Prime (about 50mm) and wide lens choice for D100.

Hello Everybody !

It seems like I am about to plunge myself into the world of digital photography. After reading different reviews and the forums on that site for about 2 years I came to the following conclusions:

1. Nikon is the company the products of which are more in line with my requirements.
2. It is right point to start with the D100 coming out.

As I am not going do make money with photography the choise of D1x was not mine, considering the price. So my choice is D100 and now I am in the process of choosing the right lens range. I am sure that the piece of advice from all of you would be of great help for me.

My major areas of interest for now are landscapes, architectural photo and portrets. So I started thinking of chosing the lens from the wide end.

As for now I see a couple of options for myself:

1. AF-S 17-35 IF-ED + 45/2.8P or 50/1.4D or 50/1.8D ( hope it perfoms like 50/1.8)

2. 14/2.8D ED + AF-S 28-70 IF-ED.

Any option above will be extend with the AF-S 80-200 IF-ED VR when it appears on the market. Besides there is an idea of adding 2x teleconvertor.

My attitude to the options above is the following:

Option 1 is more preferable as 17-35 might be the most frequently used lens outside, when the about 50-s lens bring some good quality with portrets and migt be some compactness when necessary. The disadvantage is that 17 mm (25.5mm on D100) is still not so wide as 14mm ( 21mm on D100).

Option 2 will be the widest, but sacrify the quality with portrets and migt be the compactness of the combination with the main lens (28-70). Besides the need to change the lens outside (for 14mm) more ? frequently is not a good idea also.

There are several questions I have (hope it might be useful for many people):

1. If I go for option 1. What lens shoul I chose for about 50mm ?

Could somebody tell exactly what is the diference in perfomance comparing 45/2.8P with 50/1.4D and with 50/1.8D ? I do not mean the characteristics like manual/auto focus - that is clear. What kind of perfomance is better of each lens comparing to the others.

I read a lot that many people admire 45/2.8P. So it is interesting to know why, comparing perfomance with the other lens mentioned.

2. What option you woul go for being in my shoes ( know that is not easy) ?

Konstantin M said:

Hello Everybody !

It seems like I am about to plunge myself into the world of digital
photography. After reading different reviews and the forums on that
site for about 2 years I came to the following conclusions:

1. Nikon is the company the products of which are more in line with
my requirements.
2. It is right point to start with the D100 coming out.

As I am not going do make money with photography the choise of D1x
was not mine, considering the price. So my choice is D100 and now I
am in the process of choosing the right lens range. I am sure that
the piece of advice from all of you would be of great help for me.

My major areas of interest for now are landscapes, architectural
photo and portrets. So I started thinking of chosing the lens from
the wide end.

As for now I see a couple of options for myself:

1. AF-S 17-35 IF-ED + 45/2.8P or 50/1.4D or 50/1.8D ( hope it
perfoms like 50/1.8)

2. 14/2.8D ED + AF-S 28-70 IF-ED.

Any option above will be extend with the AF-S 80-200 IF-ED VR when
it appears on the market. Besides there is an idea of adding 2x
teleconvertor.

My attitude to the options above is the following:

Option 1 is more preferable as 17-35 might be the most frequently
used lens outside, when the about 50-s lens bring some good quality
with portrets and migt be some compactness when necessary. The
disadvantage is that 17 mm (25.5mm on D100) is still not so wide as
14mm ( 21mm on D100).

Option 2 will be the widest, but sacrify the quality with portrets
and migt be the compactness of the combination with the main lens
(28-70). Besides the need to change the lens outside (for 14mm)
more ? frequently is not a good idea also.

There are several questions I have (hope it might be useful for
many people):

1. If I go for option 1. What lens shoul I chose for about 50mm ?
Could somebody tell exactly what is the diference in perfomance
comparing 45/2.8P with 50/1.4D and with 50/1.8D ? I do not mean the
characteristics like manual/auto focus - that is clear. What kind
of perfomance is better of each lens comparing to the others.

Click to expand...

All three of your lens choices in this range are some of the sharpest Nikon makes. The 50mm 1.4 lens is the fastest and has the D "computer chip" in it for measuring distance for TTL flash. The 50 mm 1.8 is considered sharper still by most, but it is obviously not as fast as the 1.4, but does not have the D chip. (It is also less than $100 USD) A version of the 1.8 with the D chip is due out to market at about the same time as the D100. Nothing is known of its characteristics yet since no one has seen it. The 45 f 2.8 is the slowest of the three, but considered by many the sharpest of these three. It obviously doesn't have the D chip because it is manual not auto focus. One other that you might consider as well which is considered by some as sharp as the 45, but has the characteistics (D chip and autofocus of the 50 mm 1.4) is the 60mm micro. You also get the added benefit of an excellent macro lens that is good for normal photography.

Konstantin M said:

I read a lot that many people admire 45/2.8P. So it is interesting
to know why, comparing perfomance with the other lens mentioned.

Click to expand...

It is very small, very light, and very sharp, but not as fast as the other two you mentioned. Since you will be strting at ISO 200 on teh D100, that might not be as big a hindrence as on some other cameras.

Konstantin M said:

2. What option you woul go for being in my shoes ( know that is not
easy) ?

Click to expand...

I chose the 50 mm 1.4 for purely best low light capability and sharpness. I have a 28-105 that I use most of the time. It is also sharp, but it's widest aperture is f3.5 which is too slow sometimes. All things considered, I might in retrospect have gone with the 60mm micro if it had been faster. (I love macro photography) I know about the 85 1.4 (very expensive) and also on the D series only a field of view of a 127 too much telephoto vs. normal range.

Konstantin,

First off, congratulations on making the jump to digital!!

In a perfect world, the choice of lenses would be simple; fast primes from 14mm-200mm. Since we dont live in a perfect world, and that many primes would weigh a ton, these are my suggestions.

I am assuming that you cant go for both the 17-35 and 28-70afs? I will assume that this is a bugdet consideration.

You might want to consider a 3rd option...Sigma 15-30 3.5-4.5 and the Nikkor28-70afs. The 15-30mm has gotten a lot of attention lately, and i havent heard anything bad about it. I currently shoot with this lens, and i can find only 2 drawbacks. First, because of the bulging lens element, you cant put filters on the front of the lens (you can use gel filters behind the lens), so no polarizing filters. Ofcourse, the 14mm has the same problem, and even if you could use polarizers with either of these lenses, you woulnd't want to. Ultra wide angle lenses like these will cause uneven polarization if you were to use a polarizer (dont ask me why, i am sure someone more tech savvy than me can answer that). The only other real downside to this lens, is that it is slow. Its the only lens i use that is not a 2.8. But, on the other hand, with the switchable ISO settings of digital, and the fact that it is so wide, it doesnt make too much difference. Also, since you are intrested in landscapes, you will most likely have it on a tripod anyways, shooting at f11-f16.

If you were to go for this lens, you would be able to afford the 28-70AFS, so you wont be neglecting the longer end.
Of course, the additional benefit would be 2mm wider than the 17-35mm.

Hope that this helps you with your decision. If you have any questions, just let me know.

Conor

NikonShooter said:

Konstantin,

First off, congratulations on making the jump to digital!!
In a perfect world, the choice of lenses would be simple; fast
primes from 14mm-200mm. Since we dont live in a perfect world,
and that many primes would weigh a ton, these are my suggestions.
I am assuming that you cant go for both the 17-35 and 28-70afs? I
will assume that this is a bugdet consideration.

Click to expand...

First of all I would like to thank you for the input. Let me give some comments.

Actually budget is not a big issue here. The main reason not to go fo 28-70/2.8 af-s is ability to use it at low light. Besides the weight is something to worry about. The reasons to go fo prime lens about 50 mm are just the same. Especially taking into consideration that it is gonna be 17-35 AF-S in the bag, covering the wide end.

As for your remark about polarizers - it is just something I did not pay enough attention to. This matter will make me reconsider the lens line as I was going to use it as main lens. Surely I would go for 17-35 AF-S, but will think about other lens to use as prime ones.

Than you Cristopher. I think it worth starting new topic to pove your idea.

christopher said:

Konstantin M said:

Hello Everybody !

It seems like I am about to plunge myself into the world of digital
photography. After reading different reviews and the forums on that
site for about 2 years I came to the following conclusions:

1. Nikon is the company the products of which are more in line with
my requirements.
2. It is right point to start with the D100 coming out.

As I am not going do make money with photography the choise of D1x
was not mine, considering the price. So my choice is D100 and now I
am in the process of choosing the right lens range. I am sure that
the piece of advice from all of you would be of great help for me.

My major areas of interest for now are landscapes, architectural
photo and portrets. So I started thinking of chosing the lens from
the wide end.

As for now I see a couple of options for myself:

1. AF-S 17-35 IF-ED + 45/2.8P or 50/1.4D or 50/1.8D ( hope it
perfoms like 50/1.8)

2. 14/2.8D ED + AF-S 28-70 IF-ED.

Any option above will be extend with the AF-S 80-200 IF-ED VR when
it appears on the market. Besides there is an idea of adding 2x
teleconvertor.

My attitude to the options above is the following:

Option 1 is more preferable as 17-35 might be the most frequently
used lens outside, when the about 50-s lens bring some good quality
with portrets and migt be some compactness when necessary. The
disadvantage is that 17 mm (25.5mm on D100) is still not so wide as
14mm ( 21mm on D100).

Option 2 will be the widest, but sacrify the quality with portrets
and migt be the compactness of the combination with the main lens
(28-70). Besides the need to change the lens outside (for 14mm)
more ? frequently is not a good idea also.

There are several questions I have (hope it might be useful for
many people):

1. If I go for option 1. What lens shoul I chose for about 50mm ?
Could somebody tell exactly what is the diference in perfomance
comparing 45/2.8P with 50/1.4D and with 50/1.8D ? I do not mean the
characteristics like manual/auto focus - that is clear. What kind
of perfomance is better of each lens comparing to the others.

Click to expand...

All three of your lens choices in this range are some of the
sharpest Nikon makes. The 50mm 1.4 lens is the fastest and has the
D "computer chip" in it for measuring distance for TTL flash. The
50 mm 1.8 is considered sharper still by most, but it is obviously
not as fast as the 1.4, but does not have the D chip. (It is also
less than $100 USD) A version of the 1.8 with the D chip is due
out to market at about the same time as the D100. Nothing is known
of its characteristics yet since no one has seen it. The 45 f 2.8
is the slowest of the three, but considered by many the sharpest of
these three. It obviously doesn't have the D chip because it is
manual not auto focus. One other that you might consider as well
which is considered by some as sharp as the 45, but has the
characteistics (D chip and autofocus of the 50 mm 1.4) is the 60mm
micro. You also get the added benefit of an excellent macro lens
that is good for normal photography.

christopher19826 said:

I read a lot that many people admire 45/2.8P. So it is interesting
to know why, comparing perfomance with the other lens mentioned.

Click to expand...

It is very small, very light, and very sharp, but not as fast as
the other two you mentioned. Since you will be strting at ISO 200
on teh D100, that might not be as big a hindrence as on some other
cameras.

christopher19826 said:

2. What option you woul go for being in my shoes ( know that is not
easy) ?

Click to expand...

I chose the 50 mm 1.4 for purely best low light capability and
sharpness. I have a 28-105 that I use most of the time. It is also
sharp, but it's widest aperture is f3.5 which is too slow
sometimes. All things considered, I might in retrospect have gone
with the 60mm micro if it had been faster. (I love macro
photography) I know about the 85 1.4 (very expensive) and also on
the D series only a field of view of a 127 too much telephoto vs.
normal range.

Click to expand...