nikon 14-24mm or 17-35mm to rent for job

[filip1]

<p>Hi everyone, I am shooting new years party for a big and successful restaurant/ club, Im renting a d700 and thinking of these two lenses, and just wondering what would be the best choice for something like that. <br>

The shoot will be from kitchen action to dj and the whole party. The place is very low light as well in witch case ill be adding a sb-600 with a cord, a 50 1.8, and a 70-200 vr. <br>

But my main question is would the 14-24mm be good enough to cover the action?<br>

I used the 17-35mm before and I love the lens, but I was also thinking of getting a 16mm fisheye along with it to katch the whole place.<br>

What would be a better choice?<br>

Thank you<br>

regards filip</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Absolutely the 14-24! I'd prefer an 85/1.4 or 135/2 to the 70-200 VR though.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>+1 for what John says.</p>

<p>It is good at least one f1.4 prime to have with you in order to get some shoots with no flash. It is tiring to use a flash all the time at such as event and pictures get in low light wide open with no flash are special. I have no experience with 17-35 but 14-24 is unbelievable good...</p>

[jeff kempster photography]

<p>Shooting an event can be very chaotic. I would try to keep it simple. You have listed a lot of lenses and I wonder if you will have the time to change them all. I would lean towards a single d700 with a 24-70 lens and the sb600. I would set the auto iso to max at 6400 and shoot away.<br>

I shoot wedding and usually have two d700s and a 24-70 and 70-200 on them. When the party starts I put a 17-35 on for a few shots. The 24-70 is really the perfect event lens. Have fun but don't let the equipment ruin your night too.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I take my 14-24mm f2.8 into the famed abandoned buildings of Detroit (and the streets of Detroit), to the beaches of the Lake Michigan shore, to factories full of running machinery, and even to weddings. But something about the thought of the 14-24mm at a New Year's Eve party makes my skin crawl.That huge, unprotected ball of glass...</p>

<p>I'm also trying to imagine needing something wider than 17mm for a new year's eve party. OK, maybe for the surreal "in your face with an ultrawide" shots, but how many of those do you take (guess that depends on the club). The 17-35mm seems like such a perfect lens for that kind of outing. It's also the kind of situation I'd have my 85mm f1.4 and 135mm f2.0 DC (John, you have good taste in lenses). And it's an XE (hostile environment), where I'd have the UV filters on everything (normally, I shoot without them).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I don't think the 14-24mm/f2.8 is good for shooting parties, especially chaotic ones. I know you are only renting, but the bulging front element is vulnerable. Instead, I would put a clear filter in front of the 17-35mm to protect it. The 14-24mm range is also limiting. Using a 2x zoom such as the 17-35mm will reduce the number of lens changes and therefore missed shots.</p>

<p>17mm is already very very wide for shooting a party.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I know I have only shot two restaurant openings and one retail store opening and some real-estate shots but the extra 3mm can make a world of difference, and that is on full frame. The longest lens I used for these was 28mm for table/bar group shots so the 24mm would be fine. I have used an 85/1.4 and 135/2 for highschool gymnasium presentation events, as well as wedding receptions, and one could come in handy for isolating subjects in a large crowded area. </p>

<p>I think it is worth renting the extra 3mm. I have a Nikon 14mm f2.8 and I must say that people worry too much about the front element. The chances of anything hitting the front element of any large aperture lens, and I have quite a few, is about equal. </p>

[hughes]

<p>filip<br>

You should listen to some good advice from Jeffrey and Shun, but you should be carefull you are not overcomplicating things, this is basically what sounds like a grip and grin kind of job, all these guys wants are nice bright lively pictures of people having fun at a party , forget about available light and 1.4 lens etc etc it's overcomplicated nonsense. This sounds like the kind of thing in the old days a good snapper could cover with a Nikon 35af, my advice get yourself a very good flash and forget about renting stuff use what you know. I would happily use a D300 a 17-55mm and an sb800, used right they will get fantastic results. Always look for opportunites to bounce the flash,in these kind of situations I keep an SC17 with me in my pocket to get the flash off the camera when possible but once again don't overcomplicate things, and the 70-200 is just ridiculous forget that. Also remember the flash is 500% more important than the camera and lens. Bottom line is on a gig like this personality and attitude are far more important than a truck load of expensive equipment.<br>

I really don't intend to offend anyone but this ridiculous obsession with equipment is sometimes counterproductive thats all..... <br>

Steve </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Man, Shun. I wish I had said something like that...</p>

[stephen_fassman]

The 24-70 is the ideal lens with a D700. In fact, the camera mounted strobe will work incredibly well. In P mode,auto iso,

you'll shoot@f2.8-3.5 @iso 200 most of the time, and get amazing pix. Close the strobe to get amazing available light pix.

Iso 2500-3200@1/30, f2.8 produce incredible pix. You don't need f1.4. Use the sb600 off camera in command mode to fill

in. Use the DX CROP MODE. to get the extra 71-105mm, if you need it. That works great in Raw & jpeg L/F. The 14-24

has too much rectilinear distortion for people,& it will req a sb900 if use

d on camera. Shoot the room before & after the people arrive with it. it is an incredible lens that will run rings around the

17-35, but it doesn't party well. I just shot a double ceremony/2day U of A Graduation in the poorly lit Tucson Conv Ctr &

the better lit McHale center. I was blown awayby the IQ from the 24-70 in Fx & Dx mode, and by the reach of that little

strobe across both arenas! Stage a few diff practice scenarios of what you'll be shooting, and you'll see what I mean re

how well they will work for a party situation

[petr_klapper]

<p>Hi Filip,<br>

for shooting parties and people, the 14-24 is mostly good as an additional lens (to "spice it up"), but I wouldn't use it as a main lens, 24mm is too short. 17-35 on the other side is a great combination between 14-24 and 24-70 - it's almost as wide for crowd/interior/creative DJ shots and and 35mm on the other side is the right focal length for "serious" people/small groups photos. And since you'll have 50&70-200, you're covered. The downside to the 17-35 is that it's not as sharp as newer 14-24/24-70 wide open (that's why I don't have it), but it should be still ok for a party. Sometimes, when I'm a bit "lazy" to take 14-24-70 and/or going to darker club, I have just 35/1.8DX (+14-24 for a few shots) - even though it vignettes on FX, it's plenty sharp in the frame where it matters, darker corners look ok and it gives the flexibility to shoot one EV lower when you don't shoot more than 2 people at once (for groups shots I'd go up to f/4 depending on how many people in the scene).<br>

Good luck ! :)<br>

Petr Klapper</p>

[filip1]

<p>Thank you everyone very much, <br>

My main concern with 12-24mm was no filters, and my original thought was the d700, 17-35mm, 50 1.8, sb600, and 70-200mm or something like 105 f2, <br>

but I just thought I might need something wider to cover the whole scene like 16mm fisheye or 14mm.<br>

thank you everyone once again, been a great help. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I would shoot an event with a 24-70 on FX or 17-55 on DX. Fact is, even the 17-35 will not get "long enough" for the sudden shot you are going to miss because of changing lenses.</p>

<p>Unless you don't care about getting people and faces...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>

<p>Filip, you received some very good advice here that if you are going to use an FX body such as the D700, the "bread and butter" event/party lens should be the 24-70mm/f2.8. The flexibility of that zoom to capture the moment is far more important than the slightly faster f1.8 on the 50mm. If I shoot a party with a D700, most likely 70 to 80% or perhaps 90% of my images will come from the 24-70mm/f2.8 (or in my case the older 28-70mm/f2.8, which I have).<br /><br />After a mid-range zoom, the next most important lens should be the 70-200mm/f2.8 to reach those people who are farther away or you need to concentrate on 1 or 2 people.<br /><br />Most likely, less than 5% of your images will be wider than 24mm. Therefore, IMO, if you don't even have a 17-35mm or wider, it is largely a non issue, but having 20mm and maybe 17mm for the occasional wide shot is good. At least for the way I shoot parties, anything wider than 17mm is practically useless. A lot of people don't realize that it is difficult to get great images at 14mm. For something that wide, you need to compose carefully to set up your foreground and background. It is far more suitable for building interior or architecture type shots where you carefully compose from a tripod than fast-pace party shooting.<br /><br />When I tested the D3 for photo.net early last year, Nikon also sent us a 14-24mm/f2.8. I took that combo to a wedding and to test out that new lens, I captured a few images at 14mm. Out of some 600+ images I captured at that wedding, I used the 14-24mm fewer than 10 times; I used it at all mainly because I wanted to try the lens out. Optically the 14-24 is phenomenal so that I bought one myself later on last year. However, that is a lens I only use sparingly and never again in parties.</p>

</p><div></div>

[riclan]

<p>What about a 17-55 f2.8 lens? Best of both world, although a bit heavy. I love mine</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S is a DX lens. It serves the same purpose as the 24-70mm/f2.8 for FX. On a DX body, the 17-55 is an excellent event lens.</p>

<p>For the OP, however, since he is planning to rent a D700 (FX format), it does not make sense to use a DX lens such as the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S on it.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I would say the 24-70. Just shot my work's holiday lunch. In door, medium size room and used the D700 and 24-70. I found more shots at 70 than at 24. I could have used a 17-35, and it would have worked too, but I think you can get things that you don't have time to get close too, and when you have a crowd of people, a lot of times it's nice to have that extra length so you can isolate people and small groups. Anyways, I wouldn't sweat, it. If all you had was a 50 you can get all the good pics you need.</p>

[marc_henry1]

<p>Just a thought but how about renting the 17-35 as suggested, hate to think what a misplaced piece of cutlery would do to the unprotectable front element of a 14-24, then renting a second (possibly) DX body and putting your 50 f1.4 on that.<br>

This way you get the reach of the DX + 50mm and the width of the FX + 17-35. This also gives you a backup body just in case. Just a thought.<br>

I couldn't quite make out what you own and what you plan to rent so this is a bit of a guess. Good luck and have a happy new year.</p>

<p>Marc</p>

 

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>"But my main question is would the 14-24mm be good enough to cover the action?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I feel it's probably a poor choice, but for different reasons than those already mentioned. One is distortion...not lens distortion, but perspective distortion and volume anamorphosis (distance depth distortion). The lens is so wide that it stretches things toward the sides of the frame and compresses them in the middle to keep straight lines from bowing and curving, which can make people look weird - stretched or compressed, although VA is correctable in post. Getting 'in your face' close wide-angle shots is really uncomfortable for a lot of people, and the lens barrel and front element may mask a flash on closer shots, depending on where you have it.</p>

<p>Perspective distortion can be quite pronounced with this lens...how much are you willing to stoop or genuflect in an evening to keep it square and perpendicular to what you're shooting? Perspective distortion can be fixed in post, but at the expense of angle of view and resolution, negating the point of using that lens.</p>

<p>A flash used for this lens really needs to be completely off-camera. Holding it at arm's length with a cord might work, but getting enough diffusion to illuminate the lens' angle of view and aiming it in the right place will be a challenge. So will holding and shooting a D700 with a 14-24 lens with one hand for any period of time - it's a heavy combination. I'd sure hope you're strong.</p>

<p>There might be a temptation to shoot really wide to 'get it all in', making people tiny and unrecognizable. Flash coverage (even illumination) at the wide end is an issue as well, and can create hot spots and dark areas, making the photos look like you shot them with a cheap P&S.</p>

<p>It might be just the thing for the kitchen shots, though, especially if the kitchen is very small. They're usually fairly well-lit, and distortion wouldn't matter...no one really expects any really good restaurant's kitchen staff all to be straight anyway.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I have a 45 year of experience of photography, mostly landscape and some architecture, and some this and that. I could afford to have the 14-24 and the 24-70/2.8, when came out. But my experience proved, the 14-24 is a special lens I really don't needed. Rather I needed the 16-35/2.8 and the 24-70/2.8 mostly and very rarely the 14mm. So I sold the 14-24 (more then I paid for it) and bought the 14/2.8 prime, witch is serving me very well. The 16-35/2.8 covering almost everything, and I cary the 14/2.8 prime, -witch is mach smaller then the bulky 14-24/2.8. If you don't need the absolute sharpness of the 14-24, I meant huge prints, the 14/2.8 prime will do it. The 14-24/2.8 for an amateur, almost a west of money, and only a stupid status symbol. Also, to cumbersome to cary. Plus. You have to know the perspective distortion and the limiting factor for people images. Logically, it is absolutely not for an amateur, to whom not required a special work.</p>

<p>If you try to check out my images, I just removed all of them, and going to re input during the holiday season.</p>