24/58 or 35/85

[OCD]

Just wondering.

Heh.

Or do you favor a different pair of primes?

 

I know....strumming up a discussion...

[Roland Vink]

DX or FX? (DX 24/58 is similar to FX 35/85)

Wide or tele? (what do you prefer?)

With an FX camera I would probably pick 35/85 since I shoot more often with short teles than wide lenses.
But I usually carry a trio of lenses, starting with 50 or 55 in the middle, 85, 105 or 135 above, and 28, 24 or 20 below.
I choose depending on the subject and my mood ...

[Bern]

I usually pair up a 20/50 or 20/105 both for DX. At the momment I dont have FX body. Considering the crop factor, that would be more like a 30/75 or 30/150. The first combination is nearer to your 35/85 option.

My reason? For the 20mm FL is that I can do a minimal crop to get a similar view from a 24mm FL. And the 85mm FL seems close to the 105mm FL given that I already have a 50mm. Just making the most of limited resources I have.

[pluton]

Everybody's needs and wants are different.  It is unlikely that anyone can give you good advice about your own preferences without being very familiar with you and your photography.
Make your best educated guess about what you need, and proceed with the grand experiment.
My personal preference in your list would be 24/58, because for me, life without a strong wide angle would be sad.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I'm often shooting with 18/35 or 18/105. I keep trying to use a 50mm but never really find it appealing. Would like 14/28 but don't have a 14.

[Frank Fremerey]

Currently I pair the 20mm prime on the D500 with the 105mm prime on the D600 (D850 starting tomorrow hopefully). Angle of view wise that would be 30/105. Sometimes I switch lenses in a shooting to change the FOV pair to 20/170. Heavy but very versatile!

[Jakov Minić]

I used to use 16mm fish-eye and 85/1.4.
Now my kit involves the 20/1.8 and 85/1.4.
All the focal lengths in between are easily solved with a few steps forward or back.
FX or DX don't play a role in focal lengths, they are still the same lenses regardless of format.

[Airy]

28 and 58, very often...

[David H. Hartman]

Just wondering...

If you'd like advice you need to state what subjects you like to photograph.

A while back I bought three new AF-S primes for my D800
AF-S 20/1.8G ED Nikkor
AF-S 50/1.8G Nikkor
AF-S 105/2.8G ED VR Micro-Nikkor

I'd like an AF-S 58/1.4G (and other alphabet soup as needed) to substituent for the AF-S 50/1.8G. 50/1.8 for light weight, 58/1.4 for night. The price was the problem.

I bought the 20/1.8 over a 24/1.8 because I can crop the 20/1.8 image back to the angle of view of a 24/1.8 without much sacrifice on a D800. I have a bit of a preference for 20mm over 24mm on FX.

If only two lenses I generally use the 20/1.8 or the 105/2.8. I also carry an AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D Nikkor. It's quite good for it's age as it has a hybrid aspheric element, distance and distortion data and good for it's age in the flare department. It's small and discreet.

That's my 2 cents on the topic,

Dave Hartman

[OCD]

Thanks all, I was mostly curious what your choice of prime lens pair (or trio) might be.  I'd been happily using 24/35/85 1.8G's for some time, mostly 35/85 as I enjoy the 35mm FOV.  Then I pulled the trigger on the 58mm several months ago, and I really enjoy this lens a lot, and with the 58 I find myself not using the 85 all that much anymore.  I've also been forcing myself to use the 24mm more often and am beginning to appreciate and understand this focal length a bit better (wide is a challenge for me).  I still like the 35mm....but 24/35/58 seems a bit tight, but hey why not?  Anyhow, this is more of a survey question out of curiosity than anything else.  I sure appreciate you sharing with me!  I'm pretty much a semi-retired happy snapper and hobbyist, and I have to say it's currently hard to get the 58 off my camera, there's something about that focal length that is enjoyable for me, plus the rendering of the lens can be pretty cool.  I'm also curious if anyone is shooting 35/58.  For now I'm rolling with 24/35/58 and as Pluton puts so well: I shall "proceed with the grand experiment." 

[the solitaire]

At the moment I prefer 35mm + 300mm as my two main primes. Up until a few weeks ago I was perfectly happy with 16mm fish eye + 55mm. this is on an FX camera.

[David H. Hartman]

The best way to go is pack **it all in a 3/4 tone, 4x4 pickup, and cruse.

Some here can't do that they'd need a deuce and a half.

Dave

**all the glass you own. That might be 43 (hehe) F bayonet lenses for me.

[Roland Vink]

I still like the 35mm....but 24/35/58 seems a bit tight, but hey why not?

There's no right or wrong, whatever works for you.
If 24/35/58 seems tight, you could consider a 20/35/58 trio instead, or 8-15/24/58, or 28/58/70-200f4 or ...
The possibilities are endless...

I often start with a 50mm lens and go up or down from there. For that reason I often skip 35mm because it's too close. However I could easily shoot with a 35/85 combo instead and get more or less the same pictures by stepping forward or back or cropping to get the same framing. So in the end it really doesn't matter too much, except for special cases when you need a macro for closeups, or a big telephoto for wildlife, or a zoom when you need to change framing quickly ...

[OCD]

Dave, awesome:  "We're gonna need a bigger boat."

Roland:  Oh man...just what I need...a little GAS for a 70-200mm f/4!  24/58/70-200f4 does sound awesome honestly.  Lol.   You're right, the possibilities are endless.  I think I read a comment by Chris Dees who said he takes out his 24/58 or 35/85 depending on his mood.  Sounds about right to me.  I am fond of all those lenses, or I can do as Dave suggested and get a larger vehicle, haha.  And larger camera bag as well....

[Bern]

I agree! The 70-200 f4 is a really nice lens and balances well with smaller sized bodies.