Do I need a normal zoom or a second body?

[guillaume_francois]

I am looking for some advice on optimizing my equipment selection. I am what they call a 'keen' amateur, my main interests being

urban/industrial landscape and travel. I am fond of low dusky light. At the present I use a d300 with a 12-24DX, a 35/2D and a 70-200VR. I

find myself changing lenses a lot, from the wide to the tele. Many times I will be at the 70mm end of the tele, whereas with the wide I

mostly use the 18-24 range, more than often hitting the 24mm limit. Does that mean that I should look into a normal zoom, or get a

second body?

[Two23]

If you were a wedding photographer, I'd say a 2nd body. For you, walking around with plenty of time to change lenses, I'd say get a Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. If you don't use the 70-200mm much past 70mm, you could then lighten your load and leave it home.

 

 

Kent in SD

[ShunCheung]

Try the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX or equivalent.

[nick_davis]

I'd go with a normal range zoom for now. But after you upgrade your D300, however many years into the future that may be, keep the D300 and use it as well. I rarely change lenses in the field because I shoot mostly nature and it is too time consuming. I often carry 2 or 3 bodies at a time. I also look like a fool when I walk through crowded public places but I don't care.

[Ed_Ingold]

"Normal" range for a D300 (cropping!) is a 17-55/2.8. This lens would cover over 80% of the shots at a typical wedding or event, including formal groups. The 70-200/2.8 would cover altar shots from the back or Sacristy. The 12-24/4 is a niche lens. There is little reason to use it at a wedding unless that's all you have. A 24-70/2.8 has little use at a wedding other than group portraits. I use one (actually a 28-70) only because my "normal" lens is a 17-35, which is not long enough to avoid changes.

 

I use two bodies for plays and concerts, but rarely for weddings. One camera has the 70-200 and the other a 17-35 or 28-70. I can't imagine carrying three bodies unless it were to show off :-)

[robert_hooper1]

If you need to be "quick on the draw", (journalism, fashion photography, rapidly changing light, etc), and or photograph in a

dusty, dirty, wet, environment, a second or third body is useful, even necessary at times.

 

Having a second camera is also good insurance in case one body malfunctions.

[wpahnelas]

it sounds as though the 24-70 suggestion suits your needs best -- especially in an urban/industrial environment where you might prefer not to be changing lenses frequently. the f/2.8 speed of the lens plus ISO capabilities of your D300 are well suited to the low, dusky light you are fond of.

[Rene11664880918]

Are you a hobbyist? If you are, get a zoom instead of a camera. As told before, later on when you get a D400 or 500 keep

your D300 as a back up. What ever time you think you waste changing lenses you will waste it again trying to catalog the

files from both cameras. You will be carrying more load, if you use a tripod you will have to keep replacing one camera for

the other one. You will be more vulnerable to have an accident with 2 cameras than with only one. I can keep going with

other problems you will encounter but so far I think I gave you enough! Good luck with your choice, Rene'

[arun_seetharam]

Definitely I will go for a second body if I am changing lens that often, since the sensors are so dust sensitive these days. May be carry around a fairly cheap and good and light camera such as D80 for landscapes. Save some money to buy a great std lens for a bit later.

 

Havent we started to blame the equipment a lot more these days for the flawed picture? Its not me.....its that darn 16-85 that I have......Never is sharp....

 

:-)

[ShunCheung]

I would look at it this way: if the OP has a 17-55mm zoom, he won't be changing lenses very often any more.

When all you have between 24mm and 70mm is a 35mm/f2 fixed lens, it is quite limiting.

 

Personally I don't like the 24-70 on DX; you'll be missing the 18-24 range a lot again. When your lens is a bit short, it

is not as big a deal as you can always crop a little.

 

If 17-55 is not big enough a range for you, there are other options but not as fast as f2.8. Nikon currently has many

16-xx and 18-xxx lenses, and most likely there will be more by Photokina next month. And there are even more 3rd-

party solutions. You've got to be able to find one that meets your needs.

[nick_davis]

Edward, trust me I am not showing off. I usually carry an F100 and two F4s'. Most people, even those who are not avid photographers, recognize the age of my equipment. But every once and a while someone out in the woods will approach me and ask to see my work from that day. They think that all I have to do is show them my photos on a little LCD screen on the back of the camera. They look confused when I explain to them that I shoot film and I won't see the photos for some time.

[guillaume_francois]

Thank you all for your advice. I think my question boils down to which combination is less limiting for my needs,

the 17-55 +70-200 or the 12-24 + 70-200. I think I will have to try out a 17-55.

[Rene11664880918]

Good choice! i love mine!

[Ed_Ingold]

<i>Most people, even those who are not avid photographers, recognize the age of my equipment.</i>

<p>

Cameras to be seen with! No more questions - I rest my case :-)

[guillaume_francois]

Mr Edward Ingold, are you implying that I am showing off and that you shoot off? If that be the case, then the difference

between us that I know what I am showing but you don't know what your are shooting at. Let's be constuctive and help

each other out!

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

I loved my 17-55, but I needed a tad more reach no matter how I worked it. So I went to the 24-70 which is just amazing & fits me like a glove. But I wish to stress, I had a very specific reason to need just a tad more reach. I have however also bought a wide angle lens, which you already have covered.

 

Either way, getting a lens that covers you one way or another in between 24-70mm is something you need to do - - that's a large gap right there.

 

JMHO

 

Lil :)

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

Oh, I forgot to add....

 

A second body is great to have, but can cause problems depending upon how you carry them. Personally I'd recommend a mid range zoom.

 

Lil :-)

[ShunCheung]

I think Edward Ingold was responding to Nick Davis' post at 11:30am.

[guillaume_francois]

My apologies to you Edward Ingold, I guess I have a fast trigger too! It's just that when comments get too personnal,

people get nervous... Thank you for bringing this about though, it got me thinking. And thank you Shun Cheung for hanging

around and being a good moderator. Good shooting.

[nick_davis]

Just so all don't get the wrong idea, I don't walk around in public with 3 camera bodies hanging off my neck.

That would be pretty clumsy and very uncomfortable. What I meant was, I keep a body in my camera bag with my

105mm Micro and Kirk flash bracket attached for close-ups should I encounter anything interesting. I need fairly

quick access to this setup. A second body is mounted to my 300mm (often on a monopod) along with a flash and

flash projector. The third body I hang over my shoulder with my 24-120mm or my 80-200mm depending on where I am.

The other lenses and speedlights stay in my bag until I need them. trust me I spent many years walking around

with only one camera body and I won't go back. FOR ME multiple bodies make everything easier. And Edward, I'd bet

that you either have more than one camera or you dream of having another ;)

[craig_gillette]

I've tried using a 28-xx lens as walk-around on the KM 7D and now use the 18-70 on the D200. I'd much rather have the 17-xx or 18-xx end covered and allow a gap between 55 and 70. I'd think you'd find that if you don't go to something at least 18mm wide for your walk-around, you'll find yourself swapping to the 12-24 a lot still.

 

The 16-85 seems to be getting some good discussions, but it doesn't have the f2.8 aperture that some of the other choices do.

[dan_brown4]

Well. personally, I am a huge fan of a second body. Perferably identical to your primary body. I always sling the second

body with a tele-zoom over my left shoulder (prism to my hip) and the priamry body around my neck in the traditional

fashion. Usually, a wide to standard zoom on the primary, but sometimes a prime, such as the 35/2. No camera bag. This

is a very efficient way to wrok any event.

 

Specific lens choice? Well, you'll get tons of advice here, and in the end, it's a personal choice based on your shooting

needs.

[johnny_anderson]

You might also want to check out the 16-85VR lens. I have ordered one and it's supposed to be delivered today. The reviews on this lens have been outstanding and the IQ is supposed to be excellent.