nikon primes with adapter vs constant aperture zooms

X

xander1

Member
hey. im looking at getting a 7d and am trying to sort out a budget and cant decide how to spend my money on lenses. i would be shooting a lot of action sports as well as some short films and music videos. i would also be using the camera for shooting some stills aswell.
a fisheye is a necessity to me so i would probably either go the sigma 10mm f2.8 or the cheaper opteka 6.5mm f3.5
ontop of that if i were to go the nikon prime root i would probably get
Nikon 24mm f2.8 non AI
Nikon 35mm f2.0 AI
Nikon 50mm f1.4 AI
nikon 85mm f1.8
these are all reasonably cheap second hand and i feel i am covering my main focal lengths.

the other option ontop of the fisheye would be to get a constant aperture zoom lense like the tamron 17-50 f2.8 which would cover all of these lengths and maybe a tokina 11-16mm later down the track

my third option would be to mix primes with the zooms.
any advice or opinions would be greatly appreciated as i haven't really delved into the DSLR world heavily. thanks alot
Xander
 
One thing I would consider in your situation is that 24mm isn't terribly wide on a 7D, and that there would be a gap between that prime and the fisheye. Personally I do a majority of my work in that gap. The tamron would cover that nicely, of course.
Some food for thought...

Cheers,
Arvid
 
Your kit seems great, those Nikon primes are a great choice.

However, for sports, you will need a longer lens. I would recommend the 80-200 F4 from Canon with IS. You will want and need IS with a long lens. Don't get a non IS long lens, or a non-Canon non-AF. There's too much handshake at 200 mm, which is 320 mm with your 7D.

If you ever shoot stills for sports you must have AF with a long lens. You'll only get 1/4 shots sharp focussing by hand at 200mm. Canon's AF is instantaneous, and is still the defacto for pro sports shooters. 9/10 of your shots will be sharp if your AF settings are correct. (Note the preceding applies to STILLS only, not video.)

So your prime choices are on the money in my opinion, but you should consider adding a long zoom telephoto, Canon branded, with IS and AF if you're going to shoot sports. The F4 is not too much, (the F2.8 is a fortune of course).
 
Good set of primes there, most bases covered as has been said already. I'd go with the 1.8 50mm though, the 1.4 is supposedly very soft wide open, and only gets sharp at about 2.8, whilst the 1.8 is pretty good wide open. It's cheaper too.

Oh, and don't skimp on your adaptor rings. I spent an extra few notes on the more solid brass ones, soooo much better than those shitty aluminium ones.
 
thanks alot for the advice so far. i do have a canon ef 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 which would cover that range for stills however it doesnt have IS. i looked and can only find the canon 70-200mm f4. still not the cheapest of lenses even second hand probably because it is L series glass.
and i definately didnt mind spending a bit of extra on adapters to make sure they fit snug and would last.
would i be alright to shoot stills with the nikon primes and no AF or would i really struggle?
thanks
 
u will get more use from an ultra wide at the same focal length rather than a fish eye

zooms and primes are apples and oranges, don't compare them, I use nikon primes on personal shoots where I have time to spend on every shot

I use EOS zooms on corporate gigs where I need to work fast and change focal lengths often. Also the client may not be knowledgeable about lenses and often

old lenses draw comments where as large flashy new looking zooms put them at ease
 
i know an ultra wide would be more useful than a fisheye however i would really like a fisheye for the action sports i shoot aswell as on the photography side of things.
and i know that zooms and primes are completely different however i dont have the budget to run a tokina and tamron and a set of primes. if only i had the money this wouldnt be a problem.
thanks for the input though
 
i have heard the tokina is more of a specialty lense and probably wouldnt cover all focal lengths needed for it to be my only lense.
does anyone know how much of a compromise i would be making by shooting stills with the nikons? also if i was to go down the path of the nikkor 50mm f1.8 would i be better off getting the nifty fifty canon 50mm f1.8 for the advantage of AF. or would i be better off with the nikon for its larger focus ring?
thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top