AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G or AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VRII lens for events?

[studio460]

<p>Sample shots from this evening:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/x24-3.jpg" alt="" /><br /> AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G<br /> ISO: 100; f/13 @ 4 sec.; available-light.</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/x85-1.jpg" alt="" /><br /> AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G<br /> ISO: 800; f/1.4 @ 1/160th; SB-800 @ -3.3 EV + Ray Flash + CTO + 0.3 ND + existing practical lighting.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i like the second shot, ralph. very nice bokeh.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>It is a painful question as posed. When I got my 5D in 2006, I got the EOS versions of the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 You can cover quite a range of activities with those two. Neither Nikon nor Canon makes the 24-70 in a VR or IS version, but the 70-200 by both companies comes with the image stabilization/vibration reduction option.</p>

<p>Moral: It is darned hard in this world to survive with one lens, no matter what it is. Two zooms might not be ideal, but it is amazing what one can do with them if one can afford them. BUT IF I HAD TO CHOOSE ONE LENS IN THE NIKON LINE-UP FOR A FULL-FRAME BODY, IT MIGHT WELL BE THE 24-120. The 70mm end of the zoom range is sometimes just not going to be enough.</p>

<p>I still like the 24-70 better, though. Howzat for a really decisive answer?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you are shooting events, pro zooms are the way to go. when i went FX, i got the 24-70 and the 70-200, figuring that would cover 85-90% of my shooting needs. supplementing that with primes depending on situation is a good approach, but IMO getting the primes first is slightly backwards thinking, since you will eventually want/have to get both zooms anyway. now that i've got that covered, my next lens will probably be the 85.</p>

<p> </p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>Hi,<br>

Just a point, besides you've the primes for large aperture and to play with DOF the extra stop of the 24-70 can be of interest to isolate a subject in a better way than the 24-105 without changing lenses.<br>

Another point regarding the 24-105 - it's length is not fixed when you zoom, so the "slightly stealthier"effect may end up not being as real as that.<br>

But if you consider 85mm a bit short sometimes, you have to weight all theses aspects, including if 120mm fulfills your needs or if you do need a tele-zoom.</p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>I think you shoot what you are comfortable with and produces the results you were hired for and forget what anyone else uses.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>getting the primes first is slightly backwards thinking, since you will eventually want/have to get both zooms anyway.</em></p>

<p>Why do you think it's backwards? You should first buy what is most important to you (of the options available to you). I have all three FX f/2.8 zooms and they're not the be-end do-all of photography. In fact I'm probably going to sell the 14-24 since I don't really need it and carrying it on travels (where I could use it for interiors) is a pain. I prefer the 24/1.4 for that anyway, and I can stop people on their tracks in indoor lighting and keep a low ISO. The 24-70 and 70-200 II are very useful (and I certainly wouldn't sell them; in fact sometimes I think I should have two 24-70's as the quality of construction of these zooms that increase in length sometimes leave me wondering) but as Nikon updates their prime lineup to AF-S I seem to be using the zooms less. Not because they're not good - they are, but I prefer the aesthetics of the images from the fast primes. For some time I used to shoot about 50-60% of my images with the 24-70 and 70-200II but now it's down to about 30%.</p>

<p><em>I think you shoot what you are comfortable with and produces the results you were hired for and forget what anyone else uses.</em></p>

<p>True. However, it's also important to make images that you are pleased with and not just those who are paying for it. Otherwise a personal style won't develop itself. (But I guess you could put that under the "you are comfortable with").</p>

[studio460]

<p>Eric said:</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>i like the second shot, ralph. very nice bokeh.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

[studio460]

<p>Landrum said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BUT IF I HAD TO CHOOSE ONE LENS IN THE NIKON LINE-UP FOR A FULL-FRAME BODY, IT MIGHT WELL BE THE 24-120. The 70mm end of the zoom range is sometimes just not going to be enough . . . I still like the 24-70 better, though. Howzat for a really decisive answer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Eric said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . but IMO getting the primes first is slightly backwards thinking, since you will eventually want/have to get both zooms anyway. now that i've got that covered, my next lens will probably be the 85.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Geth the 85mm. It's gorgeous. I couldn't be happier with my set of primes, and much prefer shooting fixed-focal length lenses over zooms (with the exception of telephoto zooms). I do also own an AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR I, but it's my least-used lens. I bought all-new AF-S f/1.4 short primes to shoot personal work, and never intended to shoot events. Paying upwards of $1,700 for a lens I don't even want pains me to no end.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Antonio said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br />Another point regarding the 24-105 - it's length is not fixed when you zoom, so the "slightly stealthier"effect may end up not being as real as that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point! Thanks for your comments.</p>

[studio460]

<p>John said:</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think you shoot what you are comfortable with and produces the results you were hired for and forget what anyone else uses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, John! Well, that's certainly what I'm aiming for. I'm very particular about how my gear "feels," and nothing feels better on my full-frame body than an ultra-fast, short-to-medium focal-length prime. I was actually quite comfortable shooting with my 24mm/85mm combo, but it did slow me down, and likely made me miss a few shots due to lens changes.</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>I agree with Richard Snow - why throw away image quality by having to bump up the ISO. Use two bodies, which you would have anyway, and use the classic 35mm and 80mm type primes rather than slowish f2.8 lens or worse. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Ty said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . why throw away image quality by having to bump up the ISO. Use two bodies, which you would have anyway, and use the classic 35mm and 80mm type primes rather than slowish f2.8 lens or worse.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah. On second thought, I don't think I'll be wanting to quadruple my ISO to compensate for a slow lens. As a self-admitted speed-junkie, I hope to stick with f/1.4 primes whenever possible. However, if shooting strobe-lit, red-carpet arrivals only, I would need to be shooting at smaller apertures anyway, for increased depth-of-field, when photographing groups and/or couples. In this case, the 24-120mm f/4 would totally suffice.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I guess I did shoot several shots wide-open--this one at f/1.4:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/PARTY700.jpg" alt="" /><br /> AF-S 24mm f/1.4; ISO: 800; f/1.4 @ 160th</p>

<p>So, I may end up getting the 24-120mm f/4, but use it exclusively for straight, blast-the-flash-at-f/5.6-to-make-sure-everyone's-in-focus kinds of shots, but will have to take the time to switch to faster primes for ambient exposures. For example, in the shot above, to achieve the equivalent exposure with the 24-70mm, I would've had to crank the ISO to 3,200. With the 24-120mm, 6,400.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Why do you think it's backwards?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, this snippet is a little out of context. i'm specifically referring to event photography shooting paid events. in that context you really do need zooms. for other stuff, eh, maybe not so much. if you're just shooting for personal use and/or have time to study composition and/or just need a lower profile or fast aperture, then primes are great. but when you're trying to cover a fast-moving event where you need to quickly shoot from different focal lengths, primes become inconvenient. if you get the zooms first, you can then add the primes according to what FL you shoot more--just as Ilkka does. it doesnt work the same the other way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I bought all-new AF-S f/1.4 short primes to shoot personal work, and never intended to shoot events. Paying upwards of $1,700 for a lens I don't even want pains me to no end.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yeah but paying $1200 for another lens you dont even want isn't that much better. i guess you have to ask which one is more useful in the long run. IMO, the 24-70 is kind of a no brainer for event photography on FX, despite its high cost, since it really is quite good. if you just can't swing it b/c of the price, so be it. but once you have it, you realize why it costs so much. btw, ISO 3200 on a d700 is doable. i just dont see the 24-120 really being anything other than a compromise... and if you keep doing this kind of stuff, you will want the 24-70 eventually. but if you're on a budget, you could also consider the older 28-70/2.8 AF-S or the tamron 28-75.</p>

<p> </p>

[studio460]

<p>I think I've got the solution!</p>

<p>I'm going to try find my "white box" AF-S Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G VR kit lens that "came" with my D7000 (I've never even opened the box, and I'm not even sure where it is). Pop that onto my now, mostly unused, D7000 body, and use that as a <em>second body</em> for "arrival shots" only. They'll be lit by bright, overpowering, on-camera flash, at optimum ISOs, so I won't be too worried about the DX-sensored body's higher noise floor. Plus, I'll ensure adequate depth-of-field for group shots and couples. Sure, my background will go pitch-black, but I can shoot all the "arty," available-light stuff with the D3s, and my fast primes. Sounds like a plan, doesn't it?</p>

[studio460]

<p>Here's how I got out of spending $1,700:</p>

<p>1. Nikon D7000 + AF-S Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G VR + SB-800 + Quantum Turbo<br /> 2. Nikon D3s + SB-400</p>

<p>This actually works better than I thought. Laugh all you want at this consumer "kit" lens, but I just tested it, and it looks pretty darned sharp. I set the D7000's ISO to 400, for rapid recycle times with the Quantum Turbo. For the D3s, at high ISOs (e.g., ISO 1,600), with the on-board SB-400 dialed down to -0.7 EV, even with just 'AA' batteries installed, the SB-400 manages to keep up with the D3s' rapid-fire shutter, even in continuous-high mode. This was a happy surprise, since I love the low profile of the SB-400. Plus, it puts the source closer to my lens' optical axis.</p>

<p>That said, if and when I get a second FX body, I think I've decided to pop for the 24-120mm f/4, instead of the otherwise excellent 24-70 f/2.8, since I realize I really do want/need the extra reach provided by that lens. "Consumerish" or not, it should totally do the job.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Low-budget, DX-alternative to an FX short-zoom:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/7K1.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D7000 + SB-800 @ -0.7 EV + AF-S Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G VR @ 105mm<br /> ISO: 400; f/5.6 @ 1/320th</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/7K1-crop.jpg" alt="" /><br /> 100% crop (unedited)</p>

<p>Pros: Inexpensive (already owned it as part of a kit), compact, lightweight, surprisingly fast AF, and sharp.<br /> Cons: Difficult to focus in low light, low maximum aperture, variable-aperture.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Fast-aperture, fixed-focal length FX:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3400-1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Nikon D3s; AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G + SB-400 +0.3EV<br>

ISO: 800; f/2.0 @ 1/250th</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/D3400-crop.jpg" alt="" /><br>

100% crop (color-corrected)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Eric, I have shot events including weddings with primes only. Using the 24-70 for time-critical parts of it and for

portraits is less stressful but then you lose the ability maintain low or intermediate ISO in some of the indoor coverage

and some opportunities entirely such as using cell phones and projector screens to light people. Of course your D3s is

better than my older D3 but still there are situations where the 1.4's do their magic. As I said I would not want to be

without my 24-70 but if I could not afford both, the fast primes would be what I would get first. But that may be

because the winter in Finland is very dark so since I do not want to only use my camer in the summer, I need the fast

glass first. ;-)

 

Ralph, I think using the D7000 and 18-105 is a good idea. But small apertures will mean hard light - look at the

difference in the skin between your f1,4 examples and the 18-105. The hard light with all the specular reflections

seems pretty standard in red carpet shots but do you want to settle for what is standard, or separate yourself? I have

access to the 18-105 at work and it's good value. It is what I recommend to people who are starting out with DSLRs

since it is so cheap and quite nice. The 24-120 is sharper but I think its price is not in proportion to quality. Anyway I

think since you have the fast primes you can now experiment with the diffent looks and see how you and your clients

like them.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ralph's last two examples were captured with fairly high shutter speeds (for flash photography), thus ambient light plays little role in the overall exposure. Had he used 1/30 or 1/60 sec as we typically do in event photography, the result would be quite different. Moreover, I would bounce those flashes (difficult with the SB-400, of course).</p>

<p>Another issue is that the image from the D3S is under-exposed. That is why it gives people a different impression. Attached is the histogram for that image.</p><div></div>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<blockquote>

<p>This actually works better than I thought. Laugh all you want at this consumer "kit" lens, but I just tested it, and it looks pretty darned sharp. This actually works better than I thought. Laugh all you want at this consumer "kit" lens, but I just tested it, and it looks pretty darned sharp. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ralph,<br>

I think nobody has a reason to laugh at you due to it. If you think this kit will do the job and is good enough to please your usual costumers you can have your problem solved for a while. Ar the end we have two sides of the story, the "pro" concepts and the hardware geeks assumptions and on the other side your costumers and something we can call "perceived quality", and this is an important point because no matter what equipment you buy when your work reaches this "perceived quality" level your costumers will be happy and demanding no more that you actually supply them, so the marginal increase of quality you get for a more expensive gear will not translates into increased revenue or costumer satisfaction. <br>

Another point is the size of pictures you sell to them, and most likely you don't go to enlargements that can be compromised by the DX kit or even the 5.1 Mpx you can get from the D3s if you occasionally use the DX lens on it and your primes on the D7000, to get 2extra fast focal lengths (36 and 127.5mm equivalents).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>the D3S is under-exposed. That is why it gives people a different impression. </em></p>

<p>It looks like you showed the histogram of the image shot at f/2 (Aug 28, 2011; 03:57 a.m.) I was referring to Ralph's earlier images shot at f/1.4 (Aug 26, 2011; 05:06 a.m. and Aug 27, 2011; 08:01 p.m.), which do not have specular reflections. The ambient light in this case is so low that to get this level of soft lighting using the 18-105, you'd need to shoot at 1/10s f/5.6 ISO 400.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ilkka, so far all of Ralph's images on this thread are captured under different circumstances. Comparison between any two of them is meaningless anyway.</p>