billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I do a lot of landscapes and cityscapes and I do not use PRIMES for that. I use the Nikon 16-35 f4 for all of my landscapes, and the 24-120 f4, I use these two because it gives me infinitely more focal lengths than primes and both lenses take a 77mm filter, so all of my ND filters can be brought to bear.
I am glad you title reads Primes?
It used to be zooms could not compete with Primes, but that is no longer the case.
If you are serious about cityscapes and landscapes, you need to go wider and longer at the same time.
Don't forget, many landscapes include both foreground and background, you don't always want longer.

EJMcD

I agree with your comments on zooms. They are so much more versatile than a single focal length lens. I have the following Nikkors...14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 80-400 4-5.6, and 200-500 5.6. My primes are 50 1.4, and 105 2.8 macro but the zooms get much more use than the primes. However, don't be surprised if you see many posts extolling the virtues of prime lenses and "zooming with your feet".

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

I think it depends a bit on your eye.

In 1961, I had a 50mm & a 135mm on a Leica IIIf, and kept finding that the 50 was too short, and the 135 too long for what I wanted. That kit was stolen a few years later, and the insurance money allowed me to get a new camera. I was seeking a Canon, but they didn't have an 85mm (or the shop I was using didn't have it), but there was a Nikon 85mm 1.8, known as the "Blowup" lens, because it was featured in movie of that title. So I got a Nikorrex and the 85.

It was the only lens I had for about a quarter century, and I very rarely missed having anything else. As Paul noted, you can get pretty close with the 85 and extension tubes, and I did a fair amount of that.

But, again, that's my eye.

EJMcD

50 too short 135 too long?? Good argument for a zoom.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Or maybe that 85 would be just right (with apologies to The Three Bears).

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

One of the weaknesses of a low-resolution body like the D700 is the limits of 'zoom with the crop'. Using different words, I made this exact point when this DSLRinosaur of the ancient world was first being discussed.

But with a modern camera, such as any run-of-the-mill 24MP modern digital camera, you have lots of relatively extreme cropping options if your prime was 'too short' for the situation and zooming with your feet was not an option. I find from my work and my LR statistics, I 'see' the world more around the 135mm focal length than the 85mm. But, my two 85mm lenses are "IS-enabled", whether from the lens or from the body, depending on the configuration used. Then, 85mm actually becomes more versatile for my work in a 1-lens / 1-camera all-day configuration than the 135mm that isn't IS-enabled.

EJMcD

I still say zoom. Then he can possibly choose 70, 71, 72, 73,etc. or 75, 87, 88, 100 etc., etc. etc. and would also be appropriate for just about every other photo he wishes to take.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I worked for several years as a press photographer at a drag strip. The two lenses I had were a 50 and 135. They worked exceptionally well when coupled with sneaker zoom.
--Bob

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I love my 85mm f/1.8, (Z mount). It’s a great focal length for me. I like shooting live music in dark clubs and it’s close to perfect, also much less expensive than the 105mm f/1.4. But I like the idea of the 105mm f/2.8 macro because it gives you macro capabilities into a good sharp prime lens. Another suggestion if your camera will focus the D lenses is a used 105mm f/2. It’s supposedly one of the sharpest lenses Nikon has made and can be found for a good price.

EJMcD

Thanks for responding to my comment and glad that worked out for you.

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

I certainly understand your thoughts on zooms vs primes. I would not part with my two primes simply because they offer such low light options.
However, insofar as zooms - What are your thoughts on the Nikkor AF-S 24-120 f/4 ED VR (or alternatives)?

EJMcD

I had the 24-120 which I was very happy with. It's a great zoom range for every thing from wide to moderate tele and a smart choice especially if you need to keep costs down. However, I traded it in for the 24-70 2.8 for the wider aperture, fell in love with zooms, and acquired all the others mentioned in my previous post. Yes, I did have a case of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). Now that I am 75 years old, I have everything I need and plan no further purchases.

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Well, I am close to 78 years young. Have a LUMIX FZ1000 for the days where weight is an issue. But loving the old Nikon D700 with the primes. Your arguments on zooms makes sense to me (simplification is good for old folks) and seriously considering the 24-120. Thanks.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have come to believe that it is important (or at least beneficial) to be willing to think outside of the box sometimes. I shoot with both DX and FX cameras ( Nikon), and after buying most of the lenses that I "ought" to have, I went in search of a multi-purpose lens to serve as a sometimes alternative to the 17-55 mm zoom that I've used for 15 years on a progressive list of DX cameras. After looking at and deciding against the 16-80mm f/2.8-f/4 (really f/4) DX zoom, I decided to try a used 24-120mm. I was amazed at how perfectly it fit what I was really looking for on my D500. Turned out it was also occasionally pretty useful on a D850, as well. That has turned out to be the last lens I have bought, and has been the best $425 (plus another $25 for the lens hood) that I have ever spent. I also have an 18-35mm AF-D lens that is pretty awful as a full frame lens, but great as a lightweight normal-wide zoom on the D500.

Being willing to occasionally be pleasantly surprised can have some real but unexpected benefits sometimes.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

An old suggestion for a kit of primes was to double each focal length... or at least as close to that as possible.

Assuming you're using them on a full frame camera, in your case it would be: 24mm, 50mm, 105mm.... 200mm and 400mm if you wanted even more telephoto.... 12 or 14mm if you wanted wider.

You might want to consider a 105mm f/2.8 macro lens. Sigma makes a really good one that's equal to, but a lot less expensive than the Nikkor. That would give you both a short telephoto and the ability to do close-up and macro shots, should you wish to do so. Note: There are 105mm f/1.4 lenses, but they're more portrait oriented, as well as rather big, heavy and expensive. There also is a Nikkor 85mm f/3.5 macro lens, but it's DX.

There also is a Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro lens that's decent and quite affordable. However, be aware it's slower focusing AND the Nikon mount version lacks an in-lens focusing motor. So it only able to autofocus on Nikon cameras with the in-body focusing motor. It also does NOT have image stabilization... while all the other lenses I've mentioned here do.

If you prefer slightly shorter telephoto, there also is a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro lens that's pretty nice. However, they recently discontinued it in Nikon F and Canon EF mounts. So you would be shopping for used or new-old stock. Just be sure to get the latest version. Look for model #F017, which is all black except for a silver ring at the lens base, adjacent to bayonet mount. This is the very best of a long series of versions Tamron has made since the 1980s.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Nikon_AF-S_VR_Micro-NIKKOR_105mm_f_2.8G_IF-ED_Lens_vs_Sigma_105mm_f_2.8_EX_DG_OS_HSM_Macro_Lens_for_Nikon_F_vs_Nikon_AF-S_NIKKOR_105mm_f_1.4E_ED_Lens_vs_Nikon_AF-S_DX_Micro_NIKKOR_85mm_f_3.5G_ED_VR_Lens/BHitems/424744-USA_806375-REG_1269658-REG_656971-USA

Here's an article comparing a number of the macro lenses head to head (not the Tokina, unfortunately): https://petapixel.com/2020/04/15/macro-lens-test-canon-nikon-sony-laowa-sigma-and-tamron-compared/
There is a video mentioned in that article, which I recommend viewing too.