kurt_holter

<p>If Nikon reintroduced this lens to the market today at a price point below $700.00 USD it would sell very well. Back in the 1990's it was my primary go-to lens, and I used mine until it ultimately self-destructed after many use of hard, daily use.<br>

When this lens first came on the market, fixed aperture high quality f/2.8 zoom lenses were very few and very far between.</p>

<p>For situations like this I include a pdf file which is on my letterhead and grants my permission for the bearer of the disk to have prints made. <br>

All of my delivered images always have a copyright notice within the file information, and since I've started including the pdf file my clients have not had any problems.<br>

As an aside, if you allow your clients to post your images on their Facebook pages, and you have your copyright info in the appropriate file info field, your copyright will show up under the photos when they're posted.</p>

<p>I have never used them for these services, but you might try Ace Photo Inc. (<a href="http://acephoto.net/acestore.aspx?c=aad">http://acephoto.net/acestore.aspx?c=aad</a>) in Ashburn, VA. On the several occasions when I've visited the store I've been impressed with it as a shop catering toward pros and serious photographers.</p>

<p>Your first question should have been, "What are your usual rates for this kind of usage?"<br>

When I have been approached similarly on a number of occasions in the past, asking this question has resulted in some cases in substantial payment, as well as repeat, assigned photography, and additional compensation for future, different uses of the same photo(s) by the same client.<br>

If their answer is zero, then it's up to you to decide what their request is worth. Whether that is zero dollars, or a three or four figure payment, the decision is yours.</p>

<p>After having been a Nikon 28-70/f2.8 AF-S owner and user since that lens first came on the market, I've always thought it was extremely good. When I bought my D800 bodies this spring, I went ahead and bought a 24-70/f2.8 AF-S, relegating the older lens to backup/personal use status.<br>

I have to say that after about four months with the 24-70, I think it's just a really special lens; the best Nikon f/2.8 zoom I've ever owned. I have a 17-35/2.8 AF-S, have had two 17-55/f2.8 AF-S's, an 80-200/2.8 AF-S, and a 70-200/2.8 AF-S. Every single one of them has been well worth the money.<br>

I like to avoid lens changes to the extent that it's possible, for reasons of expediency on shoots, as well as minimizing the amount of time I don't have a lens on a body to minimize the potential for dust getting on the sensors.<br>

If I have a job that doesn't require special purpose glass (like a macro, fisheye, or extreme focal length) there is not a whole lot I can't shoot with the 24-70 on one body and the 70-200 on the other.</p>

<p>I shoot tons of these. Here are a couple of considerations:</p>

<p>When a client asks for environmental portraits, that frequently means simply that they're not looking for "shot on a backdrop with studio lighting". Find out whether or not your client wants portraits which convey the "flavor" of the subjects environment, or very the literal "here's Joe working at his disk with all the stuff he has on the walls rendered sharply, piles of TPF reports here and there, two minute hit and run for each subject pictures". If you're looking for "flavor", see if there are other areas in the building which are more interesting, less busy, etc. which will still convey this but do so more effectively than a cramped office or work area.</p>

<p>I hate clutter. By that, I mean that people understand that many folks have, by the nature of their jobs, offices and work areas filled stuff. However, the things that drive me the craziest are water bottle and coffee cups, sticky notes on anything (especially computer monitors and file cabinets, stuff on the wall that isn't straight, knick-knacks, and other things not directly related to the work the individual does. No matter how rushed my assignments are, I always get rid of this kind of thing, whether by moving it or moving my subject.</p>

<p>Everybody love to harp on the "shoot fairly wide open and blow out the background" bandwagon, but in many cases the environment is simply too small or crowded to do this. Others insist that everything ought to be sharp. There is simply no universal rule when it comes to this.</p>

<p>Find out if the pages are already laid out, and therefore whether the images will be used vertically, horizontally, of square. Shoot accordingly. There's no point in the client and subject loving, say, a vertical you've shot if it can't be used in the layout.</p>

<p>If these are going online, in the vast majority of cases, they'll be used fairly small. When it comes to images reproduced small, simple compositions are frequently the best.</p>

<p>I've shot these with everything from multiple studio strobes to available light. Most of what I'm doing these days is either going with on on-camera flash with a fill flap or card bounced off of a wall or ceiling, of that same thing supplemented by an additional small strobe firing into an umbrella. Sometimes I shoot them with the available light, but...</p>

<p>If you shoot available light you need to be very aware of the quality of the light. Obviously you want to be sure in most cases to get some light into the subjects eyes; whether reflected there from white papers on the desk in front of them or adjusting their position to take advantage of window light or another source. Shoot raw and optimize the color in post.</p>

<p>I hate most environmental portraits where the subjects are looking down at paperwork, or a monitor, etc.. If I need to shoot someone "not looking at the camera", I'll usually have them chat with my contact or art director, who is out of the frame. that way, through the subject's gestures, etc. there is some implied action in the image. Otherwise, engage them in conversation yourself.</p>

<p>I'm a big advocate of shooting these off a tripod, even when you don't need the stability. This will help you be more deliberate in your composition. Sometimes I'll start with a tripod and then move around a little bit more once I'm shooting.</p>

<p>In your photo of the boss, she has a great expression that looks genuine. The crop is a lot more loose than I'd have wanted. Thirty seconds of de-cluttering in advance would have improved it considerably. Additionally, if you'd bounced your flash into the wall to your right, you could have killed the nasty shadow behind her. I've never been a fan of saying what I would have done after the fact, but in this case I'm doing so just to point out some things for you to think about.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Go to the very bottom of <a href="http://www.bocaphoto.com/products/new/nikon/nikonparts.htm">this page</a> to order the part. I have no affiliation with this company except as a satisfied customer. Bear in mind that there may be further problems with the lens, which you'll only be able to discover once it's repaired.</p>

<p>I'll probably get shredded for my response to your questions, because I don't post here often.<br>

Whether you're "pro" or "semi-pro" (whatever that is), if you're going to charge people money for assigned photography, you need to have backup equipment for everything. In the comments above, only Walt Flannigan has mentioned this, but it's important whether you're shooting a wedding, a product, a portrait, or whatever. Even with good, steady long time clients I've had exclusively for over 20 years, if I had equipment (or any other) problems which precluded me from completing a shoot on deadline, that would in all likelihood be the end of a great relationship.<br>

Again, and not trying to be cruel or dismissive, but I think the fact that you're asking this question framed the way you've asked it, indicates that you need a lot more experience and knowledge under you belt before making this kind of outlay.<br>

I won't ramble on, but suffice it to say that I can't think of any situation in my years in this business where possession of a slow 70-300mm lens (regardless of the optical quality) would be useful in my work.<br>

However, I probably shoot somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of my work with a fast 70-200/f.28 zoom. I could probably shoot the vast majority of the rest of it with a 17-55/f2.8 zoom.<br>

I mean no offense, but am simply speaking as someone who has been making all of his living in this business for the last 35 years.</p>

 

<p>I had an identical thing happen last spring with my 70-200/f2.8 AF-S lens. Nikon charged me $545.00 for the repair. My lens would neither focus nor zoom after it hit the ground, but there was no optical damage. It came back from Nikon as good as new.</p>

<p>The old Royal Navy Dockyards are pretty interesting. If you happen to be going on a cruise ship and dock at King's Wharf you'll be right there.</p>

<p><a href="http://goo.gl/ZvSx">Here</a>. Scroll down until you find it on the page.</p>

<p>Log into ebay and do an advanced search for the items specifying to search completed listings only. That's always been a reliable way for me to see what I can expect to get for items I'm selling.</p>

<p>Grab it with your hands 180 degrees apart and literally twist your wrists in opposite directions. It will "fold and pop" into it's intended storage configuration.<br>

Your post hits home with me because I have a 5x6 foot twist flex backdrop, and I always tell my clients that I either get it folded up on the first try or the 20th try. One of my clients and I joke about this a lot because we've determined that if she does not look at me attempting to fold it up, I can do it on the first try, but if somebody is watching it takes me forever and a day to do the same.<br>

I finally spent about a half an hour messing with it in the studio one day until I figured out to close it up first time every time. I can now avoid the embarrassment of fighting with it on a shoot.</p>

<p>Wow does that bring back memories. <br>

I bought one of these as my first 35mm camera when I was in the 10th grade in 1970. It was great until I dropped it and killed it about a year later.<br>

Have fun!</p>

<p>I have D300's, and after using a Nikon18-200 AF-S VR zoom for two years for casual shooting, I bought a second 17-55/2.8 AF-S to replace it. I'd had one 17-55/2.8 AF-S for some time before that, but since it is a mission critical lens for my day to day work, I added another one.<br>

I am frankly pretty hooked on the 17-55/2.8 despite the fact that it is physically very bulky and very heavy. However, I have yet to come across any of the Nikon zooms that approach the optical performance of the various f2.8 AF-S models., and I like fast lenses.<br>

I know that a lot of photographers would find the D300 / 17-55/2.8 combo simply to huge for casual shooting, and I understand that.</p>

<p>Please do not take this personally, but the fact that you are asking this question is Exhibit A when it comes to why you should not be the primary photographer at this event.<br>

This is sub-Photography 101.<br>

Again, nothing personal. You are simply out of your league on this.</p>

<p>Heat will be a factor. If you're using the flash head inside of a softbox, or use grids or other modifiers which restrict air flow aound the bulb, you can expect a shorter lifespan. This also goes for flash tubes.</p>

<p>At one time I owned four F3's. By the time I replaced them with F4's, one in particular pretty literally looked like it had been dropped off of a cliff and run over by a truck but still functioned "as new".<br>

As a (then) news shooter I had two of these, both with motors, at the bottom a a quarry for about an hour in a torrential rain shooting the rescue of a dog which was stranded on the wall. The dog rwas recovered but we barely got out of there before the whole place flooded.<br>

I literally poured water out of the mirror boxes after removing the lenses, motors, batteries, and finders once I got back to the office. After drying out, they were fine.<br>

About one year later, both bodies died within a day or so of each other due to internal corosion. It was massive, but not a surprise.<br>

When the F3 was originally introduced, it was initially disdained by many photographers, and F2 bodies were practically impossible to find.<br>

Having owned who knows how many Nikon bodies since the early 1970's, I think the F3's were among Nikon's best products ever.</p>

<p>No weddings but numerous corporate events here. <br>

D300 bodies with 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses. Despite the fact that I own a ton of lenses from 10.5mm to 300mm, I could (and usually do) shoot 95% of all of my work with these two.<br>

If I were shooting FX bodies I'd be substituting my 28-70/2.8 for the 17-55/2.8.</p>

<p>I have three D300's and 14 Nikon lenses. All of the bodies are over a year old, and the lenses are from 25 years old to several months old.<br>

I have never needed to use any microadjustments for any body/lens combination. Also, I never had to have any lenses adjusted for use with the D1, D1x, D2x, D200, D70, D40, or D40x bodies I owned in the past.</p>

Any of the alternatives you propose will give you only the most incremental performance bump over what you have now.

 

If you want a little more focal length, either the current 60/2.8 or the recently discontinued 60/2.8 AF-D will get you a few more millimeters, but if you have money burning a hole in your pocket, one of the 85's would fill the hole in your range and give you some fresh perspective. I know the 85/1.4 is revered, but my 85/1.8 is excellent too.

Did you possibly mount a filter on the front of it?

 

I ask because some years ago I was convinced my Nikkor 180/2.8 would not focus to infinity and needed repair, and

the first thing the tech did was remove the filter. At that point, all was fine. I threw that filter away and

replaced it with another one which caused no problems.

I have had my 3 D300's since early December 2007. I've never had this happen with any of them.

Expect to get yourself and your equipment very dirty.

 

If you position yourself on the outside of a turn, prepare to get dirtier than you've ever been in your whole life.

I agree with Shun. I've owned both lenses for a long time, and originally bought the 17-35/2.8 when I was shooting film.

 

To me, the additional versatility of the 17-55/2.8 on a DX body far outweighs the fact that the 17-35/2.8 will cover a full frame sensor.

 

My 17-35/2.8 is relegated to the bag that I carry for my personal use.

 

I always use the 17-55/2.8 on my jobs. I love this lens.

 

Remember also that the f2.8 AF-S zooms from Nikon tend to hold their value very well. If you ever move to an FX body, you can expect to recoup most of what you paid for it.