andrew_vogl

Yep I agree, Eric. And I shoot 2 large conference events per year for my current employer, so I do definitely dabble in the event space. Thanks for the input!

<p>Hey Pete, thanks for the response! </p> <blockquote> <p>If you shoot lots and lots you will probably end up buying both the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 and keep the 24-120 f4 for extended zoom range AND have a range of primes as well. That is where most pros that shoot a range of things, including natural light portraits, find themselves after a number of years.</p> </blockquote> <p>"After a number of years" is the key here :) As I'm building my collection of gear, I have to decide what is most important now, regardless of where I might be in the future. Of course it would be nice to have all of those lenses, but due to budget, I have to pick what I need right now. As I just booked my first "legit" wedding gig in a little less than a year from now, I'm trying to focus on what key things I will need. From everything I've read, a 24-70 2.8 is a must-have for weddings. I figure I can supplement that with my 50mm 1.8 and the 35mm 1.8 fixed on my backup D5000. I would LOVE to also have an 85mm 1.4 in my bag, but alas, $$$. You do make some valid points and I do think I will end up missing the extra reach of the 24-120, but I think at this point the 24-70 will better fit my immediate needs. Thank you for the thoughtful reply! <br> <br> Douglas- Good to hear! I've heard a lot of good things about it so I'm excited to try it out. Thanks! </p>

<p>Pete- Thanks for the info, but I have the full Adobe Suite so post-processing to correct distortion and vignetting is no biggie to me. </p> <p>Eric- Good catch, I did indeed mean to say "less" DOF, or more appropriately, more narrow DOF. As I mentioned, my go-to lens right now is the 50mm 1.8, which produces wonderful bokeh but is very limiting (I really like having the option to shoot wider angles). I think I'm definitely going to go with the 24-70! The 85mm has also been on my radar, I'll certainly consider that in the future. </p> <p>Cheers! </p>

<p>Just a quick tip that is sometimes overlooked, make sure you are watermarking your images that you give to clients to post online and the photos you post online yourself. Also, make sure that your logo is professional and doesn't distract from the image; if you aren't a designer, hire one to make your logo (putting an amateur logo on your photos does more harm than good!) Reduce the opacity and shove the logo in a corner where doesn't cover key elements of the image. This is basically free advertising when your client posts the images on Facebook. People looking at the images don't even have to ask the bride where they got them done, they can quickly see just from looking at the photo. </p> <p>This of course ties in to having a well-maintained social media/web presence to begin with. That means posting your best shots, as many as possible, and posting frequently. Request reviews from clients if you have to. Build a website and pay attention to SEO. Start an Instagram account. Make it easy for people to find your work and identify your style without having to contact you or anyone else. They shouldn't have to contact you until they have made up their mind!</p> <p>Some of these things I say as a reminder to myself, as well! :) I am still working on many of these things, but since I don't do this full-time, I'm not quite there yet. </p> <p>Hope it helps! </p>

<p>WOW, thank you all so much for the quick, detailed responses! Some great insight here from everyone, this is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. </p> <p>I will add that I do, on rare occasions, photograph live concerts. Shooting with a prime in this situation can be tricky, as it is not always possible to move my feet to get the shot I want. I'm usually stuck in roughly the same place the entire time. For this I would definitely welcome the f/2.8 into my arsenal, but as Hector pointed out, I might end up missing the extra 50mm of reach. The added reach was one of the things that drew me to this lens to begin with, as I don't currently have any plans to supplement with a 70-200mm anytime in the near future. </p> <p>This has definitely been the hardest purchase decision of my photography career so far! Thank you all for taking the time to respond, it is helping a ton. Ultimately, I think I am leaning towards the Tamron. I have to make my decision soon regardless, as my 30-day return window for the 24-120 is running thin :) I don't think I can really go wrong either way, it seems like they are both high quality lenses with a few key trade-offs. </p> <p>Happy shooting! </p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughtful response, Robin! I have found that with the technical tests online, the Tamron does perform better in terms of sharpness, chromatic aberration and overall IQ, but I always try to take those technical tests with a grain of salt, as they tend to mean less when shooting in real-world scenarios and more factors are introduced. </p> <p>And I agree, they are very different lenses, the biggest similarity being their price point, which is right on target for me. I've pretty much made up my mind that I would prefer the extra stop of the f/2.8, but I'm not sure if I should jump to buying the Tamron or just keep what I have until I can afford a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. </p> <p>Thanks again for your help! </p>

<p>Hello all! </p> <p>New member here, so go easy on me :) I've been an amateur hobbyist photographer for years and in the past couple years I've started to get more serious by doing small client gigs (family portraits, babies, engagements, etc.). I used to shoot with a Nikon D5000 with a 35mm f1.8 that never came off my camera, but I recently made the switch to FF with a combo of a Nikon D610 and 50mm f1.8. As you can tell, I love shooting with primes. However, as I start to take on more work, I'm finding them to be limiting and I could really use some more versatility in my life. So, on a whim, I purchased a Nikon 24-120 f/4 lens. Now of course I'm having a bit of "buyers remorse" and wondering if I made the right decision. I took the lens out on a shoot and was actually very impressed with the quality and versatility of the lens. It was way sharper than I expected and although it has some vignette/distortion issues, I still came away with photos I was very pleased with. However, my favorite photo of the day still came from my 50mm f1.8. So I dove back into researching lenses and found great reviews for the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 for almost the exact same price as I paid for my 24-120. </p> <p>Long story short, I'm considering switching out my Nikon 24-120 f/4 for a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. My biggest concern is the slower focus of the Tamron for candid portraits as well as the fact that I've never purchased a 3rd party lens, as I've found Nikon glass to always be beautifully made with very few flaws. The 24-120 is no exception, this is no doubt a great lens. But as someone who takes a lot of portraits and is always on the hunt for more DOF, I really like the idea of f/2.8 vs. f/4. Does anyone have any thoughts on why I should stay put or why I should switch and go for the Tamron? Or should I be looking at something else altogether? </p> <p>Side note, the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is wayyy out of my price point at this point in time, otherwise I'd obviously be looking at that. </p> <p>Thanks in advance for any advice! </p><div></div>