Nikon DSLR "Best Kit"-Not using Primes, Zoom only

dave lackey

dave lackey

Veteran
Local time
4:22 PM
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
9,427
What??:eek:

Akin to using a Leica M with only tele lenses, it just isn't "right" to only use primes on a camera that is so capable. Full frame Nikon DSLRs are no stranger to me and my experience with fast zooms was sublime with the 70-200 2.8.

I have read (KR?) that really only two fast zooms are needed to do most everyday photography. Fast is the most important consideration for me, as in fixed 2.8... minimum (maximum aperture).

Which lenses do you suggest? :)
 
At a good price I'd recommend the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Dave ... add a used D700 and the world is your oyster IMO. :)
 
I cannot recommend the Nikkor 24-70mm G lens more highly. I personally don't own one (yet) but have used it in stills for weddings and I crew on a TV production (PBS national level) and we use 2 of them and I am continually impressed with the images still and video that comes from this lens. When the season wraps and the DP chooses to go get the new VR model I am going to buy one of the lenses. In particular the very close focussing, sharpness at real f-stops and pretty decent bokeh make it a winner. Now that the new version has been announced the old version should drop in price. I have heard it's not very durable but our two lenses have endured several very hard international travel shoots for extended periods of time without a problem.
 
I have and use the Nikon 24-70 2.8 (non VR) and recomend it highly too.
Stellar performance from a zoom lens, only downside is the size, it is huge.
 
I have tried to like zooms, I guess my first one was around 2000, but they just confuse me. I still own them, but I just can't warm up to them no matter the size, weight, or quality.

Just me.
 
photomoof said:
I have tried to like zooms, I guess my first one was around 2000, but they just confuse me. I still own them, but I just can't warm up to them no matter the size, weight, or quality.

Just me.
Click to expand...


My main problem with them is the inherent distortion in the majority of them. My 24-120 G Nikkor has barrel distortion at the wide end and pin cushion at the long end! :p

Correctable in post of course but very pronounced none the less.
 
Keith said:
My main problem with them is the inherent distortion in the majority of them. My 24-120 G Nikkor has barrel distortion at the wide end and pin cushion at the long end! :p

Correctable in post of course but very pronounced none the less.
Click to expand...

I like the Leica tri-focal concept, which allows one to carry three specific focal lengths in one lens.

I do mostly sets of photos and the temptation with Zooms is to make it appear i have used too many focal lengths, a look I do not like.
 
I recently acquired a Zoom-Nikkor 25-50/4 AI-S, which works beautifully with the F6 and also with the TC-16a AF teleconverter (turns it into an auto-focus lens). It's the only zoom lens I use with the Nikon, the effective focal length range with the teleconverter is 30-80mm. Not super fast, but I could see it being just right as a 'do it all' lens. I'll be curious to see how it works with the D750.

Other than that, I prefer prime lenses.

G
 
The core of my D800 kit is my 24-70 f2.8 non VR Nikkor and 70-200 f2.8 VRII Nikkor. Although not f2.8 I also carry a 16-35 F4 VR Nikkor. All are superb and I highly recommend them.

I selected the 16-35 over the 14-24 due to size.
 
Dave, have a look at the Tokina AT-X and AT-X Pro lenses. KR is all praise on his website, but you gotta look for the reviews a bit.
Here's one for the older 1990s model of the 2.8/28-70mm: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/28-70mm-f28.htm


I have a Tokina AT-X Pro 2.8/28-70mm (the early Pro version with the threaded 77mm lens hood, not the bayonet type) and it is a 100% licensed copy for the much more expensive Angenieux lens. The later 2.6-2.8/28-70mm version (with the bayonet hood) was pretty close but not an Angenieux licensed copy, more or an adaptation.
The Version 1 is VERY nice, especially on a D700. Very sharp, lower contrast, no blown-out reds (Nikon issue). Film-like.
My D600 can handle it very well too though...

I have an 1990s AT-X 3.5-4.5/20-35mm to go with it, not the Pro version but much less distortion that the later Pro version. Also found that on KR's website.

And then there's the 2.8/80-200mm AT-X Pro zoom, which is heavier and more rugged than the Nikon counterpart. Hard to believe. That lens I use in manual focus mostly since it sometimes mis-focuses but when it's in focus, it's awesome.

I have several AI and AIS lenses to go with the bodies but these are my only AF lenses. Don't need anything else!
 
photomoof said:
I like the Leica tri-focal concept, which allows one to carry three specific focal lengths in one lens.

I do mostly sets of photos and the temptation with Zooms is to make it appear i have used too many focal lengths, a look I do not like.
Click to expand...

The only reason the tri focal exists is because Leicas cant display in between frame lines
 
Thanks, guys...:)

The 24-70 is a good start while I hope to re-purchase a used 70-200 VR 2.8 down the road.

Life evolves. I am really not all that interested in rangefinder photography so much (althought I will continue with my Leicas). There are so many opportunities missed and photographs that I cannot make without an SLR or DSLR. The F6 is plenty capable and will be my main camera for a long time. The DSLR I choose down that same road will complement the F6 just fine.\

Even my old D2H was more than capable, with zoom:

attachment.php


The question becomes, how to downsize and re-orient my gear. :mad:
 

Attachments

  • Backhoe at Dawn 2008 rff.jpg
    Backhoe at Dawn 2008 rff.jpg
    83.2 KB · Views: 0
The typical Nikon holy trinity of f2.8 zooms are the 14-24mm, 24-70mm and the 70-200mm. I have the 17-35mm instead of the 14-24mm. Others that you should consider are the Tamron 15-30mm, the announced Nikon 24-70mm E amd the Sigma ART zooms. Just a caveat -- f2.8 zooms are not small.
 
kxl said:
The typical Nikon holy trinity of f2.8 zooms are the 14-24mm, 24-70mm and the 70-200mm. I have the 17-35mm instead of the 14-24mm. Others that you should consider are the Tamron 15-30mm, the announced Nikon 24-70mm E amd the Sigma ART zooms. Just a caveat -- f2.8 zooms are not small.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info..:)

Small is not such an issue anymore. If I need small, any of the other gear can do small but reach and speed is what I am used to with the 70-200 2.8.

How do you like the 17-35?
 
As has been said above, the 2.8 zooms are big lumps. If you are prepared to forgo F2.8, the 18-35 is an astonishingly good lens for the money. Pair it with an 85 1.8 or the 105 macro - both of which are superb portrait lenses - and you can do pretty much anything - for the same or significantly less than the price of the 24-70 2.8.
 
I support and confirm recommendations for the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and its Nikon counterpart; I was lucky to own both and it's difficult to choose between them. However, the Nikon has the advantage of doing a very close focusing over the Sigma, which, in turn, will not flare as often as the Nikon ( getting ready for the punches). Or at least not as much as my own copy.

However, I wouldn't dismiss the Tamron version. The third party glass is quite good these days.

Now... have you looked into the old Nikon AF 20-35 f2.8, or is that too short a range for your needs? It appears for sale every so often... and there was a time when I drooled for one, but ended up getting the AF-S 24-70 Sigma instead. This particular Nikon was a staple for pros, from what I've read...

Take care and have fun shopping! :)
 
SolaresLarrave said:
I support and confirm recommendations for the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and its Nikon counterpart; I was lucky to own both and it's difficult to choose between them. However, the Nikon has the advantage of doing a very close focusing over the Sigma, which, in turn, will not flare as often as the Nikon ( getting ready for the punches). Or at least not as much as my own copy.

However, I wouldn't dismiss the Tamron version. The third party glass is quite good these days.

Now... have you looked into the old Nikon AF 20-35 f2.8, or is that too short a range for your needs? It appears for sale every so often... and there was a time when I drooled for one, but ended up getting the AF-S 24-70 Sigma instead. This particular Nikon was a staple for pros, from what I've read...

Take care and have fun shopping! :)
Click to expand...

Oh, no! More choices! And I thought selling gear was going to be tough.:confused: thanks, Francisco.., it will be awhile but it is going to take awhile unless I can find a job. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom