I have a sharp 45mm... should I get a wide angle (24mm) or improve my portraiture with a sharper 85?

[Winthor]

I take pictures around the farm and the widest lens I have is 45mm.

I'm looking at the nikon 24mm 1.8g ed and the tamron 85mm 1.8 di vc.

For portraiture I already have a nikon 70-200 VR II zoom lens, and a tokina 100mm 2.8 at-x pro macro.

I've had a 24mm in a 24-70 zoom lens and I enjoyed it at 24mm. I got rid of it because I need something sharper than the 24-70 zoom on my d850. Do I want a wide angle to round myself out or do I want the modern sharpness, vc, and soft falloff bokeh of the 85mm tamron to upgrade my portraiture?

If I get the 85mm I'll be able to carry around a 45mm and 85mm easily, as they're small and handleable lenses in contrast to carrying a 45mm and a large 3lb 70-200 zoom lens. But how much would I crave that 24mm if I did decide to go with a 45+85 duo?

The 24 DOES make really cool images in the woods giving that feeling of depth between the trees...hmmmm....

opinions?

 

[Mark F]

I haven't posted here in a very long time. I should rethink that though.
I came across your post and it got me to thinking. I should respond to this.
I got a FX camera basically because I like to shoot wide angle. My Z6ii has a Laowa 10mm full time mounted, but I also have the 14-30. I tend to stay at the 14mm range of that though, and shoot panos.
I bought a Z50ii for when I need a longer reach I have the standard 16-50 and 50-250 which makes a nice lightweight kit, but I have used big guns on it... 180-600mm and have looked into a 1.4x converter for that.
FX- take advantage of wide focal lengths. APS-C - take advantage of crop sensor for reach.
With your d850, I would be getting a 24 or wider. 20mm is a good compromise for landscapes. For portraits, your 85 and 100 should be a good range and is basically a standard in portrait lenses.
Wide shots take awesome photos in the right setting.

 

[Blue439]

It always puzzles me when someone asks such a wide-ranging question as “Should I buy a wide-angle or a telephoto?” I feel like answering, “Don’t you know better than us what you’re missing the most in your practice of photography?”

In this case, as you already seem to have several longer lenses, I’d recommend a wide-angle since you don’t have any, but again, you know better...

 

[Clovishound]

My thought is that you already have that focal length covered with two of your other lenses. The 100mm macro being close to an 85. The only difference between the 70-200 at around 85mm and the 85mm prime is 1 stop of narrower DOF. I'm not into portrait, but I would think you could easily duplicate that same blurriness of background by choosing a slightly longer focal length.

If you do any landscape shooting at all, there is no substitute for a decent wide angle lens. I do very little landscape shooting, but when I do, the 24 end of my Z 24-70 is indispensable. In fact, I sometimes wish I had something a little wider, but the 24 works well, and the Z 24-70 is a very sharp lens.

 

[Winthor]

I haven't posted here in a very long time. I should rethink that though.
I came across your post and it got me to thinking. I should respond to this.
I got a FX camera basically because I like to shoot wide angle. My Z6ii has a Laowa 10mm full time mounted, but I also have the 14-30. I tend to stay at the 14mm range of that though, and shoot panos.
I bought a Z50ii for when I need a longer reach I have the standard 16-50 and 50-250 which makes a nice lightweight kit, but I have used big guns on it... 180-600mm and have looked into a 1.4x converter for that.
FX- take advantage of wide focal lengths. APS-C - take advantage of crop sensor for reach.
With your d850, I would be getting a 24 or wider. 20mm is a good compromise for landscapes. For portraits, your 85 and 100 should be a good range and is basically a standard in portrait lenses.
Wide shots take awesome photos in the right setting.

Thanks Mark! Your reply gave me something to think about, big time. I love the amount of detail and feeling of depth I can get on a full-frame wide angle. More fun than it was on aps-c, you're right.

It always puzzles me when someone asks such a wide-ranging question as “Should I buy a wide-angle or a telephoto?” I feel like answering, “Don’t you know better than us what you’re missing the most in your practice of photography?”

In this case, as you already seem to have several longer lenses, I’d recommend a wide-angle since you don’t have any, but again, you know better...

Thanks.

My thought is that you already have that focal length covered with two of your other lenses. The 100mm macro being close to an 85. The only difference between the 70-200 at around 85mm and the 85mm prime is 1 stop of narrower DOF. I'm not into portrait, but I would think you could easily duplicate that same blurriness of background by choosing a slightly longer focal length.

If you do any landscape shooting at all, there is no substitute for a decent wide angle lens. I do very little landscape shooting, but when I do, the 24 end of my Z 24-70 is indispensable. In fact, I sometimes wish I had something a little wider, but the 24 works well, and the Z 24-70 is a very sharp lens.

Oh yeah those Z zoom lenses seem just awesome. Unfortunately the F mount of my d800 and d850 really doesn't have a whole lot of glass that sharp at a size and weight as low as the Z series. Towards the end of DSLR some lenses came out on F mount from third-parties that were getting to be really good (Tamron's G2 zooms and their SP f/1.8 primes. And Tokina's 24-70 2.8 seems sharper than the G series Nikon).

I'm very glad I went to the forums for advice! I bought the Nikkor 24mm 1.8G ED after hearing people's opinions on not having a wide angle lens in their repertoire. A guy on another site said he would go for what he has none of, before going for increased sharpness of what he did. That, and Mark's reply above (top one) made a whole lot of sense to me. The wide end, especially on high megapixel full-frame, is a great perspective when you have a sharp lens to capture it all. And I already have lenses that can capture portraits. In fact, all of my lenses can make a decent portrait. And bokeh, like someone said on a post i made to another site, changes on the 70-200 2.8 depending on the length of zoom. And by 200mm the subject separation at 2.8 is very strong. So I'm likely not missing something huge in my telephoto photography. But I am missing huge in the wide.

Thanks guys.

 

[Marilynne]

Welcome! Glad you got some good answers to your questions.

Please feel free to introduce yourself here - new member

 

[hark]

Are you using an FX or DX body? A wide angle lens is great when used correctly. If you get too close to your subject, it will produce perspective distortion. Sometimes that is a desired outcome. Other times not so much especialy if someone misuses the lens causing unwanted distortion.

Wide angle lenses do well especially when there is foreground interest. One compositional tool that really helps is the use of leading lines to draw the viewer's eye into the photo. If you are taking group photos, be sure not to have people too close to the edges of the frame. Body parts can become stretched out of proportion.

That said ... I have a 24-120mm f/4 and an 85mm f/1.8. Both have their own purpose. My 85mm is the Nikon brand. It's bokeh is spectacular – VERY creamy and certainly much creamier than even my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRii as well as my Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR. But its primary purpose is for portraits.

The 24-120mm f/4 is a solid performer which yields lots of opportunities because it is a zoom. So two very different purposes. Both a 24mm and an 85mm will be great. You just need to decide which purpose is most important to you at this time. You can easily zoom with your feet since the 24mm is a prime. I had a Nikon 24mm f/2.8 prime lens long ago but much rather prefer a wide angle zoom.