Preferred or Best-practice settings for using Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 on a D300

[skyjammer]

<p>Hello, PN bretheren (used loosely to include the fairer sex as well...ahem)</p>

<p>I would appreciate hearing from owners of, as well as experienced photographers, who've used the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on a Nikon D300. I rented the lens a month ago for a test studio/outdoor shoot, and was blown away by the color rendition and quality of the images. I've since ordered the lens from B&H, and it arrives today.</p>

<p>Assuming use of the aformentioned lens on the same body (D300) for an indoor/low-light church wedding, please share what you consider to be the optimum camera settings for getting the best out of the combination, in terms of ISO, aperture, and any other exposure settings.</p>

<p>Appreciate the knowledge.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>-Ade</p>

[TerryRRR]

<p>It is a great lens. Just bear in mind it does not have built-in stabilization, and it is heavy. I don't like to handhold it much below 1/200 if I can avoid it. In low light situations you can select a higher ISO (D300 images look good at 800, and are ok at 3200). It has good sharpness even wide open, so you have some leeway there. But watch out for camera shake and go for a high-ish shutter speed. Or use Nikon's excellent SB flash system. I shoot pretty much exclusively RAW, and would recommend that too--the lens is expensive and having dropped that kind of cash on it, it is a shame to restrict yourself to JPEGs.<br>

Terry</p>

[skyjammer]

<p>Thanks for your feedback, Terry.</p>

<p>I shoot exclusively in RAW format as well, and I've no problem with its weight pertaining to hand-holding.</p>

[mark_beaumont]

<p>I used to have it on my Film F5, and it rarely left it, it's a really sweet lens. I now use it on my D300 but it's a bit too long for what I want, I'm saving for the 17-55mm. I'm not sure it has a sweet spot, it seems sharp all the way through, that's why I loved it so much. Terry is right when he says it's a bit heavy, maybe play with it first to see how slow you can shoot at. </p>

[skyjammer]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>Duly noted. Weight-wise, I'm sure I'll be fine. I found your comments in regards to saving for the 17-55 mm lens pretty ironic, in that I own the 17-55mm and though a sweet lens as well, I find myself wanting more focal length on the telephoto side while shooting with it.</p>

<p>Thanks for your comments!</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>-Ade</p>

[skyjammer]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>Duly noted. Weight-wise, I'm sure I'll be fine. I found your comments in regards to saving for the 17-55 mm lens pretty ironic, in that I own the 17-55mm and though a sweet lens as well, I find myself wanting more focal length on the telephoto side while shooting with it.</p>

<p>Consequently, I started saving for the 24-70mm as well. <strong>:-)</strong></p>

<p>Thanks for your comments!</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>-Ade</p>

[skyjammer]

<p>Oops. Apologies on the double post.</p>

[matt_smith24]

<p>I have no trouble holding this lens at low shutter speeds. the weight helps to keep things steady. It's petty sharp right through to f/11 although if you're into pixel peeping then f/4 - f/5.6 have a very, very slight superiority across the entire frame.</p>

[brooks_lester]

<p>I too have no problems holding this lens steady at lower speeds than 1/200. I shoot at 1/60-100 constantly with this lens. I think it handles very well and is a pleasure to shoot with. It's significantly shorter and lighter than the 70-200VR, for example.</p>

[skyjammer]

<p>Matt, Brooks,</p>

<p>Thanks for your comments. Appreciated.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>-Ade</p>