Reading mode: Light Dark

What are some reasons to keep two lenses of the same focal length?

Go to last post
B

blakevanderbilt

Active member
Messages
77
Reaction score
25
I had the Nikkor 35/1,4 before I got the Sigma 35/1,4 Art. And then I got the Sigma, originally wanting to sell my Nikkor, but it's been a year and I can't bring myself to sell the Nikkor. I use the Sigma almost 95% of the time because it's so sharp on my D810, and I occasionally use the Nikkor just because it's just sitting there and it looks like it feels unwanted. Design-wise, I just love the Nikon look, the gold and the rugged feel of the lens. I love the Sigma's, they're slick and elegant, but Nikkors are something that I've grown close to before the Global Vision lenses were announced. I want to keep both of them, but I wanna justify to myself beyond just loving Nikkors... Anyone have two lenses, prime or zooms, of the same focal length or focal range and why do you keep them both?
 
Certainly if the lenses seem as if they were designed for different uses then keeping both can possibly make sense. Read stuff from AnotherMike here, he brings up this point often. For example, the Sig might be best for highest resolution, fashion, studio & landscape where as the Nikon might give a better bokeh and nicer rendering in portraits where you have a complex background like busy trees/leaves/foliage. A lot of people don't really like the Sigma bokeh. A lot of folks accuse Sigma's art lenses of being designed for test chart sharpness while sacrificing bokeh. Don't get me wrong, the Sig 35 Art has a massive following, for good reason, and many don't see any downside in bokeh.

That said, if the money matters to you, you certainly might want to sell the one you're only using 5% of the time... nothing wrong with that :)
 
Usually the main reason to have multiples of the same FL is if you have an obsession with perfection (like anotherMike, who has already been mentioned :) ). That allows you to use the absolute best lens for each situation.

Another reason might be simply that you enjoy collecting them. Nothing wrong with that if you can afford it.

Personally, I have zooms for my 'workhorse' requirements and collect primes for some special, unique attribute they might have. I have the 50/1.2 AiS as the fastest 50mm from Nikon. I have the 58 1.4G as the modern reimagining of the famous Noct. Some day I'd like to get a 105DC for the unique defocus control function that it has.
 
You have no justification for keeping the Nikkor. As you note, you are emotionally attached, which is not rational. But, IMO, what's the harm in keeping both without guilt if you want to?

In my case, I was irrationally attached to an 85mm f1.7 Auto MC Rokkor for Minolta film cameras because I had used it for portraits of my kids over 20+ years. When I switched to AF, I decided to get out of the Minolta system and into Nikon, which I did. However, I kept the 85, and one Minolta body to use it with, for a couple of years. I never took so much as 1 more picture with the 85. Finally, I worked through my emotional attachment, sold the lens (and body), experienced the requisite mourning process, and moved on.
 
manual versus autofocus

size/weight of one versus another to match the situation when i need it

"rendering"

different apertures
 
Some examples from the ~50mm lenses I have access to:
  • Zeiss Makro-Planar f/2.0: Smooth manual focusing. Macro enabled. Nice stable feel in the hands.
  • Nikon f/1.8D: Very small and light. Easy to pack as a backup. I see no real optical advantages with it compared with the other three, even though it is more than "good enough" for many purposes.
  • Nikon f/1.4G: Used when good auto-focus is needed. Used in very dark settings. It feels like the safest of the four to use in rough weather.
  • Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4: Very smooth bokeh. Very sharp from corner to corner - even wide open. Too heavy to carry around all the time.
 
Last edited:
blakevanderbilt said:
I had the Nikkor 35/1,4 before I got the Sigma 35/1,4 Art. And then I got the Sigma, originally wanting to sell my Nikkor, but it's been a year and I can't bring myself to sell the Nikkor. I use the Sigma almost 95% of the time because it's so sharp on my D810, and I occasionally use the Nikkor just because it's just sitting there and it looks like it feels unwanted. Design-wise, I just love the Nikon look, the gold and the rugged feel of the lens. I love the Sigma's, they're slick and elegant, but Nikkors are something that I've grown close to before the Global Vision lenses were announced. I want to keep both of them, but I wanna justify to myself beyond just loving Nikkors... Anyone have two lenses, prime or zooms, of the same focal length or focal range and why do you keep them both?
Click to expand...
Objectively, I'm not sure I would keep the Nikkor in your scenario, but I do keep lenses of similar focal lengths far too much. Usually the reasoning is one or more of the following:
  • maximum aperture vs size and weight (I often like to have a smaller lens for travel purposes);
  • prime vs zoom;
  • manual vs autofocus (I have a few Zeiss and AIS lenses I would find it difficult to part with);
  • absolute sharpness/resolution vs bokeh rendering (classic example would be the Sigma Art 50 vs the Nikon 58 F1.4G;
  • colour rendering and contrast (e.g. Zeiss vs Nikkor or 70-200 VRII vs F4 etc);
  • stabilisation (useful in some focal lengths and for certain purposes);
  • build quality/value;
 
Man, and there you go again, putting me in a perfectionist box!

You know these days I advocate buying 365 copies of each available lens in each available mount, personally buying them from the manufacturer as they come off the line, as to make sure it's the best you can get, and then matching them to the specific day of the week they test the best! :)

-m
 
blakevanderbilt said:
I had the Nikkor 35/1,4 before I got the Sigma 35/1,4 Art. And then I got the Sigma, originally wanting to sell my Nikkor, but it's been a year and I can't bring myself to sell the Nikkor. I use the Sigma almost 95% of the time because it's so sharp on my D810, and I occasionally use the Nikkor just because it's just sitting there and it looks like it feels unwanted. Design-wise, I just love the Nikon look, the gold and the rugged feel of the lens. I love the Sigma's, they're slick and elegant, but Nikkors are something that I've grown close to before the Global Vision lenses were announced. I want to keep both of them, but I wanna justify to myself beyond just loving Nikkors... Anyone have two lenses, prime or zooms, of the same focal length or focal range and why do you keep them both?
Click to expand...
 
I have both 28mm 2.8 AIS and 28mm f/2.0 AI... they are NOT close in rendering at all. The f/2 lens excels at environmental style portraits where you isolate the subject while the 28 2.8 AIS is my landscape lens as it is sharp edge to edge.

I know a couple of working pros who have both Sigma 50 Art and Nikon 58 1.4G.. similar FL but totally different lenses.
 
Osvaldo Cristo said:
blakevanderbilt said:
I had the Nikkor 35/1,4 before I got the Sigma 35/1,4 Art. And then I got the Sigma, originally wanting to sell my Nikkor, but it's been a year and I can't bring myself to sell the Nikkor. I use the Sigma almost 95% of the time because it's so sharp on my D810, and I occasionally use the Nikkor just because it's just sitting there and it looks like it feels unwanted. Design-wise, I just love the Nikon look, the gold and the rugged feel of the lens. I love the Sigma's, they're slick and elegant, but Nikkors are something that I've grown close to before the Global Vision lenses were announced. I want to keep both of them, but I wanna justify to myself beyond just loving Nikkors... Anyone have two lenses, prime or zooms, of the same focal length or focal range and why do you keep them both?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I carry a Nikon D810 with Sigma 24-105 (FF) and D7100 with Sigma 17-70 (CF) which is similar in focal length. The 24-105 is great for landscape while the 17-70 has greater depth of field and is also a macro lens.
 
Ah you saw that? :)

On the subject of trying lots of copies, I watched a video on Youtube that had a rep from Sigma saying they test each and every Art lens before it's shipped. Given my experience with them I find that a bit tough to believe!
 
Last edited:
Yea, what we don't know is how stringent those tests are for every lens. We also don't know how the shipping impacts lenses either. I've had a bum lens from Nikon (my first 70-200 VR-II was an absolute random-focusing-error mess), even one from Zeiss (my apo sonnar had the right edge at infinity issue, the warranty replacement is fine), so it happens even to those who try to mitigate it.

-m
 
blakevanderbilt said:
Anyone have two lenses, prime or zooms, of the same focal length or focal range and why do you keep them both?
Click to expand...
Some may consider me a bit of a collector.

28mm:

Ai-s f/2, Ai-s f/2.8, AF-S f/1.8G

35mm:

Ai-s f/1.4, Ai-s f/2, AF f/2D, Samyang f/1.4

45-50mm:

PC-E 45/2.8, Ai-S 50/1.8, AF-S 50/1.8G, AF-S 50/1.4G, Sigma 50/1.4 Art

55-60mm:

Pre-Ai 55/3.5 micro, AF 60/2.8D micro

85mm:

AF-S f/1.8G, AF-S f/1.4G

105mm:

Ai-S f/2.5, AF f/2.8D micro

135mm:

AF f/2D DC, Zeiss f/2 APO Sonnar

Wide to short-tele zoom:

AF 35-135 f/3.5-4.5D, AF-S 24-120 f/4 VR

Most of the Ai-S lenses I keep because they focus so nicely, have build quality that we'll never see again, and have unique characteristics that are simply fun to investigate and put to use in interesting ways.

Some of the lenses have excellent characteristics for astro (AF-S 28/1.8G, Samyang 35/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4 Art, 85/1.4G, Zeiss 135/2) and some I like to use for portraits and general photography - or special applications such as the T/S and macro models. A few of the above are older lenses which have essentially been replaced, but I haven't sold them either because they have low value, or I haven't gotten around to it yet.
 
I had three 105mm lenses: one macro, one DC, and one MF. The macro is for macro shots, the DC for portraits, and the AI for when I needed a lighter kit. Had to get rid of the AI when I dropped it and chipped the front element.

I had the 35mm f/2 AF and 35mm DX. The AF was for the D3, and the DX for the V1. Sold the AF and waiting for the 35mm AF-S FX version. When that arrives, I'll see if I still need the DX (may keep it because of the size).

You don't have to justify it to anyone but yourself (well, maybe also your significant other).

blakevanderbilt said:
Anyone have two lenses, prime or zooms, of the same focal length or focal range and why do you keep them both?
Click to expand...
 
I can imagine number of reasons for keeping more lenses of the same FL. Especially older lenses of which qualities are often less universal and more specific. But it's not limited to them only. Personally I have a strong tendency to use one lens the most optimum way, though, trying to use its best potential the best way I can tuned for the particular intent or task rather than thinking about whether other (the same specs) lens could help me a tad. That I do especially with a lens I like and like to use. It may theoretically not be absolutely ideal in each scenario but it’s my tendency of doing things (up to a point of course). I have to say though, that knowing myself, and it’s not only me, I think I can do really a lot for it from my side. Then I tend to be very selective about the lens chosen before I tend to stick with it. Just for instance, in your scenario, from what I know from my observations and some more, as much as realise some differences between these 35s, as I know myself this would end up using the Sigma and I would likely sell the lens I don’t use.



--
Hynek



favN.jpg





Sunwaysite

SunwaySite - Natural Landscape and Nature Photography
www.sunwaysite.com www.sunwaysite.com
 
blakevanderbilt said:
Anyone have two lenses, prime or zooms, of the same focal length or focal range and why do you keep them both?
Click to expand...
Here is a quick snap of my 135mm and 180mm Nikkors. As you can see they are a little different from each other :-). I also own a 135mm f/4 Pentax 645 LS for my medium format system, and a Sigma 180mm f/3.5 macro.

135mm f/2 DC, 135mm f/5.6 Nikkor-W, 180mm f/2.8D, 180mm f/5.6 Nikkor-W
135mm f/2 DC, 135mm f/5.6 Nikkor-W, 180mm f/2.8D, 180mm f/5.6 Nikkor-W

Other duplicates include:

3 50mm lenses -- A 50mm f/1.8 AI I've owned for 30 years, A 50mm f/1.8 AF-S, and a 50mm f/2.8 for the Pentax 110 system.
2 90mm lenses -- A Tokina 90mm f/2.5 Macro and a 90mm f/6.8 Caltar II-N
2 120mm lenses -- A Pentax 120mm f/4 Macro and a 120mm f/5.6 Nikkor-AM(ED)
2 300mm f/4 lenses -- The old non-AFS Nikkor and again, for my medium format Pentax.
An 80-200mm f/4 AI-s and a 70-200mm VR-II -- I use the former with my Nikon FA and for infrared.

While I invented rationales to accumulate all of this stuff, I don't claim it was rational. People make buying decisions based on emotion -- the logic to just those decisions comes later.

--
Such commentary has become ubiquitous on the Internet and is widely perceived to carry no indicium of reliability and little weight. (Digital Media News v. Escape Media Group, May 2014).
 
blakevanderbilt said:
Anyone have two lenses, prime or zooms, of the same focal length or focal range and why do you keep them both?
Click to expand...
1. 50mm (Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-S, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8g, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART)

One is super fast and somewhat dreamy but lacks AF (f/1.2), one is practical and a nice walk-around (1.8g), one is the performance king (1.4 ART).

2. 105mm (Nikkor 105 f/2.5 AIS, Nikkor 105 f/2 AF DC, Micro Nikkor 105 f/2.8 VR)

One is small and great but lacks AF, one is the bokeh king, one is a macro lens.

I also at one point had the 28mm f/2.8 AIS and the 28mm f/1.8g, but so preferred the older AIS lens that I sold the newer, faster lens. And I'm considering pulling the trigger on an 85mm f/1.4D, as they are available at very reasonable prices right now. I love my 85mm f/1.8g, but the 1.4D is an absolute classic.

Nothing wrong with multiple copies at the same focal length; they can end up serving very different purposes.
 
Last edited:
If the individual capabilities are diverse enough I can make a case for it in my budgeting. Lenses have to compete against printers, monitors, software, color calibrators, tripods, lighting, etc.

Consider these three ways I can get to 85mm:

85/1.8 Ai (the so-called "K" model, with multicoatings. A user-created profile via Adobe's free utility corrects for distortion, lateral CA, and vignetting). I consider it to be equal or superior to any Nikkor 105/2.5 I've ever used, in many aspects including fine subject details and color fringing. It has distinctive crisp 6-pointed sun stars which can be either a reason to choose it or a reason to choose an alternate depending on the needs of the moment.

85/2.8 PC-E Micro (macro and tilt are a match made in heaven)

70-200 AF-S (maybe the best ratio of results to effort of any lens I've used. It simply gets the job done)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top