Sophistocles wrote:
Okay, so I have my 50mm f/1.4 which is my favorite glamour lens. And I have a couple zooms, a standard 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-300, both of which cover just about anything I need to shoot generally. That's what's in my every-day bag.

What do I want to get with my new d4? The 24-70 should cover me for the indoor dance shooting I'm doing a lot of. Between the d4's great low-light response and the f/2.8, I'm set with that one lens.

What about for the model work? When I'm not doing the 50mm thing to get the f/1.4 shallow depth that I do so love, should I get more primes? an 80mm? A 105mm? Or... am I overlooking some secret weapons?

I have a "present to myself" budget that I'm working through after my recent business deal payoff, so now's the time I get to bypass the wife permission gating function and buy whatever I want. What do I want?

85 1.4  mmmm. I'm sure you'd use a 70-200 but its a beast

Sophistocles wrote:
So the 85mm f/1.4 seems to have a lot of consensus.

On the zoom, everyone suggests the VR. Can I ask why? My hands don't shake, I don't shoot out of helicopters... does the VR add that much more value?

At least for me, I specify the VR because they are the newer design of lenses, which typically have better AF-S and better sharpness, because I do not use the VR.

The VR2 model is also supposed to have an option to provide more of lock-out on the manual focus over-ride, because many of nikons lenses make it super easy to mess up the focus by accidentally hitting the focus ring while zooming.

Personally, I'd only get an 85 f/1.8, I can't justify the added cost of the f/1.4

Sophistocles wrote:
So the 85mm f/1.4 seems to have a lot of consensus.

On the zoom, everyone suggests the VR. Can I ask why? My hands don't shake, I don't shoot out of helicopters... does the VR add that much more value?

it usually adds a stop or two.  in your weather thats nice to have.
I'd suggest the 70-200 2.8 again because your weather doesnt specialize in sunny days and you sometimes might wanna be zooming in closer on the stage.  since it's not my money and since I don't shoot Nikon I feel happy in recommending the VR II

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
... since it's not my money ...

Spoken like a true attorney. Well played

Sophistocles wrote:

Spoken like a true attorney. Well played

spoken like someone who cannot afford D4-class pricing and VRII glass

in the interest of full disclosure, I'm currently single so my wife is not logging into MM to see what I'm contemplating purchasing

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

spoken like someone who cannot afford D4-class pricing and VRII glass

in the interest of full disclosure, I'm currently single so my wife is not logging into MM to see what I'm contemplating purchasing

My wife retired from Microsoft in January and is now spending her time taking dance classes and considering what she wants to do next. She's not going to hassle me over purchases at this point

David M Russell wrote:
The entire set of f1.4 primes.

That would be 50, 85 and 105? Are there more?

-fpc- wrote:
I get a used 85/1.4D, cheaper than the new AFs model ( and "better" IMO)

In what way would you say the 85 f1.4 D is better than the 85 f1.4 G? I recently played with both at B&H. I'd take the G version because of the ultrasonic "S" focusing.

(The 135 f2 DC is also on my list of lenses to buy soon, but I keep putting it off hoping there will be an "S" version at some point.)

-D

Sophistocles wrote:

That would be 50, 85 and 105? Are there more?

24, 28, 35, 50, 85.

There is nothing longer at f1.4 as far as I know. But there are a few choice primes in longer lengths that at f2: 105, 135 and 200.

(They used to make a 300 f2!)

David M Russell wrote:

-fpc- wrote:
(The 135 f2 DC is also on my list of lenses to buy soon, but I keep putting it off hoping there will be an "S" version at some point.)

-D

-fpc- wrote:
[...]
the only 28/1.4 is an af-d version, highly sought after, and expensive
love the colors from this one as well

the current AFS 1.4 lenses are

24mm
35mm
50mm
85mm

The ~new 28 is an f/1.8, and is getting decent reviews, particularly at it's price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8 … _1_8G.html

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
300mm f4

Extends your range for live music...and a great price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/2 … 300mm.html

Back in my newspaper days, I carried a 300 f4. Great piece of glass, and so compact that I carried around all day without even noticing. (Try that with a 300 f2.8!)

David M Russell wrote:

Back in my newspaper days, I carried a 300 f4. Great piece of glass, and so compact that I carried around all day without even noticing. (Try that with a 300 f2.8!)

yep...$4000 less and 3+ lbs lighter.

Sophistocles wrote:
Okay, so I have my 50mm f/1.4 which is my favorite glamour lens. And I have a couple zooms, a standard 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-300, both of which cover just about anything I need to shoot generally. That's what's in my every-day bag.

What do I want to get with my new d4? The 24-70 should cover me for the indoor dance shooting I'm doing a lot of. Between the d4's great low-light response and the f/2.8, I'm set with that one lens.

What about for the model work? When I'm not doing the 50mm thing to get the f/1.4 shallow depth that I do so love, should I get more primes? an 80mm? A 105mm? Or... am I overlooking some secret weapons?

I have a "present to myself" budget that I'm working through after my recent business deal payoff, so now's the time I get to bypass the wife permission gating function and buy whatever I want. What do I want?

On my D800 the 85mm F/1.8 is super sharp. The F1.4 tested a bit softer till F/4 so I decided that wasn't worth the $$. However, my 70-300 SUCKED on the D800. Way soft. I replaced ii with the F/4 70200 Nikkor and it is razor sharp. If you need F/2.8 the older 70-200 F/2.8 VR2 is also very sharp  but at $1000 more than the F/4 with the newer VR. I also shoot the wonderful Nikkor 16-35 /4. I looked the 24-120 F/2.8 and while it was very sharp I needed more than 24mm so I passed it up and gave up a stop of light in the process. I don't shoot events or cherish super shallow depth of field so for me it was the right choice. You likely need the F/2.8 more than the wider view.

Sophistocles wrote:

That would be 50, 85 and 105? Are there more?

24, 35, 50, 85

like i said earlier, get the 85 first, then either one of those wide angles. I actually have the 24 1.4G, I never use it. I should, its nice. but I usually shoot people and I thought I would use it for group shots more. Problem is that I usually have the 24-70 and while at the 24mm it has more distortion, it is better than switching lenses all the time. Probably will put it up for sale since it is Mint (if interested let me know).

But get the 85mm, then I would get either the 105 or 135 (I have both and I struggle with which ones to use all the time... i get into a 105 groove for a month, then on a 135... probably should sell one too.)

Sophistocles wrote:
Look at my portfolio

These days I shoot about 50% glamour nudes, 40% low light no flash dance (hence the D4) and 10% live music.

for the nudes i would recommend either the 85 (if you have the location space as you probably need to be about 20 feet away to get full body), or the 24-70. I do dance photography too. its pretty much the 70-200 (again if you have the space) or the 24-70 if you are closer to the stage). I have all the primes, but the problem is that sometimes i want to capture a solo dancer, and sometimes I want to capture a wider scene. Primes just dont work, and switching cameras (I tried the 2 camera thing) just wont work with fast pace dance). Live Music, I would go with a prime. Cause there is less movement, you can probably predict were you need to be and shoot at F1.4. a 50mm is probably your friend there... light weight as when I do live music I am moving around. when I do dance i am in one place for the whole performance.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
The only reason to have a D4 vis a vis a D800 for example is for speed -  so it makes sense to have lenses optimized for speed to go with -

35f1.4G
50f1.4G
85f1.4G
70-200f2.8 VRII
200f2
300f2.8

the problem is that half his stuff is dance related and primes just arent suited. Trust me. I have all those lenses. You cant move around. You have to have a zoom. then again for the nudes, I never use zooms, i want fixed.

sultanphotography wrote:

the problem is that half his stuff is dance related and primes just arent suited. Trust me. I have all those lenses. You cant move around. You have to have a zoom. then again for the nudes, I never use zooms, i want fixed.

Agreed - as much as I like the look I can get from my 50mm 1.2, I have to wait for the dancers to get into proper range to use it, so I'm getting very few usable shots.

Pity, that