brittany_marshall

<p>thanks, i figured it out, i just had one little setting wrong, i was close. the sb900 needs to be in commander mode, i guess i just thought since the triggers were in control that the 900 could be set to just "on" but thats not the case. glad i figured it out ! thanks</p>

<p>Hi, I am using Pocket Wizard Nikon TT1/TT5 off camera flash, with 1 sb600 (off camera), a d700 , and 1 sb900 (on camera/mounted on mini pocket wizard). When I use just the off camera flash everything works great, no problems. But when I mount my sb900 on top of my mini on my cameras hot shoe, the whole system stops working and only my on camera sb900 will fire. I know i must be doing something wrong because there is no way that this lighting system is built for only off camera flashes and no on camera fill. also i know it isn't a faulty pocket wizard because i tried this with an entirely different set of the same type of pocket wizards and im getting the same problem, so its something im doing. any advice on what i might be doing wrong ? thanks</p>

<p>@Eric , I like the primes and the 1.4 because i like the DOF , I like the way the photos look, i was only stating that i use off camera flash because people who posted earlier thought that i was only interested in the primes for the speed and low light ability (which is not the case) I have many reasons for preferring them.</p>

<p>Everyone who says i need a back up camera please read my earlier postings, I NEVER SHOOT WITHOUT AT LEAST 2 BACKUP CAMERAS, so that is not relevant to my original posting, i very much understand the importance of a second body, this posting was just about the lenses. </p>

<p>After all of the posts i have read on here and some more thought i have given, i think i will purchase the 24-70 first along with a 70-200. I can afford to add one prime to that lineup and will probably get the 85 just because it is my favorite lens that ive ever used. the rest will come later if needed. </p>

<p>THANK YOU ALL for your help on this !!!!!</p>

<p>yeah thats my dilemma pretty much, want versus need. and im not worried about low light or my cameras ISO, i pretty much shoot indoor photos with off camera flash the whole time anyways (unless its day time and there are lots of windows) i wouldn't try to shoot a reception at night indoors with high iso or available light (just not my thing) i will probably just stick with the 24-70 / 85 combo and then take it from there and see if i miss anything. but i will get that 24 someday (just for fun if not for weddings)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and the 70-200 at home</p>

</blockquote>

<p>just curios why you wouldn't want to use a 70-200 ?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I like to use the 85 for portraits (even full body) I just have to be farther away but i find it worth it, here is an example of a full body formal shot i did with my 85, but you are probably right about having the 24-70 just in case, i will probably purchase it, and then just get the 24 1.4 another time when i have some more money to spend.<img src="https://brmimaging.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/i-sjffhmk-l.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>"No, I don't think you will miss the 24-70. I've shot weddings with a lot of PJ coverage using primes only and it works fine. For me it actually works much better with primes than a zoom. I mean it's more work with primes but when comparing the results I found that I produced better images with primes. I use two cameras. Some people are under the impression that you need a zoom to quickly catch a moment but I find that is not the case. To make a good photo you need to physically be in the right spot and a zoom will not help you with that. You also need to observe the light, the framing and press the shutter at the right time. A zoom will not help you with that either. Then there is the advantage of large apertures when using primes that most zooms don't have. For low light situations of course but perhaps more importantly for the creative capability to isolate the subject. If you shoot with two cameras and spend some time practicing swapping lenses and also learn the coverage of your primes you'll be fine. If someone never used a prime and wanted to start out I would be a little hesitant to recommend primes from the get go."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Thanks Pete, that's what i was thinking, i like my results better with primes as well , if it weren't for tight spaces i wouldn't even mind using my 85 to shoot an entire wedding (the results would be amazing) since you are a prime shooter would you mind of i saw some of your wedding work ? do you have a website ?</p>

<p>@shun Cheung , like i stated in a previous post i ALWAYS use two bodies when i shoot weddings, i rent the second body, so purchasing one is not a priority right now, i understand the importance of backup gear. my original post was just asking about the different lenses. @Dan brown, that is a great story im glad she liked her photos, but i am not seeing what it has to do with my post/question, thanks for the input though. @james youngman, thanks for the info i will check that out, i have looked into things such as the spyder system but they are pricey and will be on my list of things to get after i collect all the lenses i need.</p>

<p>wow are any of you from the Seattle area ? if a bride gets less than 800 photos for a 6 hour wedding around here they complain and are PISSED, i dont know why since i would prefer quality over quantity, but its the reality here. they would probably try to sue you if you gave them 250 images for a 6 hour wedding. no joke</p>

<p>i use borrow lenses they have great prices, and since the d800 came out the rental price on the d700 dropped</p>

<p>the rental isnt bad actually its $100 for 3 days for the d700, but i will definitely get a second one. i have many flashes and dont need any more of those </p>

<p>yes i agree that its useful, i guess i am just letting my lust get in the way of practicality. i love the 24mm 1.4 SOOO much, so much fun to shoot ! :) I am pretty sure though that whenever i am shooting the 24-70 i forget to zoom anyways, thats the main reason i was thinking i might not miss it, because i am so used to prime lenses that i forget to zoom , therefore i usually keep it at 24 anyways . also i usually shoot at 1.6 or 1.8 haven't had a problem with focusing</p>

<p>i only own one body right now and yes its fx d700 but i would just rent a second body when i shoot weddings. i shot one wedding with two bodies and i really liked the convenience of not having to change lenses (especially during the ceremony) although all those straps around my neck did end up getting tangled and choking me the whole time lol (but its worth it) and i do have a 35 but i dont like the results with it on my d700 its a dx lens</p>

<p>i forgot to mention i have the d700</p>

<p>so i shoot weddings and have been renting the lenses i need for each event, so i have used all of these and am now ready to purchase the ones i really need. Although i have rented the 24-70 for almost every wedding and everyone swears it is a must have for wedding photography I feel like i like the results of every other lens much better. my favorite lens by far is the 85mm 1.4, so this is my question. If i have the 24mm 1.4 the 50mm 1.4 , the 70-200 2.8, and the 85mm 1.4 along with two bodies (to decrease the time of changing lenses) do you think i will regret not purchasing the 24-70 ? Im thinking during getting ready photos i would be fine with the 50 and the 24, and for portraits i would obviously use the 85 or 70-200, and during the ceremony i would have the 70-200 on one camera, take my wide church shot with the 24 and have a 50 on the second camera, and then for reception photos im thinking i could get away with the 24 for most of the reception along with the 50 on the second camera. like i said i haven't shot a wedding before without the 24-70, but if i purchase it i will have to give up one of the others that i really want (probably the 24) because i cant afford both. any advice would be appreciated. Thanks !</p>