Would also add the 85 1.4G if you are using mirrorless. I agree with the 28/58/105 recommendation having owned multiple copies of each, but as of today I keep returning to the 85 as a real portrait lens in a classic sense, and is the only F-Mount lens I currently own. The 105 is clearly superior but the shorter focal length and less bulk allow the 85 to have a bit more versatility, particularly indoors. This lens is amazingly precise on a mirrorless camera using the FTZII. Not the equal of the 85 1.8S resolution wise, but better bokeh characteristics which can separate portrait lenses apart. A little DXO pure raw and this lens is absolutely stunning in its drawing ability. Like the 58, it has more subtle transition detail and is capable of more depth perception.
But having said all of this, to the OP, given your tastes in photography, and the fact that you did not specifically mention portraits then find you a copy of the 28 1.4 if you want a special wide angle. I prefer a 35mm but man that lens has a special look to it that I doubt even a mirrorless version would match.
Eco-Scott wrote:
Last year, I made the transition from Canon DSLR to Nikon mirrorless. I have a more than adequate suite of Z lenses now. In order of frequency, I most often shoot wildlife, landscape, event, product, street and macro. I'm not trying to fill a gap in my lens lineup; it would be simply an indulgence that would offer something I cannot get in the Z mount.
What would be your choice for a nice-to-have F mount lens?
It seems like the consensus is, despite access to some of the reasonably-priced and highest-performance primes available (the f/1.8 group), and access to unreasonably-priced world-beaters (the 1.2’s and Plena), we all very much miss our “character” lenses from F. Those that were great performers, but were more desirable for their attention to a smooth rendering of transitional and OOF areas. Without the enormous size and price tags of Nikon’s new premiere lenses.
In my opinion, Nikon lost the plot when these primes started making the 300PF look like a compact prime. If I’m pointing those things at people, it’s in a studio only (which is where they at least necessary).
I was hoping the f/1.4 primes were the answer… I don’t care if corners aren’t 3000lp/mm wide open, so long as portraits are nice and it’s perfect by f/2.8. But they seem to be purely a budget offering. Only the 40/2 seems to have a bit of that “good old lens” feel, if you squint a bit.
Nikon, it seems like you could repackage the 28E, 58E, 85E, and 105E, and make some good cash!
Simply repackaging those lenses is going to come at the cost of an FTZ worth of extra length. F lenses had a big advantage when it came to size compared to Z which has the sensor just behind the rear element.
CKrueger wrote:
It seems like the consensus is, despite access to some of the reasonably-priced and highest-performance primes available (the f/1.8 group), and access to unreasonably-priced world-beaters (the 1.2’s and Plena), we all very much miss our “character” lenses from F. Those that were great performers, but were more desirable for their attention to a smooth rendering of transitional and OOF areas. Without the enormous size and price tags of Nikon’s new premiere lenses.
In my opinion, Nikon lost the plot when these primes started making the 300PF look like a compact prime. If I’m pointing those things at people, it’s in a studio only (which is where they at least necessary).
I was hoping the f/1.4 primes were the answer… I don’t care if corners aren’t 3000lp/mm wide open, so long as portraits are nice and it’s perfect by f/2.8. But they seem to be purely a budget offering. Only the 40/2 seems to have a bit of that “good old lens” feel, if you squint a bit.
Nikon, it seems like you could repackage the 28E, 58E, 85E, and 105E, and make some good cash! ...Show more →
I adore the rendering from my 105/1.4E....I just wish it did Eye AF more consistently. It is a lens that can be frustrating, since sometimes it will nail focus on the eye, and others it will be maddeningly focused just a touch to the front. It's a lens I've owned twice now....sold due to that AF inconsistency, then missed it enough that I bought another copy. And I don't regret that, but I still get AF inconsistency with it, and so I will possibly end up selling it after I finish shooting my daughter's senior pictures. (I also just don't shoot portraits very much any more, and my kids are at ages where they simply hate to be photographed, and that was my primary portrait use), so I'll probably end up selling it and getting something like the Viltrox 85/2 EVO or something.
My vote goes also for the Nikon 28mm 1.4E, this lens is just amazing, and contrary to the 105mm 1.4, it does not have any focus issues (inconsistent). In fact the most memorable pictures that I have taken in the last several years were with the 28mm 1.4e, and trust me it had nothing to do with my camera settings, or my technique. Too bad that I waited so long to purchase this lens.
I think the 60/2.8G is an underrated all-arounder that's significantly better than the Z 50/2.8. I think the 85/1.4G is one of the best 85's ever msde; ultra-low distortion, nicely flat field at landscape distances, lovely, SA-softened draw for portraits at wide apertures, and across-the-frame brilliance by f/5.6. Either of those two are my recommendation if you want something with AF.
If you're willing to go MF, you should take a look at the ZF.2 Zeiss lenses. They are, for the most part, big bargains on the used market right now. My recs...
Milvus 18/2.8... Not so much special as transparent and excellent. It's not significantly better than modern zooms, but it generally offers a bit more central umph to the resolution and less distortion. Great flare resistance, too.
Classic or Milvus 35/2 (same optics)... This one's the beloved lens of a very loyal fanbase. I don't fully understand it, but it's not a difficult lens to get along with if you love the focal length.
Otus 55/1.4... It's a boat anchor in the bag, and, while it's never been more inexpensive on the used market, it's still pricey, it's also the very definition of special. You can find smaller, 50ish lenses that compete with its resolution, but none of them are as well corrected, and none of them are as consistent regardless of focus distance.
