Question:
If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
Action, Sports AND Landscape? Hmmm… 17~35f2.8D and the 80~200f2.8 AF-S David.
Response:
80-200mm f/2.8 AFS and 500mm f/4 AFS. Peter Burian Co-Author Magic Lantern Guide to F100 and soon, to N80
Response:
300 or 400 AF-s and the 15mm. Tom GO Photography http://www.frognet.net/~photoj Too conventional. Think longer and shorter… 6mm fisheye (AF, we don’ nee’ no steenk’n AF!) 1200mm (w/ an AF adapter/teleconverter if one exists but it doesn’t matter because the aperture wide open will be the equivalent of a pinhole camera and not even the F6 will be able to focus w/ just one photon hitting the mirror or film depending on whether light happens to be exhibiting a wave or a particle effect and whether Heisinger’s? cat happens to be alive or dead – or was that Ricky Schroeder’s cat from "Silver Spoons"?) or Hubble telescope (mine came in a box of Count Chocula ceral 
) or that radio? array in New Mexico? or that Quantuum Leap particle accelerater also in New Mexico (lens? we don’ nee’ no steenk’n lens! 
) Then there’s always the flux capacitor (don;t know its temporal focal length , and Frank Parker and the sphere (terrible temporal spherical abberration ) or a good lens cap w/ a hole in it (no glass to break or AF needed and you determine the focal length with the size of the aperture). Viva! If you wish to e-mail me just try and disconnect my brain. Have a thought and go ahead, make my day! "Clifford, on your planet, what color is the sky?" "Roads? Where we’re going we don’t need any roads" "1.21 gigawatts! Do they make that in AA?"
Response:
If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick? 24 f/2.8 D? – great/sharp optical quality. 85mm f/1.4 – wide aperture, pleasing bokeh, good all rounder for head shots to full length w/ only a slight telephoto effect. Or, if your into back busting and wallet busting … 17-35mm SW f/2.8 – reputed to be very sharp and a wonderful range 80-200D? f/2.8 – Also very sharp and bright at a reasonable cost. But if I were to go manual … 24mm f/2 – for the bright aperture and the fact that I love this focal length w/c is very dramatic in its rendition of space/angle of view yet highly usable for groups and person in environment stuff. 105mm f/2.5 – A classic. Great bokeh. Small. Solid. Reasonably fast. A nice lens for headshots to half and/or three quarter lengths whether indoors or out (depending on available shooting space indoors). Very sharp. A lens that demands a nice slow speed Kodachrome 25/64 or a nice sharp TMAX film (100/400 I.S.O.) to show off this lenses best qualities I just mentioned. You can get some really nice 16×20" from this lens… Now if we’re talking about Zeiss (SLR) glass (and I know we weren’t but who cares ) how about… 25mm f/2.8 Distagon 50mm f/1.4 Planar Hmmmmmmmm, Zeisssssss, yummmmy, chocolatey…. Viva! If you wish to e-mail me just try and disconnect my brain. Have a thought and go ahead, make my day! "Clifford, on your planet, what color is the sky?" "Roads? Where we’re going we don’t need any roads" "1.21 gigawatts! Do they make that in AA?"
Response:
If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
frankly, i don’t know whether or not the first of my choices is "afd" or not, but it is the *one* nikkor i couldn’t do without: 35/1.4. in addition, i would pick the 28-105 zoom. wayne harrison
Response:
300 or 400 AF-s and the 15mm. Tom GO Photography http://www.frognet.net/~photoj
Response:
Thank you sir for noticing this. Money was never mentioned as the limiting factor. Its amazing how people read in to stuff. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S Clearly we must believe the original poster is not limiting his lens selection to two because of price. You could buy a whole bunch of lesser lenses for the price of these two . . . .
Response:
I was in a similar quandary. I choose the Nikon 28-105 D and 70-300 D lens for general purpose shooting. I use the 28-105 as my general purpose lens 80% of the time, and 70-300 for action/long distance shots. Both have been very sharp and I have no regrets. I recently took some shoots with available lighting (hand held, but braced on a table at 1/60 with the 70-300, most at 300mm) at a show in Vegas. Pictures of Sheena Easton and David Cassidy came out very good and sharp, considering how slow I was shooting. Since I am planning to do some traveling, I recently bought the 50 1.4D and will bring the 28-105 zoom. The 70-300 may stay home since I want to keep it light and compact in a waist pack. Art
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
Response:
17-35 2.8 afs, 80-200 2.8 afs. but i couldn’t live with just two and i’d have to add the 50 1.8 (not d, but what the heck) and the 105 2.8 macro as well. we’re on a very slippery slope here…
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
Response:
The AF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5D. And the AF 135mm f2D DC lens. If you take portraits, the 135mm should earn you enough to expand from the two lenses above. = = = If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
Before you buy.
Response:
If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
I’d buy an N90 instead of the F100, take the extra dough and buy three lenses. 24-120; 80-200/2.8 and a 50mm. — Craig Zeni – REPLY TO — clzeni at mindspring dot com http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html Before you vote, remember what Bob Dylan said: "Money doesn’t talk. It swears."
Response:
24-120 and 80-200 f/2.8. Assume you also have SB-28 speedlight. If not, I would get that before 80-200. Third lens asap would be 105 Macro. If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
Before you buy.
Response:
Once upon a time when I got out of SLR gear for a bit and then returned, I didn’t have much money and had to make this choice. I took the 35/2 and 85/2 lenses and never regretted it for an instant. 20 years later, I still have those lenses and still use them. Godfrey
Response:
I have a bag full of lenses. But the lens I use 95% of the time is the Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D AF. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
Response:
<< 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S Clearly we must believe the original poster is not limiting his lens selection to two because of price. You could buy a whole bunch of lesser lenses for the price of these two . . . .
Response:
It would have to be the two lenses I use most now: the AF- S 17-35mm f/2.8 and the 80-200mm f/2.8 (non AF-S). They take care of 75-80% of my shooting requirements. Dana H * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Response:
<< Well, if my budget was so tight that I could only afford two decent lenses, the very obvious choice would be to simply not buy the very expensive F100 and buy an equally capable used N90s for half the money (or even an FM2n) so I could spend more on lenses. Cameras aren’t very important–the lens is everything. Overspending on a camera body and skimping on lenses is a beginner’s mistake. Good comment!
Response:
80-200 f/2.8 AF-S 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S
Response:
If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick? I’d be lusting for – Nikkor AF-S 28-70/2,8 IF-ED and – " " 80-200/2.5 "
oop’s my lust is getting the best of me, I mean 2.8 of course… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
<<If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick? Well, if my budget was so tight that I could only afford two decent lenses, the very obvious choice would be to simply not buy the very expensive F100 and buy an equally capable used N90s for half the money (or even an FM2n) so I could spend more on lenses. Cameras aren’t very important–the lens is everything. Overspending on a camera body and skimping on lenses is a beginner’s mistake. Kent in SD
Response:
If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
I’d be lusting for – Nikkor AF-S 28-70/2,8 IF-ED and – " " 80-200/2.5 "
Response:
If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
If I were to start over, the 24-120 would be tempting to cover most subjects, and then a longer zoom. I have a non-Nikon 75-300 which would go well along with the 24-120. I assume Nikon makes either the same, or a 100-300. Having 24-300 between two lenses would sure cover about everything. The more conventional zooms starting at 28 are generally fine, but from time to time I like my 18-35 (also non-Nikon). Having the 24-120 might be satisfactory for situations when I use the wider angle lens. Unfortunately it either was not out yet, or I was unaware of it when I got all my lenses, as this sure seems like a useful range. Don’t take this as a complete recommendation for the 24- 120 as I’ve only read about it and haven’t actually used one (yet). Sorry for any ads RemarQ is adding to posts. Please disregard them. Money grow on trees? Get up to 100 free minutes, then start throwing your money away on our bogus psychics! http://www.keen.com Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com
Response:
If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
Response:
A 28-70 f/2.8 and an 80-200 f/2.8 (with as extender) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you could only have two Nikon AF D lenses for your F100 and knew you needed them for all sorts of applications from action/sports, landscape, portrait etc., what would you pick?
Response:
I suppose the safe answer is two zooms, one short, one long. But that wouldn’t be my answer. If some cruel person dictated I could only have two I could get by in a lot of situations with just a 24mm f2.8 and either a 85mm or a 105mm. That’s probably what I would do . . .
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.