Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

Started Jan 6, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
NikonManSoCal Regular Member • Posts: 205
Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
1

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 Member • Posts: 942
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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?

NikonManSoCal OP Regular Member • Posts: 205
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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

eajames
eajames Regular Member • Posts: 167
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
4

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.

fft81 Contributing Member • Posts: 942
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
1

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.

NikonManSoCal OP Regular Member • Posts: 205
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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?

jamesdak Veteran Member • Posts: 4,827
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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!

NikonManSoCal OP Regular Member • Posts: 205
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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

fft81 Contributing Member • Posts: 942
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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?

NikonManSoCal OP Regular Member • Posts: 205
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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....

xtm Senior Member • Posts: 1,029
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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 Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF VR +2 more
chipmaster
chipmaster Senior Member • Posts: 2,359
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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 D810 Nikon D5 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-14E II +16 more
glo Senior Member • Posts: 1,558
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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

 glo's gear list:glo's gear list
Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) Nikon D3X Nikon D810 Nikon D4S Nikon D750 +2 more
Art Jacks Senior Member • Posts: 2,223
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
1

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.

Steve Bingham
Steve Bingham Forum Pro • Posts: 23,575
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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 D7200 Nikon D5500 Nikon D810 Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Tokina AT-X 12-28mm f/4 Pro DX +27 more
JimPearce
JimPearce Veteran Member • Posts: 8,867
That combination works up close...

But not so much at a distance.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D500
fft81 Contributing Member • Posts: 942
Re: That combination works up close...

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.

anotherMike Veteran Member • Posts: 8,126
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?
1

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

wasserball Veteran Member • Posts: 3,449
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF VR Nikon D3S Nikon D600 Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 AF 1.4x +4 more
NikonManSoCal OP Regular Member • Posts: 205
Re: Trinity vs. Primes? What would you do?

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 ....

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads