Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

Started Jan 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
vaxn8r Regular Member • Posts: 405
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

In this order:

1) 70-200 VRII Simply awesome. I have yet to hear a negative from somebody who owns this lens.

2) 16-35 14mm is ridiculous wide, unless you need it. The 14-24 has a flare problem which requires a lot of care if the sun is out. It's also a huge bulbous piece of glass hanging out and I'm always worried I'm going to lose the push-on lens cap or hit the glass on something. I tend to shoot 20-28 more than anything and the 16-35 is at its best in that range. To me, the 14-24 is a special lens for certain occasions. The 16-35, while it may not measure up, it is still very good and an extremely more useful FL range (for me). I love 1.4 primes and I still find I shoot this lens a lot. If you shoot churches or museums the VR is phenomenal while the faster zoom is almost useless. A lot of people own both and it's easy to see why. I often hear this about the 14-24: "the best lens I never use."

3) 50 1.4 or 1.8 Sometimes you gotta have a fast lens and this is a very good fairly inexpensive way to get it, for a start. You won't break the bank on this but you will have fun with this small fast lens. I have better lenses (well, all of them) but I still find it a fun lens to leave on due to its speed and size. It's an easy lens to shoot with. It doesn't take a lot of thought to compose as opposed to an ultra wide.

4) After this it doesn't matter because you have a great focal range covered and can take your time and see how you like to shoot the most before emptying your savings account.

Dennis wrote:

If I didn't need to go too long on the tele end, I'd probably consider something like 16-35/50/70-200 plus TCs for a nice nature kit. Right now, I have little use for such a WA zoom and prefer a wide-to-portrait zoom. 16mm would even be overkill for me - I had a 17-35 in my film days and only remember a single "keeper" shot at 17mm. Prior to that I had a 21-35 and found 21mm very useful. Now I'm content with 24mm (equivalent) as my wide lens, but would probably look to go wider again if I got back into nature photography.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
 vaxn8r's gear list:vaxn8r's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony RX100 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow