post-NAS-syndrome : need help rationalising my lenses
I'm sure you've been here I started out with a kit lens and thought hey better lenses would make me better pictures. I learned that I needed to make myself better, and I have come a long way - but now I have a slug of lenses and am trying to rationalise them in the most sane way, fill gaps, get rid of redundancies etc.
I have a D90 and was thinking of the D300s but am going to wait and see if D400 is priced where I can get it. I may just keep the D90 forever So, my current lens 'stash' and my reasons/lack thereof for having them:
I have a 35 f1.8 prime: main purpose is indoors, my son, at night, in the flat. Anything longer is too big for my space and anything in the relatively inexpensive wide zoom range is too slow to work well.
I have a 50 1.4 which is too long for the above purpose but which is great all around, I really like it.
I have a 12-24 f/4 recently purchased when I sold my Tamron 10-24 as I wasn't happy with that. From what I'm gathering it doesn't always like shooting at f/4 so I'm resigned to feeling like I need a faster wide angle ('need'?) - for my son's dances etc. I can't see getting rid of it because its such a fun lens.
I have a 16-85 3.5-5.6. Its my outdoors/walk around/see stuff/take pictures lens. I love it. I got rid of my 18-200.
I've got the 105vr micro. It serves its dedicated purpose of being a macro.
I've got the Tamron 90, but I don't use it, I'm selling it.
I've also got the 70-200vr1. It serves its dedicated purpose of sporting and theater events. It should get more use, really, but for 'personal safety' reasons I feel a bit awkward in my local area just walking around with it.
My thoughts in general. I love my 16-85, but I do miss the extra bit of reach sometimes. However, I'm not sure if the 24-120 will make me happy, as I shoot Dx and I would miss the 16-24 range. I'm happy to change lenses more than my other half is happy to stand around while I do it, if you see what I mean. I'd rather lose the reach than the wide end, but its not fast enough for indoors/people etc, hence my thought of the 17-55. Maybe I'm trying too hard to rationalise more NAS What I do now when I go out and am not sure what's coming, I carry the 16-85 on the camera and bring the primes and use them depending on which is most appropriate. (Again, drives the other half bonkers, why can't I use a point and shoot, etc?)
My priorities are: flexibility in the wide end that might be provided for by speed - but how much will I really gain going from my 16-85 to the 17-55? Will I just never pick up my 16-85 again? (I understand the 17-55 is super heavy). Am I doing something wrong with my 12-24 that I can't seem to use it for wide indoors/people moving low light or is that just simply not ever going to be fast enough? Another priority is a flashgun, as onboard flash is generally horrifying me and I avoid its use at all costs - and I have no tripod.
I'd really appreciate your thoughts/critiques/questions/enablement
Thanks so much!
#1. "RE: post-NAS-syndrome : need help rationalising my lenses" | In response to Reply # 0Kit Sims Taylor Registered since 16th Feb 2006Sun 19-Sep-10 04:09 PM
What you are doing now has worked well for me -- the 16-85 supplemented when needed with a fast prime. The 35 DX is easy enough to slip into a pocket even if I'm not toting my camera bag. I rarely shoot action and the VR on the 16-85 (sometimes supplemented with a monopod) handles much low light pretty well, so my main reason to use a fast prime is for a narrower DOF.
For one more stop on a wide lens, I like the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 -- great in dark cathedrals when I can't even use my monopod.
If you are only an occasional user of long lenses and the size/weight of the 70-200 limits its use, you may want to try the 70-300 VR as an alternative.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#3. "RE: post-NAS-syndrome : need help rationalising my lenses" | In response to Reply # 2agileflower Registered since 02nd May 2010Sun 19-Sep-10 05:44 PM
I like the 70-200 2.8, its perfect for those dark halls and dusk sports shots But yes, its a heavy one, and I'm pretty much relegated to using it then for all sorts of reasons