michael_james8

<p>Mmmmmm.</p>

<p>The 20 - 35 - 85 combo. I never considered that one.</p>

<p>I've read contrasting views regarding the Nikon 20mm 2.8 does anyone have any insight with this lens if coupled with a D700? Low-light work?</p>

<p>Sorry to go off on a tangent.</p>

<p><strong>Nikon D700 – 1/3200 sec at <em>f</em> 1.4. ISO 2000 50mm (Nikkor 50mm<em> f</em>/1.4)</strong></p>

<div></div>

<p>Vail,</p>

<p>Thank you for your analysis post. It is very refreshing and adds a unique perspective on equipment use which can be used as something else to refer to when considering new equipment.</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Marc.</p>

<p>Ahhhhh the 28mm 1.4. Your the second pro to mention this as an admired lens for capturing some of their best photos - funny his name was Mark as well.</p>

<p>But methinks that's a curve ball too far. The second hand values for this lens is obscene - but it seems it always was. I'll stick to my 'head' plan and develop a talent for patience for when the 35mm arrives/backorder/arrives. But thanks for mentioning a few more psychological biases for me to consider. </p>

<p><em>'The similarities we all face are greater than the differences.'</em> - Priceless.</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p>Wow.</p>

<p>What a debate this is turning out to be. That why I love Photo.net. You think you find a solid piece of advice and then someone throws in a curveball and introduces theories and practices that you never even considered.</p>

<p>@ William - I have already read and bookmarked this article, which I found by accident after Googling 'Sony A900 review.' It is a profound article and somewhat refreshing as his view transcends the usual view point of equipment's superiority/inferiority. The legendary group Gangstarr had a record call <em>'Mostly Tha Voice' </em>where he stated a rapper could have <em>'flavour' </em>and have <strong><em>'skills....but if your voice ain't dope then you need to chill.' </em></strong>To me Marc Williams equates this with his view on lenses where he positions their importance as <strong><em>'where the real performance is, and where a longer-term commitment happens … financially and creatively.' </em></strong>I will be interesting to see what his view of Nikon is now that they have introduced all the primes that drew him to Canon and what Nikon lacked at the time - but I digress. I will have to see if LR3 can mimic the Bridge filter you mentioned in Marc's article - fascinating.</p>

<p><br />@ Pete - I'm glad I'm studying a BSc in Psychology at the moment as I can actually understand the point your making. To me photography, like other art forms, is the subjectivity of the creativity of the photographer underpinned by the objectivity of equipment. As a photographer I feel you have to find the right balance that is for you. I've always loved the concept of primes because, as you stated, you have to adapt your point of view because of the fixed focal length which thus opens up different perspectives thus giving you further options you would never have discovered or considered with a zoom; it forces you to think.</p>

<p>Though my head is spinning (it's a good thing - thank you) I still think I will be going for the 35mm as I feel this is the best cost-effective solution and I have, via my LR3 metadata analysis, found that I'm more naturally drawn to this perspective consciously and unconsciously. But once again thank you for your input - priceless.</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p>Hi There,</p>

<p>Thank you for all your responses. It truly is a quandary:)<br>

<br>

In the meantime I have run a quick and dirty experiement, as per Hector's suggestion, and spent half the day photographing at 35mm and the other half at 24mm with my 17-35mm. I must admit I do prefer the 35mm as it natuarlly falls within my general purpose uses and perspective.</p>

<p>I will be trying out these lenses later this week to make my final decision but I feel my head is saying 35mm and my heart is saying 24mm. I usually follow my head.</p>

<p>Thank you for all your comments and suggestions. They have been invaluable.</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p>Hi There,</p>

<p>Thanks for all your responses.</p>

<p>It's a nice debate which gives me a lot to consider.</p>

<p>@Hector - I have tried your suggestion with the metadata filter on LR3 - at 24mm it seems too wide with distrortion, which can be corrected, creeping in. I tend to use it at 35mm a lot to avoid this (which probably answers my question).</p>

<p>@Mihai - This is a good point (quality) and it does concern me that the 35mm does not have the ED glass of the 24mm and thus I cannot see the point of them sharing the same price point. But maybe I'm missing something here as the 24mm is probalby considered a more specialist lens in comparison to the general purpose 35mm.</p>

<p>@Marisa - I'd love to rent these lenses. I'll have to look up who does it in my part of the world (the UK) as the local Calumet dealer has moved from my part of town. I will be attending the Focus Imaging 2011 show next week so I'll visit the Nikon stand for an initial feel of them both.</p>

<p>It's quite funny really as I did email a award winning Wedding Photographer about this and he said that he uses the 28mm 1.4 for 70% of his work!!</p>

<p>Thanks for your suggestions. I will keep you posted.</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p>Hi There,</p>

<p>I have a bit of a quandary and require your opinions. I appreciate that we all have our own different shooting styles so please consider your answer from your own shooting perspective.</p>

<p>I shoot weddings and social events in a documentary style with two Nikon D700’s and a 17-35mm, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4. I try to avoid using flash and wish to use a something wider than the 50mm and faster than the zoom to compliment the 85mm I usually have on the second camera.</p>

<p>I wish to purchase one of the new aforementioned Nikkor wide angle primes. I can only afford one and thus wish to know from your shooting perspective:</p>

<p><strong>Which one you feel would be the most cost effective as a purchase?</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong> And why? </strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>Camera One - Spider Pro Holster with handstrap. I use the Lowepro Street & Field set to carry lenses/flash.</p>

<p>Camera Two - Blackrapid. Though both cameras are situated on my RHS ideally one of the cameras will be in my hand at any given time.</p>

<p>Michael</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm sorry for seeming thick but I seem to be unable to submit my photo. from the submission page.<br>

Some more instructions please.</p>

<p> </p>