Time to Add to My Arsenal ???

[Rich F]

It's that time of year when Uncle Sam gives me back my money, and then some. I'm putting aside about $1k for photography.... So, I'm looking to add some glass to my bag.

Shooting with the D300s, I have been using a 35 f/1.8 and a 50 f/1.8 for taking photos of some live shows in smaller venues. A few of the bands have loved the shots and subsequently hired me for future gigs and some promo shots.

I'm not really happy with the 35 1.8 (my second copy). It just doesn't seem to focus as quickly as the 50 1.8 with the screw-drive focusing.
As for the 50mm.... I really love that lens, but depending on my location it can be either too tight when I'm close and not enough reach if I'm a few rows back.


So with that, here are my thoughts:

I'm considering the 35mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8
Both of these lenses are lacking the AF motor, which I believe are capable of locking focus faster than the motorized lenses. I also want to stick with lenses that will work on FX as I will be upgrading to full frame in the future.

I would like the 35 for when I'm close to the stage. And I think the 85 would be good for close-up headshots and having a little more reach than the 50, I could get some better shots of the drummers.

I know that the 1.4 versions are better, but I'm not getting that much $$$ back. And, I'm also springing for a grip and extra batteries.

Here are a few band photos to give you an idea of the types of shots I've been getting.

So what are your thoughts, ideas, recommendations ???

[zona5101]

Either of those would be excellent choices and fit your requirements. The 35f2 is a tad less expensive than the 85f1.8. I am enamored with the 35f2 since following photographer Matthew Dutile's work as he uses that lens a lot. an arizona road trip Matthew Dutile Photography – Blog of Phoenix Arizona Lifestyle, Editorial, Advertising and Commercial Photographer Matthew Dutile

If you think your going more portrait or need more reach then the 85 may suit your needs better. Heck you can buy both and still be under a grand.

[dalmorloson]

Just wanted to drop in and say Nice Pics! Congratulations on getting your work in the paper too. Was that the Post Gazzette?

[Rich F]

Thanks for the input. I'm considering purchasing both lenses, not one or the other. I know I could get the 24-70 f/2.8 used for a bit over $1k, but I like the ability to go down to 2.5-2.2 instead of going up in ISO. I just want to hear what others thoughts are before I fill up my shopping cart at B&H

Originally Posted by dalmorloson

Just wanted to drop in and say Nice Pics! Congratulations on getting your work in the paper too. Was that the Post Gazzette?

Thank you. It was in the Tribune Review as well as the Valley News Dispatch (the Trib's paper for the Allegheny Valley areas.)

I can't wait for next month. I'm going have a photo that is going to be in Photoshop User Magazine

[MatthewDutile]

This just popped up on my Google Alerts hah. Go with the 35 f/2. You won't regret it.