What kind

[wogears]

<p>Denise. I looked at your gallery online. First of all, I hope you licensed the music. Second, almost all of the images seemd to have a soft-focus effect applied. Are you sure you need sharper 'glass'?<br>

To be blunt, I think that a posing class would help you more than a lens, and a better site design would drum up more business.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>If you want maximum sharpness you should really consider some primes. I use mostly Canon gear with 2.8 zooms and my prime lenses blow away the zooms when it comes to sharpness plus they are way easier to handle. Again not sure how heavy the Nikons are but Canons 2.8 zooms (24-70 and 70-200) are tanks. I do have the Nikon 50 1.4 and its a great little lens.</p>

[pics_wi]

<p> Les, the music is random radio that the site had available.<br>

I am a small business, the website was a starting place for me to get some of my work out there.<br>

As far as a posing class-thanks for the thought.<br>

The music is internet radio that the website offered. That is where that came from.<br>

Thank you for your input, however, completely off the subject.<br>

I do use a soft focus on some of my photos.<br>

WHAT i wanted to know was some opinions on some good glass.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>let's face it Denise, 2.8 is only a moderate speed, and in my humble opinion, any zoom can only be described as acceptable glass. the big craze in amatuer photography at the moment is "high ISO" performance, yet people are happy to simply give away one or two stops by using a moderate speed zoom lens. primes will usually give you superior performance, they're faster, smaller, lighter (helps with the shakes), less conspicuous (that's a negative point for some), and force you to think more about your composition, or to pre visualise your shot (assuming that most will use a zoom lens incorrectly). often you will find three primes will be very similar in size to a single zoom lens.</p>

<p>Your analogy about "moving your feet instead of moving your lens" rings true. it is poor technique to use a zoom lens in that fashion. a zoom lens is simply designed to reduce the need to change lenses, and this can be handy in fast paced dynamic situations. but for almost everybody else, this is unnecessary. you should use a zoom the same way as a prime. visualise the shot, select the focal length that aligns with your vision, then move as required to compose the shot. by standing in one spot and 'zooming' then lens, you are producing a different look to your image as opposed to moving closer to the subject and using a different focal length, even though, in both shots, the subject fills the frame virtually the same.</p>

[pics_wi]

Thank you everyone.

I have done quite a bit of research and read your responses.

I do believe I will be investing in some prime lenses.

I am learning as I go. I appreciate your information.

 

THANKS!

[jeremy_john]

<p>I think, if you are limiting yourself to two zooms and you want f/2.8, I would consider the Nikon 14-24 and the 70-200. (I personally would fill the gap with a 50 f/1.4.)</p>

<p>If you really prefer zooms to primes, consider the full spectrum 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. For as varied as your work is, this might be your best starting point and then try to add fast primes as needed.</p>

<p>If you are out purely for the best (and fastest) optics (at least in the Nikon system) and are willing to mix zooms and primes, I would go with something like the 14-24 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, and 105 f/2.8. For a few stellar heavy hitters, toss in the 24 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>I would go with something like the 14-24 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, and 105 f/2.8. For a few stellar heavy hitters, toss in the 24 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow Jeremy John , youre really putting a selection on the table here, at least $8000 - $9000 worth of glass... and that all on a D90 Camera ?? Denise would have to make A LOT off money to finace all that froma small bussiness I think.. but maybe I'm wrong here .. ??<br>

<br />And the 70-200 Sigma is already experienced on the heavy side for Denise, it weighs around 1,5 Kilo's : the 200mm F2 is at least twice that...<br>

<br />Denise, this will bring you back to pumping iron at the gym I think ... :-) .</p>

[jonathan_montague]

<p>Just because your lens is more expensive it wont immediately make your pictures 'better'. BUT it will give you more creative scope with your aperture and probably better tonal range and colour if its Nikkor. If you shoot studio portraits im suprised you dont already use a nice prime such as 50mm 1.4 or 80mm.<br>

Prime lenses will improve your composition. you will think about your shot more and become quicker at framing. They are considerably better quality than telephoto lenses by definition unless you are willing to pay A LOT for a tele.<br>

Personally Id like a bag full of quality primes and one really really good tele.</p>

<p> </p>

[adam zyto]

<p>I strongly agree with Peter H.</p>

<p>The 17-55mm f2.8 and 70-200vr f2.8 are both spectacular lenses.</p>