# I feel like I'm missing something



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

Even though I seem to have a well rounded kit with the 16-35, 50 1.8 and 70-200, I still feel like I'm missing something. It just feels incomplete to me, you know?

I love the 16-35, it's a great wide angle zoom. But it's not as versatile as I thought it would be. I think of this lens as two primes in one, 16mm & 35mm because I rarely shoot in between unless I'm making a composition adjustment and can't physically move or simply just cropping in camera. The thing is, at 35mm isn't all that impressive. Its usable yes, but it's NOTHING like a 35mm prime.

Logic tells me a 24-70 2.8 would be better suited for what I like but I don't care for the size and weight of that lens. It's just not for me, I like the weight and size of my 16-35. I can see easily traveling with that lens.

I've considered ditching that lens and replacing it with the fast 20 1.8G but 16mm vs 20mm is quite a big difference on full frame. But I could add a 14 2.8 manual focus later for not much money. Then I could pick up the 35 f/2D that I loved and miss. But I honestly, don't think this is it.

I have the 50mm, its cheap and it's awesome. I don't see the point in getting rid of it. I love that 50mm field of view but the problem is it doesn't focus close enough for my liking. I LOVED shooting with the 35 1.8 on DX because it gave me that 50mm equivalent field of view, but could focus down to 1:4 which made it very useful for a lot of different subjects.

So I was thinking about the 60 f/2.8G because it's a macro lens and that might allow me to capture similar images I was able to do when I had 35mm on DX and I possibly might use more than the 105 2.8 VR I had previously. I thought the 105 was fantastic, BUT the problem I had was that it would isolate the subject too much for my liking. I learned that I wasn't interested in taking pictures of bugs or other really small objects where you need the working distance, so I got rid of it. Just wasn't for me.

Even if I was to buy the 60mm, I'm not 100% sure that's why I'm feeling like something is missing in my kit. I mean it would probably be fun to have anyways.

When I had the Fuji X100, I LOVED that camera and that was basically a fixed 35mm f/2. I had fun with that camera. But the camera was a bit quirky at times and low ISO performance wasn't all that amazing so that's why I sold it.

I've been considering getting the X100s but what's the point? I really prefered the raw images from the FinePix sensor, it was vastly different than the X-Trans sensor and I'm sorry, but I'm not a fan of the X-Trans sensor. So Fuji is out of the question for me. The only great thing about is that's more portable and easier to carry around when I don't want to use my DSLR. But you know..my Galaxy S7 has a well capable camera for that purpose. So maybe buying a secondary travel camera isn't the answer.

I have no idea. Haha. Maybe I should pick up the 35 f/2D and ditch the 50 1.8G and replace it with the 60 2.8G?

I really enjoy shooting with primes because they just make me think more. Which is why I thought about ditching the 16-35 and getting the 20 1.8. But it would probably be stupid because 16mm is nice to have.

If you had the same kit as me (16-35, 50, 70-200) what would you add? I know...I know..its very subjective. But humour me.


----------



## fmw (Jun 30, 2017)

You get the blue ribbon for your equipment revolving door.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

fmw said:


> You get the blue ribbon for your equipment revolving door.



YES! Another achievement in the books!


----------



## idcanyon (Jun 30, 2017)

Might you have Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

I buy new stuff whenever I have something a really want to shoot but can't. So what do you want to shoot but can't with the kit you have? It sounds like macro might qualify, so keep what you have an add a macro lens. If it overlaps and you find you aren't using something anymore than sell it.



nerwin said:


> If you had the same kit as me (16-35, 50, 70-200) what would you add? I know...I know..its very subjective. But humour me.


For myself, I'd add a 500mm lens plus 2x teleconverter, or maybe a decent telescope because I'm getting ready for the upcoming eclipse....something I want to shoot but can't without new gear (or couldn't, ha ha!).


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

idcanyon said:


> Might you have Gear Acquisition Syndrome.
> 
> I buy new stuff whenever I have something a really want to shoot but can't. So what do you want to shoot but can't with the kit you have? It sounds like macro might qualify, so keep what you have an add a macro lens. If it overlaps and you find you aren't using something anymore than sell it.
> 
> ...



Oh there is no question. I have G.A.S. But I honestly don't care anymore. It may sound silly. But if buying something new and different that I never had before gives me an ounce of happiness and something new to try in my life, Its worth it me. You know? I've been in a funk lately and maybe a new lens or something is enough to get me back out there.

I'm leaning toward the 60mm macro I think. Even if people think its useless on full frame.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 30, 2017)

I think it depends. I use 16mm for landscape, tractors, trucks. 23mm for cars and street, 18-55 for anything / travel, 60mmacro for macro and portraits, 55-200 anything / travel, 100-400 w/tc for sports/wildlife. I recently ordered 50-140 2.8 for portraits and event shooting in low light. As you can see, I only lack an ultra wide so in the future I will get a 10-20mm but will probably wait and get the 8-16mm when it's available. My 100-400 is the least used.

I am pretty fond of film for street, using 28, and a 50 for that. Occasionally, 200 prime too, Gary A. got me doing that crap.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

I've been slowly turning away from shooting cars using my ultra wide angle. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it just looks weird. It just distorts the car so much, unless you use that distortion in your favor.


----------



## idcanyon (Jun 30, 2017)

nerwin said:


> 60mm macro I think. Even if people think its useless on full frame.


If a lens is said to be useless, fringe, niche, or a specialty item then it just means what you make with it will be new and different and not look like everyone else's photos. For example, the 8mm f/2.8 fisheye I bought for the Milky Way is surprisingly useful.
Although, I'm pretty sure a 60mm macro is not useless or fringe or any of that.

If you need a habit to feed G.A.S. then try Stereo (3D) photography.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 30, 2017)

nerwin said:


> I've been slowly turning away from shooting cars using my ultra wide angle. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it just looks weird. It just distorts the car so much, unless you use that distortion in your favor.


My 16 has zero distortion that I can see. Now I borrowed a 10-20 for a weekend now that produced some cool effects.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I've been slowly turning away from shooting cars using my ultra wide angle. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it just looks weird. It just distorts the car so much, unless you use that distortion in your favor.
> ...



I'm not talking about lens distortion. I'm talking about what it does to the car. Same thing if you take a picture of someone with an ultra wide angle lens, it doesn't look right.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

idcanyon said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > 60mm macro I think. Even if people think its useless on full frame.
> ...



Haha, that's a good point actually. I don't often see the 60mm in people's bags. If you look at the few only groups on Flickr for that lens, they have a thousand or less members whereas groups for the 16-35, 50 and 70-200 have thousands and thousands of members and many images. 

So this could allow me to create unique photos and stand out different than other people's photos. Hmm.


----------



## SCraig (Jun 30, 2017)

> I feel like I'm missing something



A big chunk of your bank account, perhaps?


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

SCraig said:


> > I feel like I'm missing something
> 
> 
> A big chunk of your bank account, perhaps?



No, that's normal.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 30, 2017)

I have all Nikon lenses (except the Tamron)
18-35 AF-D - inexpensive, not the highest quality but compact, light weight & low cost
24-85/2.8-4.0 AF-D  get focal range including portrait
80-200/2.8 AF-D  main sports lens, and portrait
Tamron 150-600 - long distance
and 50 & 85mm primes

not the best of the best but they all take great images and lower cost, lower weight and more compact than their big-boy $$$ brethren lenses.


you just have to go back to what do you do, what is your budget, and what is your main objective.
For me now, if I want to add a lens, I'll have to sell a lens.  Unless it's a long prime  LOL


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

I'm thinking the 60 2.8G might be the way to go and I can use to take pictures of some 35mm negatives I don't have prints of! So it's a multi use lens I guess. 

Is it strange having both a 50 1.8 and a 60 2.8G as they are so close together?


----------



## jaomul (Jun 30, 2017)

I'd personally think it's a waste having both a 50 and 60, but if you need the macro then maybe.

I know it's very easy to spend lots and as I go on I'm finding less lenses are doing the job.

If it were me, and others will differ, I'd probably buy something like a Panasonic fz1000 or similar. My reasoning is it covers a multitude of shooting options and may just put the fun factor back into your photography. I love DSLRs, but I'd like (at times) to have a simple light easy option. Ymmv


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

jaomul said:


> I'd personally think it's a waste having both a 50 and 60, but if you need the macro then maybe.
> 
> I know it's very easy to spend lots and as I go on I'm finding less lenses are doing the job.
> 
> If it were me, and others will differ, I'd probably buy something like a Panasonic fz1000 or similar. My reasoning is it covers a multitude of shooting options and may just put the fun factor back into your photography. I love DSLRs, but I'd like (at times) to have a simple light easy option. Ymmv



But unfortunately...the 50 1.8G cannot digitize film. The 60 2.8G would allow me to finally digitize some 35mm negs that I have no prints of. It's going to yield better results than my crappy scanner and it doubles as a regular prime lens. I dunno.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 30, 2017)

nerwin said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > I'd personally think it's a waste having both a 50 and 60, but if you need the macro then maybe.
> ...



You know yourself what you want/need. I was only saying if it were me.

Is it not easier to digitise film with a scanner (genuine question, I'm not to familiar with the process


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

jaomul said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > jaomul said:
> ...



Its easier with a scanner. But the quality isn't as good as a DSLR + Macro lens. Unless you spend a LOT of money for a high end scanner and that's something I wouldn't use for a long period of time. I think getting this lens would be a good multi purpose lens honestly. Has that same field of view that I like, but can focus much closer than my 50mm can. Don't care about taking true 1:1 macros, just like being able to focus closer on a flower whereas my 50 1.8 hits its limit.


----------



## john.margetts (Jun 30, 2017)

nerwin said:


> I've been slowly turning away from shooting cars using my ultra wide angle. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it just looks weird. It just distorts the car so much, unless you use that distortion in your favor.


Assuming that that you are using a 'full frame' camera, the angle of view of a 16mm lens is about 110°. Whether you view that on a screen or on paper, the angle of view of the picture is about 47°. Mapping 110° onto 47° is always going to cause distortion. 

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk


----------



## cgw (Jun 30, 2017)

Then get the 60mm Micro Nikkor--or even an Ai-d 55/3.5. My 40/2.8g gets lots of use on a D7200. Utterly superb--and far quicker--for scanning 120 b&w negs. The ability to actually focus seals the deal. Civilian film scanner technology is dead in the water.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2017)

After 40-plus years in the photo game, I'll offer a suggestion:Stop buy and selling s***, and start keeping it, and using whatever is needed, as appropriate. Problem solved. If you want prime lenses, buy them, and keep them. For years. That's what a person does. Buying, them dumping doesn;t make much sense. Same with zooms...stop trading away stuff, and start keeping stuff around long enough to learn how to fully utilize it, when and as it is needed.

There are otyher utility zooms lenses besides the heavy, bulky, conspicuous, 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor. Many different smaller lenses out there to choose from, at lower price, smaller size,lighter weight. 28-80, 24-85, 28-105, 24-85, 24-120, and more--from different eras, and different price points, multiple models.

An 18-35 is out there too, the new model for full-frame is decent...lightish, smallish, good performance. EACH of the wide-angle lenses is its ____own_____ focal length! 16mm,18mm,20mm,24mm,28mm,35mm: there are SIX different, well-recognizxed wide-angle lens lengths in a 16-35mm zoom lens; add in the older 17mm, and the 21mm length, and the 25mm length, and there are NINE recognized lengths, with a LOT of angular difference between them! So...start learning to utilize the 16mm-35mm zoom lens for what it is...a multi-focal length zoom. 16,17,18,20,24,28,35...all are VERY different lens lengths.

What you are missing is experience in the focal lengths; a 17mm ultra-wide, an 18mm extreme wide, a 20mm wide-angle, a 24mm wide-angle, a 28mm wide-angle, and a 35mm semi-wide, those are the SIX, very different lenses within the 16-35mm. There is plenty to learn about and to utilize...you're missing out on the fundamentals of lens angle of view AND on far/near relationship rendering within the focal length range of the zoom...look at the 94/84/74 degree angular views of just three of the settings!


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

Derrel said:


> After 40-plus years in the photo game, I'll offer a suggestion:Stop buy and selling s***, and start keeping it, and using whatever is needed, as appropriate. Problem solved. If you want prime lenses, buy them, and keep them. For years. That's what a person does. Buying, them dumping doesn;t make much sense. Same with zooms...stop trading away stuff, and start keeping stuff around long enough to learn how to fully utilize it, when and as it is needed.
> 
> There are otyher utility zooms lenses besides the heavy, bulky, conspicuous, 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor. Many different smaller lenses out there to choose from, at lower price, smaller size,lighter weight. 28-80, 24-85, 28-105, 24-85, 24-120, and more--from different eras, and different price points, multiple models.
> 
> ...



Yeah, you're probably right Derrel. Sometimes you don't realize things until you talk about it.


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

cgw said:


> Then get the 60mm Micro Nikkor--or even an Ai-d 55/3.5. My 40/2.8g gets lots of use on a D7200. Utterly superb--and far quicker--for scanning 120 b&w negs. The ability to actually focus seals the deal. Civilian film scanner technology is dead in the water.



I'm really supprised how sharp negatives are when taken with a DSLR and macro lens. It's pretty astonishing really. I'd love to see old photos that's been hiding in negatives.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jun 30, 2017)

While I agree with the advice to stop buying/selling, I will answer your question because I do think you have a gap.  You need a 105mm 2.8.  It's my favorite Nikon lens by far.   If I'm remembering correctly you are the one who mentioned being out in your yard shooting flowers the other day? And you want something to use for macro? The 105 is it!


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

SquarePeg said:


> While I agree with the advice to stop buying/selling, I will answer your question because I do think you have a gap.  You need a 105mm 2.8.  It's my favorite Nikon lens by far.   If I'm remembering correctly you are the one who mentioned being out in your yard shooting flowers the other day? And you want something to use for macro? The 105 is it!



I owned that lens before, I didn't really enjoy it a whole lot. Great lens, but I felt the longer focal length made it limited for me. I like to show more in the scene rather that completely isolate it.

I probably don't make any sense. Haha.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2017)

You did not like the 105mm 2.8 Nikkor macro lens....maybe a shorter lens, like the Tamron 90mm macro, would be good for you on FX? The 60mm Micro~Nikkor lenses, both AF-D and the newer G-series, have been well-reviewed. I have had the 60/2.8 AF-D macro for 10 years or so; good lens for small-scale landscapes, but honestly, too short in my opinion, for 35mm negatives; the working distance of the 60mm puts the negative VERY close to the front of the lens. With larger negatives, like 6x6 or 6x7 or 4x5 sheet film, the 60 would be fine.

There is a BIG, noticeable difference between a Nikon 50mm lens and a Nikon 60mm macro lens...

I get the idea of wanting a new lens to satisfy a funk, or to get you moving in a new direction; I've done that myself,several times over the past decades; NEW stuff can light a fire under a person! Maybe a new lens is not the right answer? Maybe an accessory or two, like flash stuff? New speedlight and TTL connecting cord? Or a new flash and a remote triggering system? I dunno...

Maybe you need to do some research, and look into say, Thom Hogan's rational lens sets article or whatever he titled it; there are some ways to build a lens kit that many people have used. For example...the 16-35 and the 70-200 are both fine zooms, but the 50mm is rather pedestrian...is it possible you'd like an 85mm? Or the 90mm Tamron macro? Or maybe you just need an extension tube set from Kenko?

Or MAYBE you ought to look into some manual focus Nikon glass from the Ai-S era?


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

Derrel said:


> You did not like the 105mm 2.8 Nikkor macro lens....maybe a shorter lens, like the Tamron 90mm macro, would be good for you on FX? The 60mm Micro~Nikkor lenses, both AF-D and the newer G-series, have been well-reviewed. I have had the 60/2.8 AF-D macro for 10 years or so; good lens for small-scale landscapes, but honestly, too short in my opinion, for 35mm negatives; the working distance of the 60mm puts the negative VERY close to the front of the lens. With larger negatives, like 6x6 or 6x7 or 4x5 sheet film, the 60 would be fine.
> 
> There is a BIG, noticeable difference between a Nikon 50mm lens and a Nikon 60mm macro lens...
> 
> ...



I heard that it you buy one AIS lens, then you have to buy them all. Haha

I enjoy my 3 lenses I have now, but I guess I'm looking for something to have fun with..something different.

I have yet to try the 85 1.8 on full frame. I owned that lens many years ago on DX but it was just too tele for me. Who knows, I could enjoy shooting 85mm on FX.

I don't care so much about shooting at 1:1. I just want to be able to focus closer than my 50mm or 35mm can. Maybe grabbing a set of Kenkos would be better for occasional close up shot. Cheaper too. But think @Braineack said he has extension tubes with an 85mm and quite like it. Maybe it was someone else who said it, I don't remember haha.

That voitlander 45 f/2 is nice though, but more than what I want to spend lol.

What would be a fun AIS lens?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 30, 2017)

Yes, an AF-copled extension tube in 12mm or 20mm length would be very useful (lengths are approximate...I have seen 11mm and 12mm and 13mm tubes, and longer tubes of 20mm to 25mm legnth for the middle-length of a 3-0tube set; the 36mm or longest tube...ehhhh, not too useful.

Fun Ai-S lens? one real GEM is the 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S. Super lens, SMALLER than the giant macro 105/2.8 by far."Pretty pictures".

 I dunno...the 300/4.5 ED~IF is neat, but it's a 300, but is low-priced. The 24/2.8 Ai-S is neat, but an AF-S G is a better lens. The little 135/2.8 Ai-S is super-sweet, used to be cheap, but newly discovered on YouTube by thousands, price has gone way up.

The older 80-200 f/4 Ai-S zoom is nice, sharp,low-cost, smallish. 85mm f/2 Ai-S is SMALL. Light. looks like the 35/2 Ai-S and the 85/2 Ai-S were built on the same barrel and ring system...almost identical in size and appearance.

The 200/4 Ai-S is low-priced, skinny barrel, light, easy to shoot.

The 45-P f/2.8 is a GOOD lens, optically (I own it, and know, from experience, there's a ton of negative BS about this lens on the 'Net), and it has a CPU contact setup, but it is manual focus lens but meters automatically, and it works well with the 12mm Kenko extension tube as a close-focusing, close-range lens for small objects. "Pretty pictures".

In autofocus lenses, you might VERY much like the 85/1.8 AF-S G on full-frame...it shines on FX...and you're right; on DX it's like apprx. a 127mm E-view...very narrow angle. 85mm lens is BEST on FX, as an 85mm or *short* telephoto lens! On Dx, it's like a shortened 135mm "medium" telephoto. The difference between a short telephoto and a medium telephoto is like the difference between a wallet that has a $50 and a $100 bill...a VERY real, and a very noticeable difference!


----------



## nerwin (Jun 30, 2017)

Sure I could say my 70-200 has 85mm covered but it's not 1.8.

Hmm. You've giving me some food for thought though.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 1, 2017)

I think Derrel gives you some good advise. He and Gary challenged me to shoot street with my 55-200 extended all the way out! Talk about uncomfortable at first! But as I used it, a light came on.... I was able to judge what shots I could take at that focal length. The last time I went out street shooting, I missed several opportunities for interesting images because I didn't bring it along. As @Gary A. has said many times to me, you don't use it because you don't use it... Think about that for a minute.... So true.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 1, 2017)

That would be a fun challenge I guess.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 1, 2017)

Hey @Derrel, I hope you don't mind asking, but what exactly do you mean by the 50mm being pedestrian?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 1, 2017)

I mean pedestrian in the sense that it is neutral in its rendering;neither wide-angle nor telephoto; neither increasing apparent distances, nor altering apparent size relationships between near and far; I mean "boring" in its pictorial rendering nature. Mount a 20mm or a 300mm lens and every image has "character", or a "look", which is the opposite of pedestrian. Today I have a 70-300,  85 1.8 G, 24/2.8,90 macro, 60 macro,28-80,and D610, and the 180/2.8ED. I picked every lens for its character and usefulness. Note: none of my regular 50mm lenses are With me--but i am carrying the Lensbaby 3G 50mm!! The 85 and 90 macro fulfill different roles. The 180 is much different than the slow 70-300 at 180mm.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 1, 2017)

But everyone says you "must" have a 50mm with you haha. I tend to agree that it's super common and when you are trying to be unique, I guess the 50mm isn't probably the best lens for the job in that sense.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 1, 2017)

Instead of a 50, a small, light 35-70 zoom has been my go-to type lens for a long time. Nikkor 35-70 f/3.3~4.5, Af screwdriven, same size as many 50mm primes.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 1, 2017)

I dunno. Maybe a 35/85 prime combo would be better for me than just a 50. 

I'm still on the fence with a macro, I just don't know how much I'd use it because I don't have a huge interest in true macro photography.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 1, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I mean pedestrian in the sense that it is neutral in its rendering;neither wide-angle nor telephoto; neither increasing apparent distances, nor altering apparent size relationships between near and far; I mean "boring" in its pictorial rendering nature. Mount a 20mm or a 300mm lens and every image has "character", or a "look", which is the opposite of pedestrian. Today I have a 70-300,  85 1.8 G, 24/2.8,90 macro, 60 macro,28-80,and D610, and the 180/2.8ED. I picked every lens for its character and usefulness. Note: none of my regular 50mm lenses are With me--but i am carrying the Lensbaby 3G 50mm!! The 85 and 90 macro fulfill different roles. The 180 is much different than the slow 70-300 at 180mm.


I totally agree with ALL of this.

Having said that- it's still a very good thing every one in awhile to mount that 50mm prime, promise to leave it on, and force yourself to make interesting images without the 'character' of wide or long.  I have a tendency to ignore my 50mm- which is a mistake.


----------



## nerwin (Jul 1, 2017)

I'm so confused! Hahaha. Maybe it's this insanely humid weather that's driving me nuts! Oh my goodness the air quality here so bad.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 1, 2017)

It's simple- you want what we all want:  a small lightweight f/1.2  8-2000mm lens that is optically equal to prime lenses for under $200.00.

Until that comes along, we are all scratching our heads about the best compromises to make!


----------



## nerwin (Jul 1, 2017)

Peeb said:


> It's simple- you want what we all want:  a small lightweight f/1.2  8-2000mm lens that is optically equal to prime lenses for under $200.00.
> 
> Until that comes along, we are all scratching our heads about the best compromises to make!



Oh even then, I'd find something I didn't like haha. 

I guess I just don't know exactly what I want. I'm not going to lie though, that 85 1.8 would allow me to get some bokehlicious shots haha. But is it worth having when I already have the 70-200 f/4? Granted its an f/4 and not 2.8 or even 1.8 so those extra stops could be handy. But then again, getting a macro could be handy too but I just don't see myself using it much

Even though the 85 1.8 doesn't focus as close as the 50 1.8, it does have the focal length as an advantage so correct me if I'm wrong, but the 85 1.8 has slightly more magnification than the 50mm? I have a funny feeling I'm wrong but when looking through photo galleries on Flickr from the 85, it seems to be used quite a bit more for flower and other nature type imagery than the 50.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 2, 2017)

nerwin said:


> But think @Braineack said he has extension tubes with an 85mm and quite like it. Maybe it was someone else who said it, I don't remember haha.


yes, it was me.  works well enough, i rarely need macro -- but i use it when i need a detail shot.


----------

