DSLRUsers.com

I have a smallish budget to buy some glass and I am interested in your opinions

1. Is it a big compromise to go for an f1.8 lens over an f1.4 in the 50mm & 85mm

2. Again how big of a compromise is it to go 80 - 200 2.8 over 70 -200 2.8 VR

Just trying to decide what to buy with a budget aroung $1000 - $1200

Cheers
Rod

Hi Rod,

A couple of points to help guide you.

Nobody who has bought the 85 f/1.4 has regretted that purchase.

I cannot think of anyone who has bought the 1.8!

The 1.4 keeps going out of stock.

...

Nobody who has bought the 70-200 f/2.8 VR has regretted that purchase.

Those who buy the 80-200 mostly choose to upgrade to the 70-200VR at some point.

The VR is often out of stock.

The bottom line seems to be that by going down the "cheaper" alternative path, you end up paying more by eventually buying the better lens anyway.

Regarding your specific questions ... if you ever shoot in low light situations, and you find you need that extra bit of light, the first time that you need it but don't have it, you will kick yourself. It only seems like a trivial increase in aperture until you need it.

gstark wrote:The bottom line seems to be that by going down the "cheaper" alternative path, you end up paying more by eventually buying the better lens anyway.

You can largely negate this by buying 2nd hand gear, which will also help you stretch your $1k budget.

I own both of the 1.8 lenses. In the future I'd love to upgrade them, but there's no way I could afford the 85/1.4 right now. If/when I get round to selling, I'd only lose a small amount, which I can easily justify given years of usage.

I bought the 50/1.4 over the 50/1.8 for one main reason.... I knew if I bought the 50/1.8 I would want the 1.4

Seriously thought, the 1.4 lets me shoot f/1.6 an higher SHARP. It also has better build quality that the 1.8... I am very happy with my purchase and I have taken many great photos with it

MHD wrote:It also has better build quality that the 1.8... I am very happy with my purchase and I have taken many great photos with it

I don't doubt you, but you have to consider the premium you are paying for this as well. The 1.8 is one of the best value for money lenses around. It's so cheap considering its quality.

With the short primes I don't think you lose much compared to the cost saving. I have a Canon 85/1.8 which cost me about 1/3 of the 85/1.2. While the f/1.2 is very nice and everything, the extra $1500 is nearly enough to buy the 16-35/2.8 I finally managed to save up for.

Yes, with the fast primes some days you'll want the extra stop, and those days you'll curse yourself. But some of those times it's depth of field not speed, so you will fake around it by using the 70-200/2.8 instead, because 200/2.8 gives less depth of field than 50/1.4. Which is convenient, because I strongly suggest saving your pennies to get the 70-200VR over the 80-200. With the longer lens VR is very useful, and it just seems to be a better lens. Not that I use that brand at all, I'm just going off relative popularity and my ongoing love of my 70-200IS.

I should have a pic up tonight (now that I have got permission) that shows the excellent reduced depth of field you can get with the longer lens.

Just my 2cents worth...

I shoot with what this forum would call "very cheap glass". I know how to use my lens' to get the best out of them. I am more often than not very happy with most if not all my shots.

I am regulary published in glossy magazines and as such I "make money" from my photography. I have never had a publisher say they would have purchased the shots had I used a "better" lens.

I have no desire to buy pro quality lens' in the near future.

So, at the end of the day I make the most of what I have and get the shots I want and have a little extra money in my pocket which I spend on diesel to get me to my next shooting destination

Escapism wrote:I have never had a publisher say they would have purchased the shots had I used a "better" lens.

You raise an interesting point.

I am aware of publishers who specify a minimum resolution for images that they accept for publication, but I cannot recall hearing anyone stating that the image should be shot with a lens of a particular quality.

This effectively means that as long as you have a body capable of x resolution, regardless of your glass, as long as you can shoot the appropriate style of image, you should be ok.

Man the Coke bottles!

My 2 cents worth:

50 1.4 Vs 1.8: Not a big price difference. I'd go the 1.4
85 1.4 Vs 1.8: Both are ripper lenses but the 1.4 is nearly 3 times the cost of 1.8. I went 1.8 initially to determine if I wanted to do low light portraiture. I decided I did so spoiled myself and upgraded to a 1.4. Don't get me wrong, the 1.8 is a cracker lens.
80-200 Vs 70-200VR: I have the 80-200 and absolutely love it. Some say the optics are better than the 70-200VR, but who knows. I've considered upgrading my 80-200 to a 70-200VR but the changeover would be about $1K and I can't justify that in my mind as I shoot more at the wide and medium end than the long end.

You will probably need to buy new to get the 85/1.4, 70-200VR and it will cost you around $3000. If you go 85/1.8, 80-200 you may be able to buy 2nd hand for around $1200, then make a decision about the 50mm.

Cheers
John

Although, I own the 50mm f/1.4 if I was choosing now it’d be the 50mm f/1.8.
The latter is a wonderful lens for money as mentioned above. When I shoot in low light I either use the flashlight or tripod. I never set my 50mm to f/1.4 either. I will only choose the 85mm if need to shoot portraits. Having looked at many wedding pictures, the 85mm is a good performer but it’s too expensive to keep it for anything else.

You may consider 105mm Micro VR. It’s also expensive but a good lens nonetheless. I have not looked closely at this lens yet; I’ve read an interesting comment on this lens. I would not buy the lens just by reading few comments and looking at some test images. But it’s worth to spend time to investigate more on this lens.

I'm very new to the 105VR but used to own a zeiss 85f1.4 in contax mount....the 105VR has that flavor. I have a couple of Nikkors in that range 85f1.4 135f2dc and the 105vr has more contrast and deeper color than the other two....don't know yet if this is a good thing for portraiture though. Mine doesn't show much ca with d200 as some users complain about.

http://images21.fotki.com/v758/photos/2 ... 042-vi.jpg
http://images22.fotki.com/v518/photos/2 ... rop-vi.jpg
http://images22.fotki.com/v519/photos/2 ... 964-vi.jpg
http://images23.fotki.com/v763/photos/2 ... 878-vi.jpg
http://images21.fotki.com/v515/photos/2 ... opy-vi.jpg
http://images14.fotki.com/v387/photos/2 ... opy-vi.jpg
http://images21.fotki.com/v755/photos/2 ... 116-vi.jpg

johnd wrote:My 2 cents worth:

50 1.4 Vs 1.8: Not a big price difference. I'd go the 1.4

Not big difference in price? Both are very affordable lenses but there's a big price difference

Sandy Feet wrote:
2. Again how big of a compromise is it to go 80 - 200 2.8 over 70 -200 2.8 VR

Any lens with VR will cost a lot more than one without VR. The big difference in price is due to new technology. You are paying for new technology.

I have read many reviews and looked at many pictures for both lenses. The 70-200mm is a better lens and the VR option is very handy on a telephoto lens.
However, it costs twice as much as the 80-200mm lens

I travelled with a pro fotog last year and he swears by his Nikon 85mm F1.8. I tried it out as we travelled and bought one as soon as we got home. It is an excellent lens at a reasonable price. Is the 1.4 worth that much more in cost for what you will use it for?
As for the 70-200VR 2.8, I bought one recently (another Poon/Gary triumph) and it is magnificent. Worth every cent, and dollar paid. Although it is way over your budget, do try and extend yourself, and you will not be disapointed.

Sandy Feet wrote:2. Again how big of a compromise is it to go 80 - 200 2.8 over 70 -200 2.8 VR

In the future, if you would like to add a Nikkor TeleConverter(TC) like the TC17E-II, it will only work on the 70-200VR. On the 80-200 you would need to use the older TC like the TC-14A.

Not an easy decision. I got the 50mm 1.4 but I managed to get mine used, so the price premium was not as much otherwise I probably would have gone the 50mm 1.8. For the type of photography I have done, I have not needed the 1.4 often. Nice to have when you need it instead of going for higher ISO or slower shutter speed.

cheers,

André

Rod, my thoughts are simple (and many will agree with that) - buy the best glass your budget will allow. If you get the best lens in a certain category then you will not have to be lusting over a better lens.

I have both the 85 and 50 1.4 and I am happy with my choices.

I am also considering the 70-200 or 80-200. I nearly bought the 80-200 recently but thought would I be lusting over the 70-200 - I missed the opportunity and am still considering if I can go the extra for the 70-200.

Lots of good recommendations around for all these lenses though - hard decision for you to make. Good luck.

Cheers, Mick

Rod, my thoughts are simple (and many will agree with that) - buy the best glass your budget will allow. If you get the best lens in a certain category then you will not have to be lusting over a better lens.

I fully agreee with Oscar. Sometimes waiting a little longer and saving a little longer gets you the lens that you'll keep longer.

I've bought the 50 1.4 and am very happy at spending the bit extra. The extra 2/3 stop comes in handy! If I could afford it I would by the 85 as well but am waiting until I can afford the 1.4 over the 1.8 as I'm sure I will want to upgrade later.

At the moment I'm waiting on a 2nd hand 80-200 based upon price and my future usage. Given the option I would obviously get the 70-200VR but will be using this to earn money through portraiture to pay for my other endless wants.

So based on my situation I would say you have to look at what you will be using them for and which combination is the most economically viable to earn money towards the purchase of the rest, without compromising on quality along the way.

My lens of lust is the 85 1.4 (since my attempts at stealing them from other forum members has proven fruitless). I have made the choice to save for the 1.4 over the 1.8, even though the difference is something like $600 via Poon.

I figure, it won't take that long to save the difference and by then, I might have been able to nag the better half into letting me spend our money sooner (I know the chronology of that sentence doesn't make sense, but you know what I mean).

P

Frankly, I have the 50mm f1.8 and then a 85mm f1.4...

I chose the 50/1.8 as it was cheap, I still use it a lot and quality have not let me down a single shot. Best value of lens in Nikon's range, no doubt!

Then when I was choosing a portrait lens of favourite, I went for the 1.4 without a blink. It did hurt me a lot, but the quality of portraits (specially background rendition) is unbeatable on this lens. I have yet known anyone who have used this lens and not to fall in love/lust with it. I think I've got some of the members here to try it and later on they went and bought one for themselves. It is a wonderful lens of its class, and the top class below $2k.

For the 70-200VR, used it quite handful of times and can't recommend it high enough. It is big and heavy, but you get what you get extra in your bag's weight and bill's length.


Back on topic, before giving any suggestion on lenses, what sort of photography style are you adapting into? What situation you shoot most in? There is little point in getting a 85/1.4 if you are not really shooting anything at this range or stop the lens down to f/8-f/11 all times... the 85/1.8 can do that as well. Same goes for the 70-200VR, if you shoot mostly under very bright sunlight, the VR is useless. Tho both the f1.4 and VR is just there for you when you actually need it than need it and not have it.