New Lenses to Add to my Collection. Any recommendations?

[mentatDUKE]

Hi Guys.

I'm slowly building my Nikon Lens collection. I currently have a 50mm normal lens, a 24mm wide, a 35mm wide, and a 135mm telephoto (it's not a Nikkor, but an Auto DeJur, should this make a big difference?)

I tried the telephoto and like it but it's REALLY close, so I want to pull back a bit. I am considering adding 85mm and 100mm telephotos to the collection. In addition, I am considering a super wide angle lens (The 24mm is great but I may want some Sergio Leone style wide shots. Not sure if the 24mm could handle it.)

I am considering a 20mm lens for really wide shots.

Any recommendations? Is this overkill? Any alternative lens types you think I should go with instead? What equipment are YOU guys using?

Thanks for listening.

[mentatDUKE]

Hi Guys.

I'm slowly building my Nikon Lens collection. I currently have a 50mm normal lens, a 24mm wide, a 35mm wide, and a 135mm telephoto (it's not a Nikkor, but an Auto DeJur, should this make a big difference?)

I tried the telephoto and like it but it's REALLY close, so I want to pull back a bit. I am considering adding 85mm and 100mm telephotos to the collection. In addition, I am considering a super wide angle lens (The 24mm is great but I may want some Sergio Leone style wide shots. Not sure if the 24mm could handle it.)

I am considering a 20mm lens for really wide shots.

Any recommendations? Is this overkill? Any alternative lens types you think I should go with instead? What equipment are YOU guys using?

Thanks for listening.

[kai]

you could always add a telephoto zoom, so you have multiple focus lengths in one lens vs trying the prime route.

[PDX_DVX]

I hear 70-200mm lenses are a pretty good lower magnification tele zoom....I know alot of snowboard photogs use them as their main tele zoom....

[mediamilitia]

Are you shooting stills? What are you shooting on?

I love Nikon gear. I have the 17-35mm, a 50mm 1.4, an 85mm 1.4, 80-200mm, and a 300mm 2.8. This is a nice lens set. But generally speaking for motion picture film camera lenses sets come in increments of...

12, 18, 24, 32, 40 or 50, 85, 135. The set of Zeiss primes that I use are 18, 24, 32, 50, & 85. However this set could use the 135mm & the 12mm.

I hope this helps

[mediamilitia]

BTW, I want the Nikon 10mm fisheye too. Thats a cool lens! You can never have too many lenses IMO. Just make sure your buying good name brand glass. Even if you have to buy used. When it comes to picture quality lenses are everything.

[mentatDUKE]

Thanks so much for your input, militia. Does this mean you don't think a 100 is necessary if you already have an 85? I'm trying to avoid tele zooms since they are so slow. I need as much light as possible.

[mentatDUKE]

I'd rather not use tele zooms since they are so slow. I need as much light as possible. Thanks for your input though.

[mediamilitia]

If you have the 85 and a 135 I see no direct need to get a 100mm. By the way I messed up on one of my lenses. I have the 17-55mm not 35mm. What are your shooting with? Yes try to get the fastest lenses you can afford. But remember shooting wide open reduces you resolution. A lenses sweet spot is generally two stops over wide open.
But theris no reason you can't just shoot with the 135 and just move the camera back to compensate. You'll get nice shallow DOF and compression within the shot. I have used lenses like the 135mm 25 feet away for certain asthetic choices. Experiment and you'll find out what works best. You might need to think about camera distance rather than focal distance.

[mentatDUKE]

I have a Nikon FE which is just to learn basic photography so I can apply it to my 35mm adapter for the DVX. These adapters lose a lot of light so it's hard to shoot anything other than wide open, but yes, I have heard that lens sweet spots are usually below the fastest setting.

[kai]

the telezoom i use is a 2.8... plenty of light

[mentatDUKE]

But not enough light for DV adapter usage. :)

At least not for indoor shots. In that case, a lighting kit would be necessary, which is fine. It's just that the faster, the better.

[mediamilitia]

In that case, a lighting kit would be necessary, which is fine. It's just that the faster, the better.

I can't believe were talking about lenses for your 35 adapter. And you say a line like this?! Why would one go through all of the trouble for a mini 35, trying to achieve a "Film Look" then complain about having to light. As a cinematographer that statement baffles me.

[mentatDUKE]

Haha. You're right actually. It's just that I can only afford a simple 3-light kit, so by complaining about lighting, I actually mean that I don't want to have to use more wattage that I have access too. Every stop of light lost through the lens has to be made up for through lighting. This is why I feel one shouldn't take the speed of their lenses lightly. Thinking it will be easy to "make up" for it via lighting setups is risky. Which costs more? A more powerful lighting kit or a faster lens?

But I do see your point, lighting is definitely necessary and for outdoor shots, I may end up having to use multiple bounce cards (which I don't normally have to do).

Thanks for your POV.