Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

Started Jan 6, 2013 | Discussions
NikonManSoCal
Regular MemberPosts: 202
Like?
Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
Jan 6, 2013

Between these two lists:

Primes:

14mm f2.8 Nikkor

24mm f1.4 Nikkor

35mm f1.4 Nikkor

50mm f1.4 Nikkor

85mm f1.4 Nikkor  -> to here is ~$6700 US

200mm f2.0 Nikkor + ~$5800 US

Zooms:

14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor

24-70mm f2.8 Nikkor

70-200mm f2.8 Nikkor -> to here is ~$6300 US

All comments welcome!

fft81
Contributing MemberPosts: 896
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 6, 2013

NikonManSoCal wrote:

Between these two lists:

Primes:

14mm f2.8 Nikkor

24mm f1.4 Nikkor

35mm f1.4 Nikkor

50mm f1.4 Nikkor

85mm f1.4 Nikkor -> to here is ~$6700 US

200mm f2.0 Nikkor + ~$5800 US

Zooms:

14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor

24-70mm f2.8 Nikkor

70-200mm f2.8 Nikkor -> to here is ~$6300 US

All comments welcome!

What camera?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NikonManSoCal
Regular MemberPosts: 202
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to fft81, Jan 6, 2013

Oops forgot that part sorry! New D800 .... landscape/nature/bird photography.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
eajames
Regular MemberPosts: 155
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 6, 2013

Neither - mix and match.  Purchasing so much glass based solely on the prime versus zoom dichotomy makes little sense - you'll have all relatively slow glass, or fast glass without the convenience of a zoom.  How you choose depends on what your imaging priorities are.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fft81
Contributing MemberPosts: 896
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to eajames, Jan 6, 2013

eajames wrote:

Neither - mix and match. Purchasing so much glass based solely on the prime versus zoom dichotomy makes little sense - you'll have all relatively slow glass, or fast glass without the convenience of a zoom. How you choose depends on what your imaging priorities are.

+1

on my d800 i find 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 to be my most used lens. For indoor shots in low light i hesitate to use 24-70 due to lack of VR and only a 2.8 fstop. If i had to do a complete do-over i'd get 14-24, 70-200 f/2.8 and f/1.4 primes in the middle.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NikonManSoCal
Regular MemberPosts: 202
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to fft81, Jan 6, 2013

Thanks guys - makes sense.

I am thinking of a mix like this:

14mm f2.8 prime (for UW landscape/city coverage - gels only)

24mm f1.4 prime (critical landscape/general WA use - 77mm)

50mm f1.4 prime (general low light use) -> I already own this

24-120 f4 VRII (general use/travel - can only have 1 lens situations)

300mm f2.8 (birding)

TC1.4 and TC2.0 for the 300

I would have a gap between 120 to 300, where the 200mm f2.0 could live, however, the new VRII is ~$6K US - ouch.

Anyone used the 14mm 2.8 prime vs. the 14-24mm and have comments?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jamesdak
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,827
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 6, 2013

Think you will find 300mm to be a bit limiting for birding where reach is king.  You will need a lot more luck and/or exceptionally good fieldcraft skills.

-- hide signature --

Long live the HMS Beagle Critiques always welcome!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NikonManSoCal
Regular MemberPosts: 202
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to jamesdak, Jan 6, 2013

Yeah was thinking the TC20 would yield a 600mm 5.6 as an affordable way to get some reach for the birding shots.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fft81
Contributing MemberPosts: 896
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 6, 2013

NikonManSoCal wrote:

Thanks guys - makes sense.

I am thinking of a mix like this:

14mm f2.8 prime (for UW landscape/city coverage - gels only)

24mm f1.4 prime (critical landscape/general WA use - 77mm)

If you don't need any FL in between then go for it. The 14-24 f/2.8 has been called the best lens nikon ever made, I've heard of cannon users buying adapters to use this lens in manual mode on their cameras. It does have huge flare. I'd suggest you look at reviews of the 14-24 vs the 14f/2.8+24f/1.4 to see if zoom may be better for you.

50mm f1.4 prime (general low light use) -> I already own this

good choice, i hope you have f/1.4G? I have the AI version and manual focus is slow; subject moves out of DOF at 1.4 too fast.

24-120 f4 VRII (general use/travel - can only have 1 lens situations)

300mm f2.8 (birding)

If you are rich enough to buy this lens, may be the 200 f/2 would be a better choice? You can use it for knockout portraits and with TC20 it would be 400 f/4. Seems more versitile, but 300 f/2.8 may be critical f-stop for you...

TC1.4 and TC2.0 for the 300

I would have a gap between 120 to 300, where the 200mm f2.0 could live, however, the new VRII is ~$6K US - ouch.

Tha is about what 300f/2.8 will run ya

Anyone used the 14mm 2.8 prime vs. the 14-24mm and have comments?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NikonManSoCal
Regular MemberPosts: 202
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to fft81, Jan 6, 2013

Thanks mate - I find my self seriously considering the 14-24mm for wide work and landscape, however, it looks like a flare monster (even with precautions), plus no filters (except for the kludgy aftermarket ones) - which led me to the 14mm 2.8 (gels only and pbly on par with the 14-24 @ 14mm) and the excellent 24mm 1.4 for filter work (grads and CPL).

Unfortunately the 14mm and the 24mm are together almost double the cost of 14-24....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xtm
xtm
Regular MemberPosts: 450Gear list
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 6, 2013

NikonManSoCal wrote:

Oops forgot that part sorry! New D800 .... landscape/nature/bird photography.

I would do 14-24/16-35, 50 1.8G, and 200/2 + TC-20EIII or TC-14

If you also shoot portraits, I would add the 85 1.4.

 xtm's gear list:xtm's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D600 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF VR +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chipmaster
Contributing MemberPosts: 546Gear list
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 6, 2013

For me the holy trinity is it.

Rented or owned the 24 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 200F2, all spectacular lenses but the flexibility and compomise the zoom allow make the whole shooting thing much more enjoyable and there is yet a shot I have missed that was because I had the zoom.

If there was one lense I'd next add it would be the 24 1.4.

 chipmaster's gear list:chipmaster's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
glo
glo
Contributing MemberPosts: 974
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 6, 2013

NikonManSoCal wrote:

Between these two lists:

Primes:

14mm f2.8 Nikkor

24mm f1.4 Nikkor

35mm f1.4 Nikkor

50mm f1.4 Nikkor

85mm f1.4 Nikkor -> to here is ~$6700 US

200mm f2.0 Nikkor + ~$5800 US

Zooms:

14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor

24-70mm f2.8 Nikkor

70-200mm f2.8 Nikkor -> to here is ~$6300 US

All comments welcome!

I would guess you're not going to buy everything at once. I'd start with the zoom trinity then add the 1.4s after you analyze which focal lengths you'd need the 1.4s the most. The 200 f2 is a sweet baby, but you can get by without it for a while using the 85 1.4.

glo

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Art Jacks
Senior MemberPosts: 1,576
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 6, 2013

When I went FX I spent time looking at my exif data to see what focal length my shots were typically taken at, for my use something between 35 and 90 was used for the majority of the shots so I purchased the 34 1.4G and the 85 1.4G to go with my D800. In the past I have wasted money purchasing lens that covered the focal lengths I rarely used, base your choice on your typical usage.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Bingham
Forum ProPosts: 20,372Gear list
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 6, 2013

NikonManSoCal wrote:

Thanks mate - I find my self seriously considering the 14-24mm for wide work and landscape, however, it looks like a flare monster (even with precautions), plus no filters (except for the kludgy aftermarket ones) - which led me to the 14mm 2.8 (gels only and pbly on par with the 14-24 @ 14mm) and the excellent 24mm 1.4 for filter work (grads and CPL).

I certainly found it so. Giant pain with unforseen flare at the worst possible time.

Unfortunately the 14mm and the 24mm are together almost double the cost of 14-24....

-- hide signature --

Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

 Steve Bingham's gear list:Steve Bingham's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D7100 Nikon D610 Nikon D5300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +21 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JimPearce
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,336Gear list
Like?
That combination works up close...
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 6, 2013

But not so much at a distance.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fft81
Contributing MemberPosts: 896
Like?
Re: That combination works up close...
In reply to JimPearce, Jan 7, 2013

This may or may not help people, but here is what i have and what i still want; and why i want it.

Have

D800+D90 with "2.8 trinity" plus 50mm f/1.4 AI

Want:

50mm f/1.4G - for AF

85 f/1.4G - for low light portraits, but the 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 has VR so i am not sure that f/1.4 will gain me much since it has no VR. VR on 70-200 is supposed to give 2 stops.

105mm f/2 VR. It is faster than 70-200 and it has VR. Would use in low light portraits.

zeiss 135 f/2 macro planar - not released yet, i am hoping for great contrast and sharpness. No VR on it scares me for low light shots... the 70-200 f/2.8 may be a better choice there

200mm f/2 - do i really need a reason?

The most difficult situations i shoot at, are the family gatherings like Christmas, i hate using flash and irritating people, so its always a "low light" situation.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
anotherMike
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,945
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 7, 2013

I'd mix it up a bit:

14mm Samyang (unless you absolutely, positively need the very best ultra wide AND shoot this focal length range a LOT, in which case skip the Nikon/Tamron 14 (yup, you read that right) and get one of the only two ultrawides in the 14/15 range that I deem having excellent image quality, those being the 3 grand Zeiss 15 or the Nikon 14-24. For most people, the samyang will do fine)

24/1.4G Nikkor

35/1.4 Sigma DG "Art Series" (Yup, you read that right. Got it and the Nikkor, and I'm recommending the Sigma over the Nikkor)

50/1.8 (save the money, it's a better lens than the 1.4 50)

85/1.8G (save some cash here too, unless you're really a bokeh freak)

70-200/2.8G VR-II (because there is very little in the currently available primes that's any better)

(and then get the 300/2.8 later when you've got the six grand lying around!)

-m

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wasserball
Senior MemberPosts: 2,491Gear list
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to NikonManSoCal, Jan 7, 2013

or AF-S 400mm f2.8 VR ~$8900

To be honest, I suspect you will buy the primes, one at a time. That's what I would do.  You know best.

 wasserball's gear list:wasserball's gear list
Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 AF 1.4x Nikon D3S Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8G ED VR II +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
NikonManSoCal
Regular MemberPosts: 202
Like?
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
In reply to anotherMike, Jan 7, 2013

anotherMike wrote:

I'd mix it up a bit:

14mm Samyang (unless you absolutely, positively need the very best ultra wide AND shoot this focal length range a LOT, in which case skip the Nikon/Tamron 14 (yup, you read that right) and get one of the only two ultrawides in the 14/15 range that I deem having excellent image quality, those being the 3 grand Zeiss 15 or the Nikon 14-24. For most people, the samyang will do fine)

24/1.4G Nikkor

35/1.4 Sigma DG "Art Series" (Yup, you read that right. Got it and the Nikkor, and I'm recommending the Sigma over the Nikkor)

50/1.8 (save the money, it's a better lens than the 1.4 50)

85/1.8G (save some cash here too, unless you're really a bokeh freak)

70-200/2.8G VR-II (because there is very little in the currently available primes that's any better)

(and then get the 300/2.8 later when you've got the six grand lying around!)

Thanks for the feedback - I like your kit recommendation btw - Although I have to admit I am not familiar with "Samyang" glass - I assume Chinese?

This is what you recommend:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/859173-REG/Samyang_SY14MAE_N_14mm_f_2_8_Super_Wide.html

Wow thats a great value if it delivers the good for under US $400.

I will most likely get primes with the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII ....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads