I've decided on what Nikon lenses I will get

[Daniel Browning]

I have my new D800 body, but ever since I decided to switch to Nikon I've been struggling to decide what lenses to get. All I have right now is the excellent Nikon 55mm f/2.8 macro, which I used with an adapter on Canon (and will no longer have to manually select aperture on Nikon).

Here is what I used to have on Canon (most recently)

* Canon 17-40 f/4
* Canon 24mm f/1.4 II
* Sigma 50mm f/1.4
* Canon 135mm f/2

(Before the 135, I had a 70-400 f/4 IS.)

All of these have almost exact equivalents on the Nikon side, except for the 135 (Nikon's is just not in the same league when it comes to sharpness or AF speed.) But since I'm switching everything else, maybe I should consider switching my shooting style. I never shot 35mm -- I always jumped from 24 to 50. And I never shot 85 or 100mm -- I always jumped from 50 to 135. I want to try something new, so here is what I decided:

* Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
* Nikon 35mm f/1.4G AF-S
* Nikon 85mm f/1.8G AF-S

Now I'm going to be skipping almost all the focal lengths that used to be my go-to angles of view. The cost is about equivalent to the Canon setup above, though it's only 3 lenses instead of 4.

So what do you guys think?

[Dr Croubie]

Well, the sigma you can always get again in Nikon mount if you wanted, but i'm sure you knew that already.

The 24L will be length-replaced by the 14-24. How much did you ever shoot it wide-open? The 14-24 is pricey but I'd say it's worth it to replace the 24L and 17-40 in one, for 40mm you can always crop away some of those 36MP...
The Nikon 85/1.8 G is a bit better than their D, i'd guess probably about as good as the EF 85/1.8 (although in the f/1.4 area, the G craps all over the D).
How about the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro to sort-of replace the 135L? Nikon also did a 135/1.8 and 105/2.0 in years past, not sure how well it'd stand up to 36MP though...

Still, I'd be happy with that setup. (Did i mention it's my birthday tomorrow? Equipment/cash donations gratefully accepted)

[Daniel Browning]

Well, the sigma you can always get again in Nikon mount if you wanted, but i'm sure you knew that already.

Yeah, I wasn't every completely happy with it, anyway. I really wanted the 1.2L. And the focus was a little inaccurate for me (but only when I wasn't testing it rigorously... it only messed up when I wasn't looking.)

The 24L will be length-replaced by the 14-24. How much did you ever shoot it wide-open?

I'd say at least 50% of the time. The rest of the time was f/2.8, with a few f/16 thrown in here and there. I'm worried that I will really miss 24mm f/1.4 and end up switching the 35 for it -- but I did shoot 35mm with my 17-40 many a time and liked it a lot, so... I'll have to see.

The 14-24 is pricey but I'd say it's worth it to replace the 24L and 17-40 in one,

I'm throwing f/4 and f/1.4 together and coming out with f/2.8.

The Nikon 85/1.8 G is a bit better than their D, i'd guess probably about as good as the EF 85/1.8 (although in the f/1.4 area, the G craps all over the D).

Yeah, I'm hoping it's as good as the EF85/1.8, both optically and mechanically, early reports seem to indicate that.

How about the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro to sort-of replace the 135L?

Hm, that's a good suggestion. I wonder if it has the glacially-slow autofocus that macros are famous for. I was also thinking about the Nikon 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED for $1000, but it looks really dated (like a *lot* of Nikon lenses).

Still, I'd be happy with that setup. (Did i mention it's my birthday tomorrow? Equipment/cash donations gratefully accepted)

Wait, what? You mean you didn't get my present? I sent you my 5D2+24mm f/1.4 II a few weeks ago. I guess UPS lost it, sorry.

[Jon Ruyle]

I would definitely get a 14-24 f/2.8 if I switched, so I think you're doing the right thing there.

I've never shot with a 24 f/1.4, but I really like 35 f/1.4. I think you'll be pleased. Tough luck about the 135, but what can one do. Personally, I love shooting people at 85mm.

I'm jealous!

[Dr Croubie]

Personally, I love shooting people at 85mm.

You should step back a bit, otherwise you get gunpowder residue all over your hands and the recoil is dangerous.

[andnowimbroke]

Digitalrev did a "review" of the nikon 85mm 1.8 on youtube. I found it ..interesting ...

[Dave Johnston]

Digitalrev did a "review" of the nikon 85mm 1.8 on youtube. I found it ..interesting ...

Dont you mean.... Arousing?

[DavidEccleston]

Have you considered the Samyang/Rokinon primes? They manual focus, manual aperture, but they're supposed to be quite sharp, and wallet friendly, while being quite nice and fast. The 35mm f/1.4 is like $500, and the and 85mm f/1.4 is $300. Obviously you don't need the wallet friendliness, but they're supposed to be excellent lenses if you don't need AF. The 35mm is supposed to be on par with the Canon L.

[Daniel Browning]

Have you considered the Samyang/Rokinon primes?

Yes. They are really right up my alley. I do a ton of video and stills in manual focus, probably the majority of my time with the camera, so I've looked closely at them. But there are still times when I really want a good autofocus, so I was hoping to get the all-in-one package.

They manual focus, manual aperture, but they're supposed to be quite sharp, and wallet friendly, while being quite nice and fast.

I was thinking about doing the Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.4, then cover my autofocus needs with just the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. That still leaves $1000 or so left over for something else.

[Mark Elberson]

I was thinking about doing the Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.4, then cover my autofocus needs with just the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. That still leaves $1000 or so left over for something else.

For a video shooter this sounds like a great idea. With the extra g-wiz I'd consider an SB-910 for starters.

Congrats Daniel, you have done what Jon & I have only dreamed of! I still have very high hopes for the Mark III though :-)