uganda Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 With news of a Nikon 24mm f1.8G that is due to be released early in the year – I am considering building my collection of primes. I already have a 50mm f1.4D - my interest being in portraiture, (such as environmental and documentary) and have been considering purchase of an 85mm and/or longer at one end, with either and/or a 24mm, a 28mm or 35mm. With the f1.4G lenses getting great reviews – but at a price, the f1.8G lenses sound like a more affordable alternative. Which lens/es would you recommend? I’m happy to keep the 50mm f1.4D rather than replace it (It’s used with a D700) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Richards Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 For portraiture it seems that the 85mm is generally considered the go-to lens, but the Nikon 85mm f/2.8G is expensive (around £1,100). If portraiture is your main interest then perhaps it would be worth the investment. Nothing wrong with the 50mm f/1.4D. I have the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G (less than £200) and have no complaints. Not sure about the 24mm you mention. I know it's not a prime, but I have the 14-28mm f/2.8G ED zoom which covers my wide angle needs. If you 'Google' the lens you are interested in you should may find there is a review by KenRockwell which you may find informative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I use both the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 extensively for low light and street photography.....of the two the 35 is probably the most useful for street work. Get hold of a 35/2 and you'll be fine km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 back in the days of film my Canon version of a 24mm f1.4 was a godsend and balanced beautifully on an F1 body with power winder. But 200 ASA was pretty well as high as you dared go and for stock, 100 was tops. We are not constrained to anything like that level now. Why empty your pockets for glass you don't need? or do you regularly shoot in coal cellars? F1.4 to f1.8 is barely half a stop! and f2 sounds absolutely fine. Most of time you'll be stopping down to f5.6 or f8 to find the lens's sweat spot anyway. save the bank and the back! but then, I'm getting old and feeble....and maybe a little grumpy what with evenings starting mid afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 there are reasons for using f1.4 lenses that are nothing to do with low light... km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travelshots Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 but now you can shoot at 400asa when with film 100 asa was a good speed. Unless you want exceptional no depth of field or you want a bright image in the viewfinder 1.4 lenses are an expensive luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uganda Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 there are reasons for using f1.4 lenses that are nothing to do with low light... km Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uganda Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 What would be your favoured "three lens set-up"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSnapper Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 aesthetics km 3 lens set up: 24 1.4 35 1.4 85 1.4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Back in film days, having knackered my back & shoulder through hauling both Pentax 67 & Canon F1s in huge bags I realised I could do at least 90% of the shooting with just one body and two lenses: the 24mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8. I had lots of other stuff and might add just one extra lens. Could be in the middle, but more likely wider or longer. Joints soon felt much better and probably the shots improved through using what I had to hand rather than faffing about swapping lenses. I had five bodies but they almost always stayed at home except on a long trip when one or two might go along as back-up. But not in the day bag. and I never had an F1 pack up so it was really a needless precaution. If I were in the VW camper I probably took a spare 67 body and they did pack up from time to time. Now I'm shooting APS-c with a Pentax K-5 (light and almost as quiet as a mirror-less) 15mm f4, 70mm f4 and the tiny 40mm f2.8 because it's so light you wouldn't know it was in the bag. For the right occasions I have the truly wonderful Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 but it changes the dynamics a lot. Suddenly I am visible and noticed which I don't much like. Usually shoot at 100 ASA but 800 is really not a problem so there are your three stops and no great chunks of glass. Just might upgrade to the K-3, might add a bit longer lens if I found a bargain, but don't really need one. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoM1ke Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 there are reasons for using f1.4 lenses that are nothing to do with low light... km Such as? Boke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betty LaRue Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I have the Sigma 85mm 1.4 for Nikon and it's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.