05-30-2011, 08:41 AM
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1306688522' post='8903']
You can all see what I have at present, so I won't bother you with listing my lenses. However, I find that I use certain lenses less and some more. For instance;
For my taste, the 105mm VR micro (on FX), might have one advantage for portraits over the 85mm: the FL. It might be sharper than the 85mm in the center and borders of the frame, but I believe it is too contrasty for portraits and a portrait lens should be as fast as possible (with a decent optic performance) to control the shallow DoF. But in the end, if you are not a meticulous portrait shooter, you can live with the 105mm VR. That said, I find it's bokeh rather nervous for longer background distances (@f/2.8-5.6)
For what purpose you are using the 35mm? In case of street photography, 24-70 (or 16-35) are not as handy as the 35mm. Besides, although I agree that it has very good optics, I think the 24 - 70mm focal range is not the best choice for portraits and and also for lanscapes (at least for my taste). E.g. for landscapes, an UWA zoom with focal length range in between 12 - 35mm + a fast prime between 24-35mm with a short MFD and a decent bokeh + 70-200/300mm would be a very nice set... But as I said, these choices are subjective... But at least I hope I could mention my reasons <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />...
I think the Nikon 70-200mm VR is an exceptional lens in terms of zoom range, speed and contrast. It is very heavy (in weight and price), but a 135mm would not do what it does. That said, if you still would like to have a 135mm, I've recently bought an older MF Nikon lens: Series E 135mm f/2.8. It is light, small and have very good optics. A second hand copy in a very good condition was 120€.
Especially when it comes to UWA lenses (as all FF formats do). The light fallof in the borders/corners should be watched I think. And the usual suspects are fast primes and UWAs
Serkan
You can all see what I have at present, so I won't bother you with listing my lenses. However, I find that I use certain lenses less and some more. For instance;
- I find the 85 f1.8 somewhat superfluous in that I have the 105, which gives as good if not better results for portraits. I'll probably sell it, allthough I love it's small size and weight.
For my taste, the 105mm VR micro (on FX), might have one advantage for portraits over the 85mm: the FL. It might be sharper than the 85mm in the center and borders of the frame, but I believe it is too contrasty for portraits and a portrait lens should be as fast as possible (with a decent optic performance) to control the shallow DoF. But in the end, if you are not a meticulous portrait shooter, you can live with the 105mm VR. That said, I find it's bokeh rather nervous for longer background distances (@f/2.8-5.6)
Quote:
- I am wondering whether to sell the 35mm f2. It is covered by both the 24-70 and the 16-35 and the 24-70 is optically superior. Again, I love the small size, but.........!
For what purpose you are using the 35mm? In case of street photography, 24-70 (or 16-35) are not as handy as the 35mm. Besides, although I agree that it has very good optics, I think the 24 - 70mm focal range is not the best choice for portraits and and also for lanscapes (at least for my taste). E.g. for landscapes, an UWA zoom with focal length range in between 12 - 35mm + a fast prime between 24-35mm with a short MFD and a decent bokeh + 70-200/300mm would be a very nice set... But as I said, these choices are subjective... But at least I hope I could mention my reasons <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />...Quote:
- For the time being, my 70-300 does a very respectable job a longer focal distances, but a 135mm would be so nice or a 70-200! I am half way to the 70-200 if I sell the 35 and 85!
I think the Nikon 70-200mm VR is an exceptional lens in terms of zoom range, speed and contrast. It is very heavy (in weight and price), but a 135mm would not do what it does. That said, if you still would like to have a 135mm, I've recently bought an older MF Nikon lens: Series E 135mm f/2.8. It is light, small and have very good optics. A second hand copy in a very good condition was 120€.
Quote:
- I find that the D700 really needs the best opticts out there, so.......?
Especially when it comes to UWA lenses (as all FF formats do). The light fallof in the borders/corners should be watched I think. And the usual suspects are fast primes and UWAs
Serkan