Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Spiney" data-source="post: 244014" data-attributes="member: 19561">New member here with a question for this thread. I had a portrait studio for 15 years. Started with film and medium format: 645 &amp; 6x7. In our final years I shot a Fuji S2 and my lens that I made a lot of money with was a Nikon 24-85 ED 3.3-4.5. We had to close due to health reasons 3 back surgeries and a failed neck surgery back in 2005. I want to get back into shooting for money. Right now I have a D7000 with the kit lens. I want to shoot pets, children, and muscle &amp; collector cars during the car show season. I sold my S2 and old circa 2001 24-85.&nbsp; I was going to start with 50mm 1.8 D. Is there a reason to spend an other $100 to get a &quot;G&quot; I don't need a G for my D7000.&nbsp; I can get &quot;D&quot; lenses for considerably less than &quot;G's&quot;. Though if I buy &quot;G's&quot; I can get a cheaper body as a backup like a 5200. In today's world for portraits / pets is it better to go with primes or is there a decent short range 2.8 Zoom that would work?Also for the price with studio lights what's your opinion on the newer version 24-85 3.3-4.5 ED VR lens?I can get one unused in the box circa 2012 for $245. Sorry to ramble so long. My wife is losing her job and our insurance next week. So no matter how much pain I'm in, I have to get shooting again. Thanks, Spiney-Dave</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Spiney, post: 244014, member: 19561"] New member here with a question for this thread. I had a portrait studio for 15 years. Started with film and medium format: 645 & 6x7. In our final years I shot a Fuji S2 and my lens that I made a lot of money with was a Nikon 24-85 ED 3.3-4.5. We had to close due to health reasons 3 back surgeries and a failed neck surgery back in 2005. I want to get back into shooting for money. Right now I have a D7000 with the kit lens. I want to shoot pets, children, and muscle & collector cars during the car show season. I sold my S2 and old circa 2001 24-85. I was going to start with 50mm 1.8 D. Is there a reason to spend an other $100 to get a "G" I don't need a G for my D7000. I can get "D" lenses for considerably less than "G's". Though if I buy "G's" I can get a cheaper body as a backup like a 5200. In today's world for portraits / pets is it better to go with primes or is there a decent short range 2.8 Zoom that would work? Also for the price with studio lights what's your opinion on the newer version 24-85 3.3-4.5 ED VR lens? I can get one unused in the box circa 2012 for $245. Sorry to ramble so long. My wife is losing her job and our insurance next week. So no matter how much pain I'm in, I have to get shooting again. Thanks, Spiney-Dave [/QUOTE]

Verification