Which new lens to get?

[KenRC51]

I have a NIkon D90, 24-70 2.8, 50 1.4 and sb-900. The lens I really want is the 70-200 2.8 but I really don't want to spend that much on a lens yet, and plus I'm not sure if I would be really using that lens to my potential. I shoot mostly pets, dogs to be specific.

Other lens I am considering and know I would probably using more than the 70-200 is the 16-35 f4, 14-24 2.8, or the 105 2.8 macro.

I almost went bought the 16-35 but I know I would probably regret not getting 14-24 for just a few hundred more. My problem with the 14-24 is that it has a rounded lens and there are no lens filter for it. I am a neat freak and baby my gear and knowing that the lens is unprotected wouldn't make me feel good about using the lens.

What you guys think I should do?

[inkista]

Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, maybe?

And you get used to the convex front element thing. I shoot with a fisheye, and I put UVs on all my other lenses, but the fisheye has to be used nekkid. I just get really paranoid around it, and it seems to have worked so far. The issue of filters for effects, though, is another issue, and if there's one lens you might want to put physical filters on, it's an ultrawide for landscapes. If you don't think that Cokin-type filters are gonna work for you, then you really have to weigh other options.

This is a really weird option, but there's also the Samyang/Rokinon/Vivitar/Bower/etc. etc. 14mm f/2.8, which is about $400. But you have to be prepared to correct all your images for moustache distortion.

Samyang 14mm f/2.8 Thread - FM Forums

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by KenRC51

My problem with the 14-24 is that it has a rounded lens and there are no lens filter for it. I am a neat freak and baby my gear and knowing that the lens is unprotected wouldn't make me feel good about using the lens.

What you guys think I should do?

I have 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 VR II. The 14-24 is one of the best Nikon lenses and you'll not regret buying it unless you need to use filters (other than a protective filter) for landscape photography. For those photographers, they can consider using the new 14-24 Lee Filters Holder.

I use B+W & Rodenstock UV filters for all my lenses and I don't worry about without one for my 14-24 and 10.5 DX. You will run into the same issue with 200 f/2, 200-400 f/4 etc. as well.

[OsmosisStudios]

Wait: you dont know if you wanna spend that kind of money (2200-2400) on a lens, but then say that you're also looking at the 14-24 and 16-35 and already own the 24-70 (each hovering near that)?

[kirbinster]

There is no reason to buy a 70-200 VRII to use on a DX body - its a waste of money. Get yourself a used Nikon 70-200 VRI, you should be able to pick one up in good condition for about $1400 or a little less these days.

[ravncat]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

There is no reason to buy a 70-200 VRII to use on a DX body - its a waste of money. Get yourself a used Nikon 70-200 VRI, you should be able to pick one up in good condition for about $1400 or a little less these days.

Ditto, the 70-200 VRII was primarily an update to address the corner softness on the full frame bodies. The 70-200 VRI was designed specifically for DX cameras - so it's a better choice, and less expensive than the VRII

[Almond.Butterscotch]

The 105mm is a gem.

[KenRC51]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Wait: you dont know if you wanna spend that kind of money (2200-2400) on a lens, but then say that you're also looking at the 14-24 and 16-35 and already own the 24-70 (each hovering near that)?

The 24-70 and 14-24 is about 1700-1800 but the 70-200 is 2300.

Originally Posted by kirbinster

There is no reason to buy a 70-200 VRII to use on a DX body - its a waste of money. Get yourself a used Nikon 70-200 VRI, you should be able to pick one up in good condition for about $1400 or a little less these days.

All my lens and future lens will be for fx camera because I plan to upgrade to an fx once the D700 replacement comes out. As for now I am happy with my D90 except in low light situation, it would help if I had a FX being about to shoot with over 1600 ISO.

I really hate buying used things especially camera stuff. If I can find some in almost mint condition VRI for about 1400-1500 then I might pick one up. I see mostly selling for around 1800-2000 for the VRI. At that price I rather spend a few hundred more and get a new VRIII.

Originally Posted by ravncat

Ditto, the 70-200 VRII was primarily an update to address the corner softness on the full frame bodies. The 70-200 VRI was designed specifically for DX cameras - so it's a better choice, and less expensive than the VRII

Isn't the VRI made for FX? All the trinity lens are FX lens.

I am leaning more towards the 14-24. I think it fits my shooting style more than the 70-200 although I must own both plus a macro. If only I would of won the lotto.

[kirbinster]

Take a look at my gear list in my sig, not one single item there was purchased new and I have never had a problem with any of it. People sell things for the strangest reasons. I bought my D300 with 125 shots on it and my D700 with 2 shots on it.

As for the 70-200 VRI, it is an FX lens. The only issue with it is some feel it is soft around the corners when used on an FX camera. For most people that will never be an issue as you almost never have your subject in the extreme corners.

The 14-24 is a great lens, but do you need it? What are you planning to use it for? I use my wide stuff mostly outside for nature shots and find I don't need an f/2.8 lens for that. Thus I saved a bundle by getting the Sigma 12-24 instead which is wider at the wide end also. Also how wide do you need as on an FX body the lens does not have the 1.5x mag factor so 12mm gives you the same picture that you would need an 8mm lens for on your D90.

[KenRC51]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Take a look at my gear list in my sig, not one single item there was purchased new and I have never had a problem with any of it. People sell things for the strangest reasons. I bought my D300 with 125 shots on it and my D700 with 2 shots on it.

As for the 70-200 VRI, it is an FX lens. The only issue with it is some feel it is soft around the corners when used on an FX camera. For most people that will never be an issue as you almost never have your subject in the extreme corners.

The 14-24 is a great lens, but do you need it? What are you planning to use it for? I use my wide stuff mostly outside for nature shots and find I don't need an f/2.8 lens for that. Thus I saved a bundle by getting the Sigma 12-24 instead which is wider at the wide end also. Also how wide do you need as on an FX body the lens does not have the 1.5x mag factor so 12mm gives you the same picture that you would need an 8mm lens for on your D90.

This is where my problem is at, I don't really know which lens I would need more; the 14-24 or 70-200. I feel like I would probably use the 14-24 more as most of the time I am using my focal length around 24-50 on my 24-70 lens. There are times where I feel like that 70-200 would come in handy, but mainly during my shoots I would say in my head, "man I wish I would of had the 14-24"

I shoot mostly pets in natural enviroment, like park and beach. I like to have a dog in a shoot with a nice background. Like I said there are time where I would do like portrait shots of the dog and the 70-200 would come handy. I will get both of them one day but just choosing between the two of them right now is kinda hard.

Heres my blog so you can see a little of my work. Kenneth Ng Photography | The pet photographer's blog