Hi Guest!
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Share this page
OP
Offline
Now you just need to find a good used Sigma 150-600mm contemporary with the Nikon mount.
Already have the 200~500mm ∱5.6 Nikon glass as the longest. With the extenders, that pretty well covers anything I'd want (at present
).
OP
Offline
Cruel... but fair.
As it happens, my (and your) birthday is coming soon, so I got myself a pre-birthday present. AF-S Nikkor 85mm ∱1.4 G. BIG front lens! And as sharp across the aperture range as all the reviews say it is.
Offline
Funny you should mention birthday optics! Yes, my BD is coming up in a few days. I have decided to get a wide angle lens to round out my stable of glass.
Currently, I have a 24-105, a 70-200, a 300mm prime, and a 150-600mm. In addition I have a 50mm f/1.4 prime, an 85mm f2, and a 135mm f2.
So, I’m pretty well covered from 24 to 600mm. What I don’t have is a good ultra-wide zoom. I do have a 14mm f/2.8 prime for night sky shots but it is manual focus only.
I have narrowed the choices down to two possibilities. First is the Canon RF 16–28mm F/2.8 and the other is the Canon RF 14–35mm f/4. The price of the latter option is about $250 more expensive. Also, the 14–35 is what is called an “L” series lens. It is a sturdier build and has a faster quieter USM motor. The cheaper 16–28 is not an L series, lens, though it does still have a metal base. It has a slower somewhat noisier STM focus motor.
Both of these lenses have excellent reviews as far as image quality goes so that is really not a deciding factor. Also, since they are fairly closing price that won’t be a deciding factor either.
The less expensive 16–28 of course is a little less in the overall focal range, but has the advantage of being an F2.8 lens. The 14–35 has a much wider focal range, but is less bright by one full stop.
I’m kind of agonizing over which option to go with, but I am leaning towards the 14–35 option even though it is a little less bright of a lens.
Currently, I have a 24-105, a 70-200, a 300mm prime, and a 150-600mm. In addition I have a 50mm f/1.4 prime, an 85mm f2, and a 135mm f2.
So, I’m pretty well covered from 24 to 600mm. What I don’t have is a good ultra-wide zoom. I do have a 14mm f/2.8 prime for night sky shots but it is manual focus only.
I have narrowed the choices down to two possibilities. First is the Canon RF 16–28mm F/2.8 and the other is the Canon RF 14–35mm f/4. The price of the latter option is about $250 more expensive. Also, the 14–35 is what is called an “L” series lens. It is a sturdier build and has a faster quieter USM motor. The cheaper 16–28 is not an L series, lens, though it does still have a metal base. It has a slower somewhat noisier STM focus motor.
Both of these lenses have excellent reviews as far as image quality goes so that is really not a deciding factor. Also, since they are fairly closing price that won’t be a deciding factor either.
The less expensive 16–28 of course is a little less in the overall focal range, but has the advantage of being an F2.8 lens. The 14–35 has a much wider focal range, but is less bright by one full stop.
I’m kind of agonizing over which option to go with, but I am leaning towards the 14–35 option even though it is a little less bright of a lens.
OP
Offline
My 2p... The 14~35 is the one. That jump from ∱2.8 to ∱4 is just about meaningless with your full-frame high res. sensor and an ISO you can manipulate to make up for it. The wider range of angle-of-acceptance is more important, IMHO. In my case, with the 14~24 wide angle Nikkor optic, I went with the sharpest (according to the many reviews) one I could get. Just happened to be ∱2.8. Had it been an ∱4 with reviews being the same, it likely wouldn't have had me looking for a faster lens.
Offline
Honestly that's kinda the way I'm leaning. One advantage of the f2.8 that would be useful, however, is that it would work well as a night sky lens. However, since I already have a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 (manual focus only) I'm covered there.
Another RF mount option is the 15-35 f/2.8, which I would love to have, but that sucker costs $2400 - that's $1000 more than the 14-35 f/4. A thousand dollars is a heck of a lot to pay for 1 stop of light that I probably would not use that often since this lens will be mostly (not only but mostly) for landscapes and maybe some street photography. Also, the more expensive 15-35 f/2.8 weights more than a half pound more than the 14-35.
Yep, pretty sure the 14-35 f/4 is the way I'll go.
OP
Offline
So far, the 85 has been all I would have expected. Still in the "playing around" stage with it. I have been thinking about the D vs. G thing. I may have been a bit hasty, in that the D-series could be easily used on either digital or the film bodies. I have a couple of the D tele-zoom lenses and that has proven to be a good either~or choice. Did go with G-series equivalents as well, for the 80~200 & 80~400. From what I've read, the formulas are the same or nearly so. And the E-Bay cost for good D-Series optics is pretty attractive (and considering there's another shooter in the equation here, too!
).If I were doing a lot of commercial portraiture, that 135 ∱2 DC would probably be a consideration. I've only seen one, it came through the camera shop I was involved with, just before Y2K. Didn't get to use it tho.
As of now, the only lens on my "nice to have" list is the 105 Micro 2.8. That is likely down the road a bit. I've still got the Vivitar Series-1 90mm MF for what little macro stuff I may want to do. No real hardship with MF for that.