

MrsLittle · Feb 7, 2012

Well with 5 little ones it would make more sense to have the versatility of the 24-70. I might just wait for the 85 1.8g and pick that up later.

djacobox372 · Feb 13, 2012

Since you already have a really nice 50mm prime, the 35 and 85 might not be different enough from the 50mm to warrant the expense. Instead, I'd suggest a 20mm f2.8 prime (if you have a body with an AF motor), or perhaps a 105mm f2.8 micro.

A 70-200mm f2.8 (or the older 80-200mm version) would also be recommended.

motordrive · Feb 29, 2012

MrsLittle said:
I know I'm being pretty annoying with my constant lens advice question but I want to make sure I get it right the first time and not have regrets.
So I already have the 50 1.8g and I was going to pick up another lens and couldn't decide between the 85 1.4 or 24-70. Looking at photos and the fact that I think primes suit me better, what do you think if I pick up the 85 1.4g and 35 1.8g to go with my 50? I just doesn't make sense to get the 24-70 when my 50 falls in the middle of that range and I don't need to go any wider than 35, since I shoot mostly portraits anyways.
Please tell this is a good choice.

I took a photoshop class for a quarter at a local community college. The instructor was a pro who had gone to Brooks Institute and got his four degree there. One thing he used to tell us was the class would be assigned a photo project but could use only one lens. The point being was to learn to compose an image by moving (the feet method) to get the shot you wanted. I remember when I had my first 35mm film camera the only lens I had for quite some time was a 50mm. Just using one lens for awhile helps one learn more about his/her equipment, the strong points as well as the weak. Of course I realize that one lens will not work all the time but it's a great way to start and learn. Just MHO.

KmH · Feb 29, 2012

The Nikon AF-S 50 mm f/1.8G, AF-S 35 mm f/1.8G, and AF-S 85 mm f/1.8G are all inexpensive consumer grade lenses. All 3 have only 7 aperture blades.

The Nikon AF-S 24-70 mm f/2.8 is a professional grade lens. This lens has 9 aperture blades.

Your profile indicates you use a D7000, so an 1/3 the cost alternative to the 24-70 mm f/2.8 would be the Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras and it also has 9 aperture blades.