16-35 L or 85mm 1.2 L II??
I know completely different lenses... but dunno which one would be more of a value. My main bread and butter is people.
NicholasP Senior Member 382 posts Joined Jan 2009 More info | Mar 18, 2009 22:28 | #1 16-35 L or 85mm 1.2 L II?? Nikon D3s Crew
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Palladium Goldmember 3,905 posts Likes: 2 Joined Dec 2005 Location: Not the Left Coast but the Right Coast - USA More info | Mar 18, 2009 22:32 | #2 looking at your gear - you need both, so get 1 now and put the other on your "To Buy" list.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bsaber I have no idea what's going on 3,536 posts Likes: 3 Joined Aug 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA More info | Mar 18, 2009 22:40 | #3 What do you see yourself needing more? You say your bread and butter is people, I'm assuming that means portrait. If that's the case I would say go for the 85L.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
edrader "I am not the final word" More info | Mar 18, 2009 22:46 | #4 NicholasP wrote in post #7552879 16-35 L or 85mm 1.2 L II?? I know completely different lenses... but dunno which one would be more of a value. My main bread and butter is people. ![]() dump the 24-105L and get the the 24-70L....and 16-35L II. http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 18, 2009 22:47 | #5 bsaber wrote in post #7552952 What do you see yourself needing more? You say your bread and butter is people, I'm assuming that means portrait. If that's the case I would say go for the 85L. Portraits and candids yeah. I'll prob spring for the 85 I think, then spring for the 16-35 down the road. Nikon D3s Crew
LOG IN TO REPLY |
dervish Member 174 posts Joined Apr 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia More info | looking at your lenses you don't have anything wider than a 24, which means the zoom will extend your range, however if you usually shoot people then wide is prob not as handy as the 85L. 40D, and some lenses
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 18, 2009 22:50 | #7 Good idea. I'll have to see if I get any bites. Nikon D3s Crew
LOG IN TO REPLY |
laydros Senior Member 444 posts Joined Jan 2009 Location: Raleigh, NC More info | Mar 18, 2009 22:53 | #8 But 24 is fairly wide on a FF. I've used 28 on a crop and not missed the wider stuff much when shooting people. Get the 85 or even a little longer, it's perfect for portraits. Only problem is it might be a little too sharp. Jason Hamilton - flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
edrader "I am not the final word" More info | Mar 18, 2009 22:55 | #9 NicholasP wrote in post #7553027 Good idea. I'll have to see if I get any bites. with the 24-70L and 70-200L you have two of the best portrait lenses made. http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
nordstern1 Goldmember 1,303 posts Joined Nov 2007 More info | Mar 18, 2009 22:56 | #10 +1 on the replacing the 24-105 with the 24-70 & 16-35. JOE
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 18, 2009 23:00 | #11 nordstern1 wrote in post #7553064 +1 on the replacing the 24-105 with the 24-70 & 16-35. im also eyeing the 16-35 for my line-up. i would love to have the 85 L though...been dreaming about it for the longest time... ![]() Yeah, my tax return played in my favor so I felt the need to possibly finally drop the coin on the 85L after drooling for a long time. Nikon D3s Crew
LOG IN TO REPLY |
sf_loft Member 212 posts Joined Mar 2009 Location: San Francisco, CA More info | Mar 18, 2009 23:06 | #12 I just got my 16-35 f/2.8L II delivered today. The AF is sick and focuses really really fast compared to my 24-70 f/2.8L. I will go out this weekend to test it outdoors and see just how good the IQ is. So far, it looks just as sharp as the 24-70. Looking forward to using it on my vacation, as a walkabout lens, in Athens and Prague. Canon EOS 5D Mark III & FUJIFILM X-T1 mirrorless 35mm f/1.4L | 85mm f/1.2L II |135mm f/2L | 16-35mm f/2.8L II | 24-70mm f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/4L IS | 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
bsaber I have no idea what's going on 3,536 posts Likes: 3 Joined Aug 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA More info | Mar 18, 2009 23:07 | #13 ed rader wrote in post #7553059 with the 24-70L and 70-200L you have two of the best portrait lenses made. ed rader +1 to that
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 18, 2009 23:57 | #14 I may just push to sell the 24-104 and get the 24-70 2.8 and an extension tube (for track photos) for the 70-200 and just leave it at that for now. Would the 85 L Mark 1 be worth it to buy? Nikon D3s Crew
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mar 19, 2009 15:09 | #15 Sold my 24-105 already and bought a 24-70 2.8 on bhphoto. Nikon D3s Crew
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is RawBytes 1314 guests, 160 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||