My next lens?

[pethuel]

Hmm...

I'm torn between getting a faster prime... 35mm f2, 50mm f1/4 and 85mm f1/8
anyone can advice me which is the best option for me to get?? just air your viewpoints?

my current setup is a D80 + 35-70mm f2.8 + 18-70(selling soon).
i'm jus wondering, should i get the:
1) 35mm (because it will be ~52.5mm on 1.5x, and faster)
2) 50mm (because even better low light capability, f1.4)
3) 85mm (because of further reach, and faster) LOL.. or should i just save to get a wide angle lens, if so, which one is recommended?

[the foto fanatic]

Well, it's impossible to say.

The real question is: "What is my style of photography?"

For example, if you are primarily a landscape photographer and you buy the 85mm lens, it won't get too much work.
If you are primarily a portrait photographer and you get the 35mm lens, it is probably not the ideal.
The 50mm is very fast and very sharp, and is probably the most versatile lens on your list.

But, have a think about what sort of photographs you will be taking, and that will lead you towards your choice of lens.

Please also take the time to read or FAQ pages. It will tell you that we need you to include where you are from in your details. I'm assuming that you live somewhere in Brisbane, so please show the suburb.
Also, the FAQs will give you information on how our bargains pages operate, which may be important to you if you are considering buying gear.

[DJT]

Well I probably wouldn't bother with the 35mm because you have that in your 35-70 (only 2 stops diff) the 50mm would make a lot of sense for low light & 85 would also fall into reason too, but it all depends on why you want to buy another lens. Either go wider or longer unless you are missing shots because your lens isn't fast enough for the conditions you have chosen to take photos in.

[MATT]

I guess also whats your budget?

A good option would be to get he 50 1.8 and a sigma 10-20. Both well priced and would cover your needs.

Good luck

MAT

[Yi-P]

Why you like to buy a new lens? what with the 35-70 f/2.8 not do for you? What are you trying to photograph? What are you trying to achieve?


All those lenses you listed serve different purpose.

I have those primes you listed and they come into use at very different purpose/style of shooting.

So probably your question is "which one first?"

[Steffen]

Is there any reason you're after primes specifically? Don't get me wrong, I'm probably the biggest prime fan in sight. But it doesn't make sense to get them just because you heard that having primes is good. Your zoom is pretty fast already, and the primes you're looking at are more or less within its range. To make an appreciable difference speed wise you'd have to go for the f/1.4 versions, which are expensive and in the case of the 35mm only available in MF.

Wouldn't it be wiser to extend your focal length range according to your needs instead of doubling up the zoom with slightly faster primes?

Ideally, you might want to complement the 35-70 f/2.8 with a 17-35 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8. These are rather big investments, but will keep you occupied and satisfied for a very long time.

Cheers
Steffen.

[chrisk]

agree with above posts. just like yip i have the same primes and i use them all differently. the main reason i personally went for primes is that they are much lighter and smaller and the IQ tends to be nicer than zooms at larger apertures. i also felt that using primes forced me to think more about my composition.

i always get worried when i see new people to photography, (sorry making an assumption here), talk about low light and f1.4 lens'. sure they give you the ability to suck more light in but also consider that f1.4 is a very shallow dof, harder to focus right, harder to focus accurately and is generally the worst aperture performance wise of the lens.

just be aware of the limitations of shooting wide open with primes. alot of people think they can shoot at f1.4 all the time, expect perfect results and it solves their low light issues. this is not always the case. sometimes that huge aperture can give you more problems than not.

[DJT]

Spot on Rooz, I very rarely use wide open, but 2 stops down is a when the smile comes out.

[Reschsmooth]

One of the benefits of fast primes, and in no-way suggesting it, in itself, justifies the additional cost, is the brighter viewfinder and AF performance. If you want to compare, get yourself the 35-70 4-5.6 (I think, and you would probably pay less than $50 for it), and try to get accurate manual focus compared to your 35-70 2.8 (particularly at 70mm).

Another way to try it is set your 35-70 to 5.6 and try manually focusing normally, and then try doing it with your finger on the DOF preview button!

[pethuel]

Wow... thanks for all the replies!

hmm.. regarding my type of photography, i realise that i'm moving on to be a more "people" photographer... e.g.
1) wedding shots, during the wedding ceremony, as well as the ballroom reception.
2) indoor events (e.g. church conferences, concerts?)

That's why i opted for a low light capabilities, regarding the 70-200 f2.8... <= i don't think my budget will allow for it.

i guess its between the 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8....

I've realised that D80's noise level above iso400 is quite unacceptable? that's another reason for choosing faster lenses.
taking it as a long term investment...

[DJT]

So I guess you are looking around the $600 mark based on your latest reply. You should probably also keep your eye open for a second hand Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I got lucky with one of these a few months back, it's a heavy thing to be carrying around though. Although either the 50 or 85 will still make for some mighty fine photos, pity you can't stretch it out for the 85 f/1.4 that would be a sweet lens.

[Yi-P]

i guess its between the 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8....

The 50mm is more suitable for indoor use, tho you still need higher ISO if the light is really low.

If you plan to go for a 85mm, save up... save up for the f/1.4. You'd regret if you didnt.

[chrisk]

Wow... thanks for all the replies!

hmm.. regarding my type of photography, i realise that i'm moving on to be a more "people" photographer... e.g.
1) wedding shots, during the wedding ceremony, as well as the ballroom reception.
2) indoor events (e.g. church conferences, concerts?)

That's why i opted for a low light capabilities, regarding the 70-200 f2.8... <= i don't think my budget will allow for it.

i guess its between the 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8....

I've realised that D80's noise level above iso400 is quite unacceptable? that's another reason for choosing faster lenses.
taking it as a long term investment...

there is nothing at all wrong with the d80's iso performance. i used to have a d80 and never had a problem with iso800 or even 1600 depending on the shot. it also depends what you;re comparing it to. if you compare it to a d3 obviously it sucks, but comapre it to cams in the same range and it does fine.

another thing to remember is that the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is not even a full stop. so dont expect to be shooting at iso400 instead of iso 1600, (2 full stops), just cos you opted for a 1.4 over a 1.8 max aperture lens.