Nikon AI-S primes or two good zooms?

Abaddon

Abaddon

Well-known member
I mostly shoot video, but also do photography. I'm contemplating whether or not to sell my old Nikon AI-S prime lenses (35,50,85,105,135) as well as a few others, and put that money towards a good 24-70 and 70-200. I'd be sacrificing 1.4 for 2.8 but since I'm also looking to get the 5D Mark III, low light is greatly improved.

Just wondering if there are any reasons not to do this.
 
5D3 is indeed great in low light, however, I reckon you're seriously going to miss the luxury of being able to stop down to 1.4 when required. It really depends on what you're shooting though. I'd personally keep the primes.
 
The 1.4 is nice, but I wonder if the convenience factor would be more beneficial. To be able to not have to swap lenses all the time is very appealing. It is also nice to use the smaller and lighter primes, especially beyond 70mm. I'm just considering the space I can save and money I can get to put into the new stuff.
 
Depends on your shooting style. Can you afford the reset/time to swap lens?

I had a complete set of primes as well, but now selective of what I keep for the extra stop of low light. I bought a 24-105mm F4 and during day/outdoor shots, it'll never leave the body. However once it goes dark and we don't have enough lights, I usually swap between a 35mm or 85mm F1.4.

And with the Nikon being so small, you can buy a lens pouch and keep it attached to your belt.
 
I think the other issue is with having to constantly use the adapter to fit the lenses. I could just buy an adapter for each lens and just leave them on, but that's just an additional cost.
 
It's all about cost vs convenience.

Like you said, not having an adapter on every Nikkor is a huge hassle.

I've bought adapters for everyone of my 16+ nikon mount lenses and don't have any regrets about doing it.

It would be terribly annoying without this step and I'm sure I would have less warm feelings towards my prime set.

The adapters are 10 bucks each, just buy them.
 
I have what I thought was a pretty good adapter, but it has a little play to it. I hate feeling it every time I focus.
 
I would suggest keeping the 50mm Nikkor and get a newer 16-35 and a 70-200. I believe the color cast, contrast and sharpness of the newer lenses, even the zooms are significant enough to justify their expense. I don't particularly like the 24-70. It's relatively soft and shows quite a bit of chromatic abberation in those back lit beauty shots. The new II might be worth a look but it's pretty tough to justify it's cost.

The combination of the 70-200 L f/2.8 II IS, a 24 L II and a 50 L is the holy grail IMHO. I have the 70-200 L F/4 IS and a 24mm L II and I rarely ever use anything else :)

Cheers,
Pete
 
c3hammer said:
I would suggest keeping the 50mm Nikkor and get a newer 16-35 and a 70-200. I believe the color cast, contrast and sharpness of the newer lenses, even the zooms are significant enough to justify their expense. I don't particularly like the 24-70. It's relatively soft and shows quite a bit of chromatic abberation in those back lit beauty shots. The new II might be worth a look but it's pretty tough to justify it's cost.

The combination of the 70-200 L f/2.8 II IS, a 24 L II and a 50 L is the holy grail IMHO. I have the 70-200 L F/4 IS and a 24mm L II and I rarely ever use anything else :)

Cheers,
Pete
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info. I'm definitely not opposed to shopping outside of Canon for lenses either. If the Sigma or Tamron are just as good, I'd rather save some cash and go with them.
 
It really depends whether or not you like the look of the primes or not.

I LOVE my Nikon primes and the way they look.

You should rent an L zoom or something for a few days and compare them directly.
 
homestar_kevin said:
It really depends whether or not you like the look of the primes or not.

I LOVE my Nikon primes and the way they look.

You should rent an L zoom or something for a few days and compare them directly.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I may do that. I did test my primes against my Canon 24-105 L, and really couldn't see much of a difference. I do need to do better than f4 though. I think I can get by with 2.8. I then need to decide whether to go for the Sigma or new Tamron 70-200.
 
From my experience, shooting a lot of commercial work with Nikkors on EOS bodies:

You will really come to hate manually focusing with AF lenses - they're all about low resistance for battery life, shorter throws, etc. AF primes, to me - just suck all kinds of ass when trying to focus, even with an FF. Stick an old AIS manual on there and you'll be in love. Big, fat focus rings and silky, well-damped feel.

Aperture rings rule.

I've never once in 3 years of DSLR shooting gone wider than 2.8 at 400 ISO and 1/60th. I do have a lot of lights, but still... having the gear dictate what f-stop you use vs. what stop the shot needs is rough. Just never needed extreme DOF. I tend to shoot at F4 very often. All to point out you may not need to go crazy-esoteric with 1.8 or 1.4 lenses. There's a mountain of 2.8 stuff out there. And anyone can afford a 50 1.8, which can get you out of a lighting pinch.

I've got nothing against zooms, and manual zooms give you that great feel (and any heavy, metal zoom will introduce handling and shake problems up the wazoo). Early-90's AF Nikkor zooms have an OK focus feel, all that glass gives some damping. I really love the 35-70 2.8 and the 80-200 2.8 (which is a beast). Both have decent sized rings, too. Try and stick a focus gear on a modern 50 1.8...

My most-used faves (based on value and utility) are:

28mm 2.8 series E - great feel. Not the sharpest of the bunch but you're not going to see the difference on most DSLRs these days. My "normal" lens FOV-wise.

50mm 1.8 Series E - very nice, same notes as above. Great for faces & closeups. They're overpriced on eBay - buy an old film body that comes with one, and grab a few rolls of B&W and be a film-shooting badass. (I don't know why just the lens goes for $180, but an old FG body with the lens goes for $85...)

35-70 2.8 AF - killer lens, but many have a sort of veiling flare that cuts contrast - it looks really "cinema" to me when controlled though. Sort of a milkiness that makes ladies look great. Or shut it off with a good hood or a flag.

If you can ever get your hands on a 100mm 2.8 Series E, don't even think twice. It's a simply luscious lens. Series E was Nikon's first try at "consumering" their products, but the 100 became legendary for fashion and portraits. Just a freaking joy to look through your loupe when that thing is on. You'll be trying to think of long shots (dang long on an APS in fact...)

Fast, wide manual zooms are hard to find affordably. I use an 18-35 3.5/4.5 AF. Not the best focus feel and not super-fast. Still shopping around for a solution. I just don't do much wide with DSLRs.

And yeah, get an adapter for every lens, well worth it.
 
Thanks for the info. I've been pretty happy with my Nikkor's, but I would like to get some good zooms for my photography as well. I'm trying to not have a home full of lenses. I sometimes rent a set of Zeiss lenses if I'm doing a bigger job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top