24mm 1.4G + 85mm 1.4D vs. 24-70 which on to prefer?

Hi guys.

Since Nikon announced that 24 1.4G I've been scrathing my head, wether to buy a zoom lens to cover that area or these two primes. Before this turns to prime vs zoom battle, let me remind you about this is a personal taste question. I'd like to hear answers from people who have shot this range (ok 24 is not out yet) but similar. Experiences please! Real live situations! Portraits, Action, Sports, Photojourmalism.

To help my case, this is the list of gear that I own:

D300
Nikon 35mm F/2D
Nikon 105 VR 2.8G Micro
Nikon 135F/2 DC

Last two are My keeper lenses. I try keep my lensbag reasonable, so every lens must a special purpose (ok lenght matters too). I recently bought the 35mm and I don't know if I'm really convinced yet about it... Resolution seems quite low...colors ok, busy background seems confuse this lens a little in terms of bokeh...nice and little to carry around thou. This may be going to trade in for some of the (shopping) list.

I'd like to see my camerabag consisting max 4. lenses rather than 14....for those sigma fans, I not familiazed with Sigma in lack of quality.

Turning in FF this year, thou I'm keeping the D300 as a second body.

So is 24mm 1.4G + 85mm 1.4D adequet to cover this range? I don't mind some "foot Zoom" when it's possible.

There's something to chew...

Hope getting some answers, thanks.

I do think that the 24mm and 85mm will be adequate to cover the range. But this year I believe we'll see more new prime lenses, and I do believe that the 24mm will be the most expensive one.

I'd suggest purchasing the 24mm if you are able to afford it and really want it, but unless you NEED the 85mm right now I'd wait until a new one is released. I assume that when the new one is released you may want to buy it, or the market value of the current version will be reduced.

That being said, the 24mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4D, will give you image quality that you won't be ever upset will. The new 85mm would probably have Nano coating though which would be nice.

There is also a high probability that a 50mm 1.2 will be released (according to filed patents I've seen on rumor sites)...

I guess it depends on your needs and wants.

For me I'd start with an 85mm and either a 35mm or 24mm depending on how wide I like things.

Thanks for your post.

I'm also interested to see what's coming out this year. Rumors are rumors until they are facts....a new 85 is propaply most hot question for me right now.

I understand too, that when I switch to FF, focal lenght of my lenses chances dramaticly due to crop factor. Maybe A new 35mm might be the answer....

Yes, I'm looking for that ultimate quality for all my lenses and grow into them and know them like my back pocket - instead of complain and trading lenses all the time. But that's just me...

I don't know if the NEED right now is the most reason, it's just that I'm missing some tools to fulfill my ideas...oh and I'd be satisfied with the current 85mm! Only some Special events appear I start to feel somethings missing. I Bought the 35F/2 for fill some gaps.

Here's an example of quality of 105vr 2.8G Micro, no PP (so there some hair and dirt etc.)

Nice shot. That certainly is a high quality lens.

I personally like the focal lengths as they occur on the FullFrame camera. 35mm and 85mm make more sense than on my crop camera. If you're looking to get to know your lengths like the back of your hand, the traditional way is to start with just a 35mm and 85mm (on FF) and use those. Once their views become entrenched in the mind's eye, you will know if you want wider or longer for each. Some people prefer a wider wide angle view (24mm) and some a narrower tele angle of view (ie. 105mm, 135mm). But the starting points are the 35mm and 85mm. The interesting thing about these lengths are that the 35 is traditionally used for environmental shots, while the 85 is used for portraits, but the uses can be reversed to stunning effect - 35mm for environmental portraiture, and 85mm for crushed perspective landscapes.

That being said, some know right off the bat if they prefer 24mm to 35mm. I suppose it depends on how wide you see things and how much landscape/architecture you shoot.

This is by no means the bible, but just what I learned in film school.

Jar1San said:

D300
Nikon 35mm F/2D
Nikon 105 VR 2.8G Micro
Nikon 135F/2 DC

Click to expand...

Jar1San said:

Turning in FF this year, thou I'm keeping the D300 as a second body.

Click to expand...

As for FF, in past already using film, my mostly used working setup was 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 105mm...
So from what you have already, a new 24mm and 85mm should be fine.

Maybe later in the year Nikon comes with a new 35mm/1.4 too, so that would be a good change for your not that happy 35mm/2.0

--
Leon Obers

Thanks for comments. Yes, switching FF totally changes the picture, agree. Then One can see whole picture. 35mm doesnt just give that wow effect, espcially on DX. The first thing - regardless crop factor is achieving 85mm 1.4 (This is first thing I'm after.) So how long to wait...hope it will out on spring 'cause there's a lot to shoot out there.

Stick with that 35mm F/2 for while, then buy that FF and that resolves the last lens choice.

Thanks guys for advice and expertice.

In The meantime, here's a pic I took on 35mm F/2D on D300.

Looks like your 35mm is a sharp lens. If you want to get the 85mm look now to hold you over until the new lenses are announced or until you go FF, you may want to look at a 50mm. On your D300 that is a 75mm equiv length which serves the same purposes as the 85mm (portraits/moderate tele). The 50mm lenses are pretty cheap and will become a good Normal lens on FF.

I personally went for the 50mm 1.4D and recommend it, but the 50mm 1.8D is very good especially from f/4 on and is very inexpensive.

Personally, i wouldnt spend $2000 for a 24mm 1.4 for a DX body; its really meant for FX and you are not getting the most of it on a DX body.

That said, i shot with a 24-70 on a D80 for about 1.5 yrs and loved the focal range; its perfect for tight shots of people and small groups. Portraits too, but, you have that covered with the two lenses you mentioned.

Thanks for advice (don't mean sound rude), but I've already done that road before.

Congrats you have the 50mm 1.4D

I had:

Nikon 50mm 1.4G
Nikon 85mm 1.8D
Tamron 28-75

Personally I was a little dissapointed about nikon 50 1.4G. Built quality ok, AF deadly slow, Stopped at least f2 or f2.8 for sharpness, bokeh was the only thing that me keep that lens eventhis long (thou it wasn't perfect either with highlights). I Really did'nt like the focal lenght on DX, it was always need either wider or tighter - I frusrated and sold it. 85mm 1.8D I Loved the focal lenght!! 1.8D just happen to have problems with AF and Bokeh...

Why manufacturers bother that use f/1.4 - f2 markings on lenses, if the lens can't delivery a good IQ wide open...I' shoot wide open A LOT. I love shallow and dreamy DOF.

Well, I wrote that i'm upgrading to FF this year and keep D300 as second body...

The Zooms range is perfect, the 2.8 is not - 'cause I love A sweet DOF. Did you expreince any distortions in while shooting portrait?

No offence taken.

I actually find the 50mm to be an awkward length on dx and usually do some cropping with it. I like the 85mm on FF better. But given that you like the 85mm (127.5 equiv.) on dx, i assume that the 135mm may be your preferred length on fx.

24-70. convenient, great wide open, flexible, high IQ (with my full-frame cameras).

I'd go for the two primes for the speed. Plus, I find that with zooms I'm usually fully tele or wide - how about you? May as well just make it two primes then...

...at least as far as I am concerned. I also shoot with a D-300.

I cover 24mm with my 12-24 zoom, have a 35/2 and have the 85/1.4.

Sometimes I painfully feel the lack of a zoom like the the 16-85V, that I consider an ideal range for DX. On full frame the 24-70 is probably the solution, though a bit too "long" on DX.

And to some extent that is going to be a problem if you go full frame and keep your D-300. So, ideally you will need two zooms. ;-)

Even with a crop camera the 24mm at f1.4 has a very shallow depth of field and unless your subjects are standing still you are like to have problems getting sharply focused images. I shot with the Canon 24mm f1.4 on the 1D Mark III with its 1.25 crop factor and even at f2 the DOF was a problem at times.

I valued the 24mm on a crop camera but if shooting on a full frame camera I as I now do with the D3 I prefer the 50mm f1.4 or using a f2.8 zoom, either the 14-24mm f2.8 or the 24-70mm f2.8 lenses. With a DX camera I would be using the 17-55mm f2.8 and still using the 14-24mm f2.8 lens for its f2.8 speed and incredible image quality.

The advantage of the 24mm f1.4 is in its small size and for this the 50mm f1.4 work fine on my D3 and for the D300 I love the 16mm f2.8 fisheye which functions like a rectilinear lens with great DOF and good low light AF performance.

With the collapse in the value of the dollar since we started invading the Middle East any lens from Japan is at a 30% premium and what would have been a $1700 lens in 2000 is now selling for $2400 which is more than this lens is really worth to me for the limited use I would get from it.

Most likely the excellent 28mm f1.4 will soon be selling for $1500 or less and be a much better value for full frame camera shooters.

I own and love the 85 f/1.4, but given that you have the 105VR (which I also own), you would need to view the 85 as a specialized optic. Frankly, the 135DC does everything the 85 does except for 1 stop and the focal length. I'm sure the 24 f/1.4 will be a great lens, but it makes no sense unless you really believe you are going to shoot at less than f/2.8 on a regular basis. The reason I say that is the 14-24 is cheaper and has killer bokeh as well as being incredibly sharp wide open - you get the ultra-wide focal lengths too. The 24-70 is a fantastic lens. While not quite as sharp @ 24mm f/2.8 as the 14-24, it is quite good. The bokeh ain't too bad on it either.

F/1.4 is really shallow DOF on FX, it's cool, but I don't shoot my 85 wide open much. The magic of that lens is the way it renders skin and the bokeh - traits your 135DC also has. I also think the 105VR is a fantastic lens with pretty nice bokeh (not as good as the 85 or the DC lenses however) and it is extremely sharp.

Personally, a 24 and 85 is a pretty big spread (35 + 85 makes more sense to me).

A lot of this comes down to the type of photography you do. The 85 would give you 3 very high quality short tele's - seems a bit much.

You definitly got a point there. I didn't see it as I would end up having 3 very high quality teles. I know the reputation of 85/1.4 and seen A LOT of pics taken with this lens. There's just something you know....

I'm love my 105VR micro and 135DC, they both serve me well. I'd just want repeat their magic on shorter focal length. For a while I'm stickin' "just" with D300 - when move FF I'll see a dramatical change in lens lenghts.

For reason of usability and convience, I should go with the 24-70 zoom...and add one prime on top of that for ultra shallow DOF (replace Nikon 35mm/F2D with High IQ - don't get me wrong 35mmF/2 is nice but still I'm searching..)...BTW, I use A lot of F/2...and used to go up to 1.4, but not with my current lenses.

14-24mm would be a killer zoom, but it has only one big minus for me - filters. You cannot use Filters. That's an essential part of my photography, the bag of tricks. I rather do color correction etc. behind the camera rather than spending too much with Photoshop.

Agree with 24+85, maybe too big spread. 35+85 seems reasonable - many others seem agree with that.

Thanks for your response, it gave me something to really consider. Too many high quality short teles...I think there's something to that.

Many seem to like 14-24 2.8 zoom. I've read articles and seen pictures taken with it - IQ looks definitly something that would suit for me. But, as I answered to one person in this thread - it lacks the use of filters. This is something VERY essential for me. The reason why I'm more into 24-70 or even the new 24 1.4G...

Sorry for the economics in US, but I happen to live in EU and Euro's been for while a superior currency vs. Dollar or Yen, and most interesting thing is that same products sold in different market areas have the same price - in currency where you buy it. For instance the new 24 1.4G is $2200 in US, while in Finland where I live it's list price is 2200€. So basically if I'd take a trip to US for a holiday and shooting, I'd get the trip and lens in the same price as would have to pay to a local photo store. Lens would be at the current rate about 1600Euros...sad, but true.

But I believe in six months price will drop below 2K in any currency.

When I move to FF I don't think have much usage to go below 24mm. Photojournalism and environmental portraits is a question that I'm seeking the answer. The Ultimate IQ. The widest lens that I have now with DX is 35mm. I used to have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 - but it sucked totally wide open until stopped at least to F4, more likely to F5.6. That's something that I can stand: Specs promise this, oh sorry we forgot to mention "don't shoot wide open" (a little bit of irony ). I rather suffer once the financial pain if it delivers results for purpose I bought it for...I Look for keepers.

Thanks for sharing thoughts.

I think that on full frame 35mm and 135mm would be a nice combo too.

If you need faster then f/2.8 the answer is clear. It really is that simple