monk3y wrote in post #13110136
if you are shooting Prime don't understand why you don't like the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm combo...
although yeah a 24mm would have been nice but Nikon decided to pit it against the 24L so you get the 24mm f/1.4 G... there is really no middle ground on the UWA side... almost all their newer UWA's are expensive
Oh, I do like that combo. I have the 35 and 85 and about to get the 50. I don't think I need anything wider than a 35, but I would like a 24 at a decent price than what's currently available. The 24 f2.8 that they currently have is an ok lens, but I don't feel the price/performance ratio is there, especially for such an old lens.
I don't understand Nikon's lens decisions I guess is my point. The 24-70 and the 17-55 f/2.8 doesn't have VR, but yet they throw it on the 16-35 f/4G and the 12-24 f/4G (crazy, I know). That's what bugs me.
But I love Nikon's system as it's an all around good platform, from body (af, high-iso performance, ergonomics), glass (although expensive for the good stuff and needs more primes; white lens with red rings are a joke and draws attention), and lighting (the best and easiest flash system in the business).