What's missing from this arsenal?

[paulo_fonseca1]

<blockquote>

<p>I cant belive you are shooting serious architecture with a 35mm system, however.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the record only: it's a sub-35mm format system. ;-)<br>

Oh yes, and I'd get an external flash.</p>

 

[asharpe1]

<p>How about a second body? With all those lenses, you must change them a lot. That would definitely be my first move, along with some lighting equipment and a tripod.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>24mm f/1.4</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>Life Magazine's Library of Photography (1970s). Study the work there and you'll worry less about hardware and more about composition.</p>

[wade_thompson]

<p>ok, just getting back to this thread after posting my initial question...</p>

<p>I have SB-600, some 3.5 ws strobes, umbrellas, soft boxes, etc. and an adequate tripod.<br>

Sports: Soccer, basketball, football, volleyball<br>

Portraits: some indoors but mostly outdoors<br>

Architecture: Very new to this... mostly not for pay but for bartering (I'll shoot your business and give you rights to the photos if you give me access to XYZ for a year)...although I could see this expanding and maybe even for pay in the future with better equipment.</p>

<p>I've thought about a D700 and going to the FX there but haven't taken the plunge yet.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Wade, the fact that you need to ask this question in a forum is a very good indication that you don't need any more lenses at this point. Do you have a portfolio of your favorite images?</p>

[jim_ducey]

<p>If you are doing some field sports or skiing or moter sports I think you could make good use of some longer lens.<br>

Jim</p>

[david j.lee]

<p>....A Howitzer 150mm maybe....?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I agree with Shun here. Just generally,, it's best before you drop a bunch of cash, to have a need that arises out of your work, that informs you that "i need a lens that will let me do this". Ok, so saying that in your architectural work do you ever say to your self, "self...am I having trouble getting corrected perspective on my wide angle pictures where corrrection in post-processing isn't adequate?" If the answer is, yes, then you might want to consider getting a lens like the 24/pc e a correctable lens. along with a tripod. Do you forsee a need for lighting? Maybe a flash unit? Do you like to get really sharp subjects that "pop out" of the picture by having fuzzy backgrounds? especially in portrait work? Then you would want to make sure you had a fast lens that would let you narrow the focus down to get what you want. <br>

I'd say just for looking at range coverages you have all the regular areas covered. Maybe for Sports you need something longer. You will also want, for sports, and people that are into it can tell you what kind, but a good tripod with a panning head or whatever is best for that type of work, and it can also be used for other stuff, like macro.</p>

<p>In other words, look at the type of pictures you say you want to do, look at your own images in that regard and ask yourself, can I get the picture I want with these lenses, and the stuff I already have. If the answer is no, than maybe seek help for a specific purpose. Have you looked at it that way?</p>

 

[thomas_k.]

<p>I second the 155mm howitzer - with a shoulder bag to carry. </p>

[andrew_aungthwin1]

Every Nikon shooter should have the 18-55mm VR.

 

It's like an iPod touch 4g. Until and unless you own one you have no idea what you are missing out on.

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>, the fact that you need to ask this question in a forum is a very good indication that you don't need any more lenses at this point</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree totaly with this, but.... there is only one cure for a serious case of NAS !! ... Spend... until all the money has gone.... :=)</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>Wade,</p>

<p>I'd consider getting rid of the Tamron 28-75 and 10-24. Then I'd get the Nikkor/Sigma 17-55/50 f/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, and Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.</p>

<p>I've not used it but I suspect the 18-200 would make a good general purpose travel lens.</p>

<p>Mark</p>

 

[mike_thomas9]

<p>IMO if you shoot enough you'll discover what else it is pretty quickly first hand. Happy shooting.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>If I were shooting the subjects you listed with the lenses you listed, here is what I would change if the lenses were not working for me:</p>

<p>Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 (keep or replace with silent motor version)<br />Nikkor 50 f1.4 (keep)<br />Nikkor 85 f1.8 (keep or replace with f/1.4 version)<br />Nikkor 18-200 f3.5-5.6 (keep as a backup lens or a travel lens)<br />Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (keep or replace with Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8)<br />Tamron 10-24 f3.5-5.6 (replace with Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8)<br>

Add a macro lens<br>

Add a 300mm f/2.8 for sports<br>

Add a monopod for sports<br>

Add a perspective control lens for architecture<br>

Add a faster wide-angle such as the Nikon 24mm f/1.4 or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4</p>

 

[wade_thompson]

<p>other than speed, what is the advantage of the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 vs the Tamron 10-24 variable A?</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>Wade--</p>

<p>Since the tokina is only a ~1.5x zoom, it has very low distortion.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>tokina 35/2.8 macro. great for food/product shots, very close-focusing. small, light, built well, sharp.</p>

[bmm]

<p>If you must... (because I agree with the others that your request is ill-defined and you probably don't need anything in reality)...</p>

<p>I'd get rid of the 18-200 which sticks out as a wierd one in your lineup. I'd replace it with a small prime around 20mm or 24mm.</p>

<p>Logic is that this gives you 2 three-lens setups:<br>

1 - primes at 20 or 24mm, 50mm and 85mm for when you want small/light and fast<br>

2 - zooms at 28-75 and 80-200 for when you want heavier but flexible - plus your 10-24 if required</p>

<p>From there obviously lots of ways to 'mix and match' between these setups.</p>