so far i have a new nikon 35mm af-s 1.8,,an older silver 28-80 3.3-5.6 G ,,and a new af-s vr 70-300..what is a good lens nikon or other for a midrange lens for portrait and walk about,,tamron 28-75?? have not heared good this on nikon 24-120...help,,thanks
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#2. "RE: what lens?? help" | In response to Reply # 1dmann Registered since 01st May 2010Sun 08-Aug-10 02:08 PM
Similar question: trying to figure out what if anything I need to add to my bag. right now, I have D700 with a 50mm 1.8D and a 70-200 VRII.
I essentially take pictures of my kid and family, so portraits and sports (or some semblance thereof) and street photography of people I know are what I am most interested in. So far, I have used the 50 mm for random walkabouts and the 70-200 when I am specifically going someplace where I want pics.
I am wondering, based on what pics I am trying to get, if I am missing something. Are there shots I am missing or should I just be happy with what I have now? Do I need to get the 14-24 I am reading many good things about, and while we are on the topic, what is the difference between the 14-24 and the 16-35 or 17-35? Should I just get the cheapest one?
All comments are welcome
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#3. "RE: what lens?? help" | In response to Reply # 2mklass Nikonian since 08th Dec 2006Sun 08-Aug-10 03:02 PM
Rather than go with an u;tra-wide zoom, you may want to consider something wide to mid range to complement your 70-200.
Depending on the amount of money you want to spend, the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor is an obvious choice,and the 24-85mm f/2.8-4 NIkkor is a great, lower cost alternative.
Ultra wide lenses are great, but mostly for situations the don't necessarily fit into what you said you want to shoot. I'd go with the above (or a similar 3rd party lens) , then if you think you are missing something, ad an ultra-wide later. I think you'll get much more use out one of the zooms.
#4. "RE: what lens?? help" | In response to Reply # 2blw Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Sun 08-Aug-10 06:35 PM
> I am wondering, based on what pics I am trying to get, if I am missing something. Are there shots I am missing or should I just be happy with what I have now?
If you're missing something, you'd probably know it. You'd be annoyed at having to back up, but your back is already into the furniture. Or you'd want to exaggerate the perspective, but your 50mm can't do that very effectively. If you don't notice things like this, you probably aren't missing anything.
> what is the difference between the 14-24 and the 16-35 or 17-35?
The 16-35 is a VR lens, for one thing. And it's f/4.
The 14-24 is a lot bigger and wider, along with a giant bulbous front element - which means that you can't put filters on the front. It is, however, somewhat sharper (and obviously quite a bit wider) than the 17-35. In your shoes, I'd save the money for now.
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!