Two good quality primes vs. mid-range zoom

[jdong217]

I have an expensive midrange zoom but was considering selling it along with my 35/1.8 in favor of a used 24/1.4. I recently got an 85/1.4 and love it and was wondering if a 24/1.4 and maybe inexpensive 50/1.8 could replace the 17-55.

I absolutely love nikon's 85/1.4 and I've heard nothing but amazing things about their new 1.4g. With the 17-55 I tend to be always at 17 or 55, and most of the time feel 55 is too short. But the 85 is the perfect length for me.

I think I'll set the 17-55 to 24 for a day to see how it feels but yeah, what do you guys think?

 

[Robin Usagani]

What body do you use? It is all depend on your shooting style really. I sold my 24-70 because I feel the same way. I either go wide or go long. Nothing in the middle. I also shoot with 2 bodies simultaneously for weddings so I'm not stuck with only 1 focal length.

 

[Derrel]

Your photos will become boring and very predictable with a 24 and an 85. An 85 is awfully narrow in angle of view on a 1.5x body. It is almost un-usable indoors in normal-sized rooms. If there's a lens you ought to get rid of, it might well be the 11-16mm Tamron.

Let me re-phrase the question a bit. I have a food supply with milk, eggs, cheese, bread, and meat. I am thinking of getting rid of the eggs, cheese, and bread, and buying nothing except milk and meat. I loooooooove milk! And I've heard great things about beef roast! SO, for me, it will be either milk. Or meat. Nothing else.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The exotic primes really only look exotic when they're used on film or full frame. If you were shooting with an F5, F6, F100, D3, or D700 i'd say sure, go ahead and do it! But on DX the 24 f/1.4 loses it's magic and like Derrel said, an 85mm will really only be suitable for tighter headshot/shoulder type portrait or landscape where you need a short telephoto. Fast primes (except the 35 f/1.8) are designed to shine on 35mm, not APS

The 17-55 is a super lens, I used to own one. If you want to try something really nice, get a 50mm f/1.8G. More useful than an 85mm, small, uber sharp, and it looks gorgeous on film/FF.

Trust me, I ditched my zoom in favor of the 24, 35, and 50 1.4G's and I don't regret it one bit. But I don't shoot DX digital.

 

[Derrel]

The exotic primes really only look exotic when they're used on film or full frame.

Diz-actly. My comments above assume the use of an APS-C Nikon body--obviously, since you had the 17-55 DX Nikkor at one point.

I have often thought that Sw1tchFX's user name was in some way an admonition...to switch to FX...

 

[jdong217]

Haha, I love the 17-55, but it's getting less and less use for me. I've found recently that I've been using all of my primes more. The 85/1.4g and 35/1.8g seem to do it for me, with maybe the tokina or 10.5 fisheye as well.

I have the d7000 right now and I know the 85/1.4g is made for fx, but the length is PERFECT for me. No complaints about the quality either and I've found it works amazing for street photography. Since I am planning to eventually upgrade to full frame I've found it to be an amazing investment that also works amazingly on DX.

I'm probably going to tryand rent the 24/1.4g for a day but I honestly think it will suit my needs. 35 on DX seems just a tad too long. I know a few people with the 24 on a d7k who swear by it too. Also, I know having a zoom is more versatile but...I can still move my feet >_> I was considering a 50/1.8d to fill the gap since I've heard amazing things about it and it's very inexpensive

 

[analog.universe]

I personally would do it, but I really just prefer primes to zooms. Better in low light, better sharpness, better distortion, more DOF options.... I find that primes are more inspiring to me, even though I probably could get the shot more often with a zoom. If you're not doing it professionally and aren't committed to getting specific shots, it's totally fine not having a zoom.

Right now I have 11-16, 35, 50, and 85 on DX, and they're all great for me in different situations. I can see why you might prefer 24 to 35, especially if you intend on getting a 50 as well. Honestly I will probably end up with something in the low 20s eventually to complement the 35. 35 on crop for me is a nice versatile length, and at 1.4 still gives you some DOF options, it doesn't really look wide though. Renting is an awesome idea, but I can't imagine wanting to give back a 24 1.4 at the end of the day.

 

[usayit]

I've gone back and forth between primes and zooms over the years.... I always end up shooting with primes. I guess it all depends on you. I think I enjoy the whole experience with primes and it translates to better quality at the end.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I have an expensive midrange zoom but was considering selling it along with my 35/1.8 in favor of a used 24/1.4. I recently got an 85/1.4 and love it and was wondering if a 24/1.4 and maybe inexpensive 50/1.8 could replace the 17-55.

I absolutely love nikon's 85/1.4 and I've heard nothing but amazing things about their new 1.4g. With the 17-55 I tend to be always at 17 or 55, and most of the time feel 55 is too short. But the 85 is the perfect length for me.

I think I'll set the 17-55 to 24 for a day to see how it feels but yeah, what do you guys think?

ALWAYS UPGRADE. Never downgrade. If your mid zoom is nicer then the prime you can get then stick with the midrange until you can get the nice prime.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Your photos will become boring and very predictable with a 24 and an 85. An 85 is awfully narrow in angle of view on a 1.5x body. It is almost un-usable indoors in normal-sized rooms. If there's a lens you ought to get rid of, it might well be the 11-16mm Tamron.

Let me re-phrase the question a bit. I have a food supply with milk, eggs, cheese, bread, and meat. I am thinking of getting rid of the eggs, cheese, and bread, and buying nothing except milk and meat. I loooooooove milk! And I've heard great things about beef roast! SO, for me, it will be either milk. Or meat. Nothing else.

Dont forget the gravy!