Triple threat

[astroNikon]

You should stroll this page too
Digital Camera & DSLR Lenses | All NIKKOR Lenses for Digital SLR Cameras| Nikon


but you keep talking about a 70-300 lens which isn't part of your Triple Threat :scratch:

 

[raventepes]

Yes the lower the number the better low light performance (the larger the aperture opening)

On the bigger lenses I don't think there is anything "modern" that is faster than a 2.8.

Your primes are available in 2.8 and faster - ie, 2.5, 2, 1.8, 1.4, 1.2
But any zoom lens I don't recall anything faster than a 2.8 :scratch:

Sigma have their new 18-35 f/1.8. but that's as fast as is gets.

But on to the question at hand. My advise is this. Get a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and it's 50-150 f/2.8 counterpart. Those lenses nearly make primes useless and are outstanding for portrait work on DX body. For landscape, I like my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. For the price of all 3 combined, you can use the remaining for a 105mm Sigma macro. 4 lenses for slightly outside of your budget of $3000 USD

Unfortunately, with Nikon (and even Canon), is that they don't have any focus on DX/APS-C lenses. Nikon is particularly bad, in my opinion. It seems that Nikon's opinion is we (as DX shooters) need another 18-XXX and everything will be better. Yes, they have the very nice 17-55 f/2.8, however, it isn't very well scaled for even the largest of DX bodies. Personally, I feel that Sigma's 17-50 is optically equal to, if not better, than Nikon's equivalent offering.

One thing you asked for in your original post is low light lenses. These will give you a nice line up for low light. As far as a good "portrait" lens goes, I make my living behind a camera as (often) a portrait photographer. Using a prime lens is extremely limiting, and I'll fully admit that I don't own one, nor have any ambition to own one, at least where portraits are concerned.

Just my two cents, at any rate.

 

[hamlet]

You should stroll this page too
Digital Camera & DSLR Lenses | All NIKKOR Lenses for Digital SLR Cameras| Nikon

Yes, thanks. I have learned that i'm far too incompetent to distinguish the good lenses from the less good. Most i could do is sift through some of these lenses and bounce ideas off of you good folks, seeing as i'm not really qualified to judge on what lens is superior to the other.

 

[astroNikon]

You should stroll this page too
Digital Camera & DSLR Lenses | All NIKKOR Lenses for Digital SLR Cameras| Nikon

Yes, thanks. I have learned that i'm far too incompetent to distinguish the good lenses from the less good. Most i could do is sift through some of these lenses and bounce ideas off of you good folks, seeing as i'm not really qualified to judge on what lens is superior to the other.

In short & brief to create a basic understanding

the pro level lenses are f/2.8 or faster (1.8, 1.4 etc)
the really good ones are f/4.0 or faster
the general ones, especially zooms have variable f stops

and also look at the prices.
The pro ones are .. OMG $$
the really good ones are like .. REALLY ?$?$
and the general consumer ones are .. does it really cost that much ??


thus the reason I looked to the used market
And there's also Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, etc though I've stuck with all Nikon lenses.

 

[hamlet]

Yes the lower the number the better low light performance (the larger the aperture opening)

On the bigger lenses I don't think there is anything "modern" that is faster than a 2.8.

Your primes are available in 2.8 and faster - ie, 2.5, 2, 1.8, 1.4, 1.2
But any zoom lens I don't recall anything faster than a 2.8 :scratch:

Sigma have their new 18-35 f/1.8. but that's as fast as is gets.

But on to the question at hand. My advise is this. Get a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and it's 50-150 f/2.8 counterpart. Those lenses nearly make primes useless and are outstanding for portrait work on DX body. For landscape, I like my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. For the price of all 3 combined, you can use the remaining for a 105mm Sigma macro. 4 lenses for slightly outside of your budget of $3000 USD

What makes the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM so much better than the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G apart from the zoom? Zoom is something i'm not looking for in a prime lens.

 

[astroNikon]

This might come in handy whether you understand all of it or not.
Just something to think about when you think about wide angle lenses
Understanding Camera Lenses


FYI,
another reason I wouldn't jump the gun so quickly on lens.

2. Prime lens (for portraits and general photography)

You could opt for the "wedding" type lenses of 24-70 or 35-70 / 2.8s which are not only great a portraits but as you can see are wide angle too. For portraits you have to learn more about Depth of Field DOF as you don't want to take a picture of someone up close with a 35mm/1.8 lens as you will not get them completely in focus and you could get some weird facial changes like a bigger than real nose. There's a couple threads around that have comparison pictures of various portrait DOF issues.

I'm was looking at a Nikon 35-70 AF-D f/2.8 BUT I also have primes of 24, 50 & 85 which is also covered by my 24-85/2.8-4 which seems to be a sharp lens in itself.

There's so many available options and configurations and solutions. I wouldn't rush it.

 

[hamlet]

This might come in handy whether you understand all of it or not.
Just something to think about when you think about wide angle lenses
Understanding Camera Lenses


FYI,
another reason I wouldn't jump the gun so quickly on lens.

2. Prime lens (for portraits and general photography)

You could opt for the "wedding" type lenses of 24-70 or 35-70 / 2.8s which are not only great a portraits but as you can see are wide angle too. For portraits you have to learn more about Depth of Field DOF as you don't want to take a picture of someone up close with a 35mm/1.8 lens as you will not get them completely in focus and you could get some weird facial changes like a bigger than real nose. There's a couple threads around that have comparison pictures of various portrait DOF issues.

I'm was looking at a Nikon 35-70 AF-D f/2.8 BUT I also have primes of 24, 50 & 85 which is also covered by my 24-85/2.8-4 which seems to be a sharp lens in itself.

There's so many available options and configurations and solutions. I wouldn't rush it.

Sorry, i meant to say the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G for prime lens use. The 35mm would be used for landscaping.

 

[hamlet]

This might come in handy whether you understand all of it or not.
Just something to think about when you think about wide angle lenses
Understanding Camera Lenses


FYI,
another reason I wouldn't jump the gun so quickly on lens.

2. Prime lens (for portraits and general photography)

You could opt for the "wedding" type lenses of 24-70 or 35-70 / 2.8s which are not only great a portraits but as you can see are wide angle too. For portraits you have to learn more about Depth of Field DOF as you don't want to take a picture of someone up close with a 35mm/1.8 lens as you will not get them completely in focus and you could get some weird facial changes like a bigger than real nose. There's a couple threads around that have comparison pictures of various portrait DOF issues.

I'm was looking at a Nikon 35-70 AF-D f/2.8 BUT I also have primes of 24, 50 & 85 which is also covered by my 24-85/2.8-4 which seems to be a sharp lens in itself.

There's so many available options and configurations and solutions. I wouldn't rush it.

But why would a prime lens need zoom? I don't understand the necessity for zoom when were talking about such short zoom? I've had some experience using the 18-55's zoom and that is negligible.

 

[astroNikon]

Sorry, i meant to say the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G for prime lens use. The 35mm would be used for landscaping.

I use a shovel and rake for landscaping
sorry .. couldn't pass that up.

You have an 18-55 right ?
Use that lens and compare 18mm to 35mm just so you understand the perspective for landscape photography.
and also test it at the 50mm mark

I use a 24mm/2.8
But I also use the 18 on my 18-105 lens for daylight landscape. Once you start doing landscape you just can't seem to get wide enough !!
and if you are doing timelapse I think and 18/3.5 would be pretty good but I haven't tried in dark conditions.

some people like using the 50 for portrait, and others like the 85.
I haven't really compared my 85 to 50 primes. But the 50 & 85 are also covered by my 18-105 and 24-85.

I think you are getting GAS .. Gear Acquisition Syndrome

 

[hamlet]

Sorry, i meant to say the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G for prime lens use. The 35mm would be used for landscaping.

I use a shovel and rake for landscaping
sorry .. couldn't pass that up.

You have an 18-55 right ?
Use that lens and compare 18mm to 35mm just so you understand the perspective for landscape photography.
and also test it at the 50mm mark

I use a 24mm/2.8
But I also use the 18 on my 18-105 lens for daylight landscape. Once you start doing landscape you just can't seem to get wide enough !!
and if you are doing timelapse I think and 18/3.5 would be pretty good but I haven't tried in dark conditions.

some people like using the 50 for portrait, and others like the 85.
I haven't really compared my 85 to 50 primes. But the 50 & 85 are also covered by my 18-105 and 24-85.

I think you are getting GAS .. Gear Acquisition Syndrome

Ok, i'm beginning to see a trend here and it corresponds with that article you gave me. Your 24mm/2.8 would cover more than the 35mm. So an ideal lens for lanscaping would be something equivilent to your 24mm or raventepes Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Is that right?

GAS? I think that is the general consensus here about me, even though i've yet to buy a single lens.

 

[astroNikon]

The smaller the number (focal length) the wider a view it gives. That's why on the really short focal length lense the outer glass is bulges out.
but it also can give more distortion - ie, lines are not vertical, things are skewed

such as that one page link - click on the picture of the hallway and look at the depth, AND the lights how they change
Understanding Camera Lenses


So if you took a photo with the Tokina 11-16 the photo would show even a wider view versus the 24, which is wider than the 35.

So if you had a Meter Stick - 100mm in width
say
The 50mm lens would show 50mm of the width
a 35mm lens would show 75mm <-- oops, edited
the 24mm lens would show 86mm <-- oops, edited
the 11 lens would show 100mm of width

Which comes into play depending how close you are to a wide subject.


so even though my 24mm prime lens is nice, I sometimes grab my 18-105 and keep it at 18 because I get a wider view of the sky - such as capturing a rainbow end to end.

For example, take a cardboard tube from the middle of paper towels. Look down the tube. The tube restricts your sight left to right. The Tube, about a foot long (12 inches ) could represent a 200mm lens. Cut it in half and you can see more stuff left to right and that would be a 100mm. Cut it in half you see more of a 50mm, in half even more left to right. So that is basically focal length and the width that you can see.


You are bouncing around like I was. I got out of the stars and looked around me and wanted to do portraits, landscape, nature/sports ... and started buying lenses. Luckily I did my homework and bought nice used lenses at appropriate prices so I didn't lose any money and got great quality. Then I got into Flash. Now i'm trying to collect enough flashes to light up the dark side of the moon (just joking). I wonder if I time my camera release to the amount of time it takes my flashes light to reach Pluto if .....

 

[hamlet]

The smaller the number (focal length) the wider a view it gives. That's why on the really short focal length lense the outer glass is bulges out.
but it also can give more distortion - ie, lines are not vertical, things are skewed

such as that one page link - click on the picture of the hallway and look at the depth, AND the lights how they change
Understanding Camera Lenses


So if you took a photo with the Tokina 11-16 the photo would show even a wider view versus the 24, which is wider than the 35.

So if you had a Meter Stick - 100mm in width
say
The 50mm lens would show 50mm of the width
a 35mm lens would show 86mm
the 24mm lens would show 75mm
the 11 lens would show 100mm of width

Which comes into play depending how close you are to a wide subject.


so even though my 24mm prime lens is nice, I sometimes grab my 18-105 and keep it at 18 because I get a wider view of the sky - such as capturing a rainbow end to end.


You are bouncing around like I was. I got out of the stars and looked around me and wanted to do portraits, landscape, nature/sports ... and started buying lenses. Luckily I did my homework and bought nice used lenses at appropriate prices so I didn't lose any money and got great quality. Then I got into Flash. Now i'm trying to collect enough flashes to light up the dark side of the moon (just joking). I wonder if I time my camera release to the amount of time it takes my flashes light to reach Pluto if .....

This clears up a lot.

 

[sashbar]

With $1000 to spend I would be tempted by (used?) Nikkor Micro 105 mm f/2,8 - it is a genuinly top macro AND portrait lense, and there will be enough money left for a 35mm prime as well.

 

[astroNikon]

I realized i mixed up my 2 middle numbers

The 50mm lens would show 50mm of the width
a 35mm lens would show 75mm <-- oops, edited
the 24mm lens would show 86mm <-- oops, edited
the 11 lens would show 100mm of width

 

[hamlet]

I realized i mixed up my 2 middle numbers

The 50mm lens would show 50mm of the width
a 35mm lens would show 75mm <-- oops, edited
the 24mm lens would show 86mm <-- oops, edited
the 11 lens would show 100mm of width

So the zoom on a wide angle lens is not really to zoom for the sake of zooming. Its there to get the right perspective. Now i have to re-review my options here.