wedding_photographer5

<blockquote> <p>One of my lightweight travel kits with D700 was either 35mm f2 and 75-150/3.5 Series E. You could pick up this lightweight MF zoom and take your other two lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>Don't you miss something wider? 24mm or 20mm is so useful to landscapes and interiors.</p> <blockquote> <p>Another cheap used lens that works fine on D700 is 28-105 AF-D. Combines well with a 180mm or 200mm lens. This zoom may not be wide enough for you, however.</p> </blockquote> <p>Cheap zooms on an expensive body, what a waste. If you're going for a wide to tele zoom, why not stick to a dx body or a compact camera?</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I have 70-200 F/2.8 VRII, Nikkor 20-35 F/2.8 and Sigma 50mm Art F/1.5.</p> </blockquote> <p>I have the same.</p> <p>Forget the tripod and flash. Rest is fine. </p> <p>If you want lighter, get a lighter tele zoom (f4 or even variable aperture), a nikon 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 (much smaller than sigma) and a nikon 24mm f2.8 afd. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I quote:</p> <blockquote> <p>It [nikkor 24mm f2.8] gives very sharp images corner-to-corner even at the near limit thanks to CRC, but beware of field curvature if you are shooting perfectly flat subjects at close range. Some light fall-off towards the corners is evident at f/2.8 and gone by f/4-f/5.6. Set the lens to f/5.6-f/11 to get the best picture quality, but do not stop down to f/22 unless absolutely necessary. </p> <p>I was quite surprised to observe the excellent image quality my 24/2.8 delivered on the FX models, in particular on the D3X.<br> <br> Score: 4.5/5<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Source: <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html</a></p> <p> <br> Like said, the 24mm afd is your best bet. If you killed your copy, get another one. <br> <br> </p>

<blockquote> <p>The AF-D is OK on a D700, definitely not sharp in the corners...<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>It's very sharp corner to corner starting around f5.6.<br> <br> If you shoort "static subjects", I imagine you mean landscapes, cityscapes and interiors. No one shoots those at f2.8 for reasons of limited depth. So corners don't matter at f2.8. And when they do, you stop down to f8, as you would anyway when shooting scenes. <br> </p> <blockquote> <p> </p> </blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>as I can't seem to get sharp images with it any more.</p> </blockquote> <p>Any more? A sharp lens that suddenly stops being sharp..., what happened?</p> <blockquote> <p>I want it to be future proof</p> </blockquote> <p>If you want future proof, get another 24mm afd. It's fully mechanical and thus built to last. At least mine is sharp and takes excellent pictures on a d700.</p> <p>Why pay almost tripple for a plastic 24mm afs that no one knows how short-lived it'll be.<br /> <br /> And why even consider a manual focus lens when your body isn't equipped with a split focusing screen. Good luck getting pictures in focus.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I do 90% of my photography with one camera and a 28mm lens. Anything else is luxury, 'tho in saying this, I am definitely not knocking the joys of luxurious travel...</p> </blockquote> <p>As I grow more into photography, I enjoy simplicity and end up with better pictures. A single wide prime is indeed a lovely walkaround. For landscapes and travel, I enjoy just a 24mm prime and 80-200mm zoom, with polarizer on each lens to avoid changing filters. Camera around the shoulder and one lens case around the belt.</p> <p><br /> <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8221446">JayDann </a>, how is that 28mm f2.8 afd compared to 24mm f2.8 afd? I keep reading the 28 is a melon. The 24 surprised me: sharp, distortion free (big plus!) and reasonably low fall-off. But how's the 28 ?</p> <p><br /> <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=9277660">Sandy </a>, you're welcome. I used to think 24mm wasn't wide enough. Silly me. I used to wander with just a 35 but found it doesn't excel at anything: a shorter lens is more dramatic towards interiors and places, and a longer lens is much kinder to people and products. So I ended up with a pair of 24 & 50.</p>

<p><strong>For casual shooting</strong>, just a d700 with either a 24mm f2.8 (scenics) or 50mm f1.4 (people). Wonderful pictures can be made with either lens. You just need to focus on different opportunities.</p> <p><img src="http://s17.postimg.org/9qjkwqt8v/20151220_2792.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://s17.postimg.org/wqq892r2n/20140118_9476.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="360" /></p> <p><strong>For friends & family</strong>: d700 + 24mm f2.8 +50mm f1.4 + flash. Camera around the shoulder, the rest in a small fanny bag.</p> <p><strong>For weddings & events</strong>: d700 + 24mm f2.8 + 50mm f1.4 + 80-200mm f2.8 + flash. All in a messenger bag.</p> <p><strong>For outdoor hikes</strong>: d700 + 24mm f2.8 + 50mm f1.4 + 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 + polariser. Camera around the shoulder, lenses in a small fanny bag.</p> <p>There's really no sense in carrying more than one or two lenses, three at most. Wide, medium, tele. Done. No need to worry about overlaps or gaps. For casual shooting, a single lens is more than enough. Don't fret, just shoot.</p> <p>Personally, I wouldn't use anything of what you've mentioned. But hey, make the best of whatever you have. <em>How</em> you use it matters more than <em>what</em> you use.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>The mirrorless has many advantages over the DSLR.</p> </blockquote> <p>Major advantage is less bulk. But you pay a hefty price for that small package. For the same price, you get a dslr that performs as good or better but is more cumbersome.</p> <p>Do the calculation yourself: compare your 7D and your lenses with a Fuji X pro 2 with equivalent lenses. You'll probably pay more for the Fuji system and end up with the same image quality with less bulk.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>It reduces size and weight compared to a DSLR while giving you the same image quality.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not really the same quality. The larger format always has better output.</p> <p>This olympus 40-150mm f2.8 for instance costs the same or actually more than a canon 70-200mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f4 IS, yet is much worse at isolating sibjects and producing a nice bokeh:<br /> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/m43/945_olympus40150f28pro">http://www.photozone.de/m43/945_olympus40150f28pro</a></p> <p><strong>Personally, I find the weigth & size advantage appealing but it comes at a price. Mirrorless sacrifices control, low light performance, AF, sync speed... That's a big sacrifice if you're shooting seriously. On the other hand, for the casual photographer, the price tag that comes with mirrorless is a bit steep.</strong></p> <p> </p>

<p>Who said the f4 lens is for weddings? It's not.</p> <p>It's meant for stuff other than weddings. Or do you all carry heavy glass on hiking or to the studio while shooting at f8-11.</p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>I've been very happy with a f/2.8 zoom but am considering a lighter lens. There are two things that keep me from trading the brighter model for a lighter alternative.</p> <p>- How well does an f/4 lens focus indoors under low light compared to an f/2.8 lens?<br> - How bright is the viewfinder f4 vs f2.8?</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>No, get one polarizer for the largest lens and a set of adapter rings for the rest!</p> </blockquote> <p>If he doesn't like lens changes, he certainly won't like swapping filters!</p> <p>What I mean about adjusting expectations is exactly this: either accept the extra work needed for creating wonderful images, or look for something different than a dslr. A dslr is basically a modular lens system. If you don't want that, you got the wrong camera.</p> <p>Like someone else said: you're trading quality vs comfort.</p>

<p>l’m like you. I like to travel, I like landscapes, I do some hiking too and I’m always looking for better ways to carry my gear and enjoy my trip.<br /> <br /> The truth is, a dslr is probably not the best travel camera. It’s simply ‘too everything’. The trips I enjoyed most were with one or two small lenses (20mm, 24mm, 35mm afd come to mind) and perhaps a slow tele zoom (70-300mm or 70-200mm f4). Anything else is ‘getting in the way’.<br /> <br /> Neither your 14-24, 24-70, 24-120 are good travel lenses. You’re paying big for the f2.8 aperture that you’re unlikely to use outdoors, while the 24-120 is a mediocre and overpriced lens. Both 24-70 and 24-120 have more distortion than a 24mm prime.</p> <p>You say you don't like changing lenses. Another truth is: good travel & landscape photos take time. Time to scout a location, time to find a vantage point, time to place a polarizer... You should adjust your expectations. Changing lenses isn't that bad if the lenses you carry are radically different (for instance 24mm and 70-300mm). It only gets tedious when you have to decide between similar lenses or when you're carrying too much. So simplify your equipment and make sure you differentiate enough.</p> <p>My suggestion:<br /> 1. Either a 24-85mm VR if you don’t want to change lenses.</p> <p>2. Or :<br /> - a small 35mm and be done with it<br> -> Might as well carry a Fuji X with fixed lens.</p> <p>3. Or the following package:<br /> - a lightweight wide angle (20mm or 24mm)<br /> - a lightweight tele zoom (70-200 f4 VR or 70-300mm VR)<br /><br /></p> <p>In any case, get a polarizer for each and every lens.</p>

<p>Both are too big, sorry.</p> <p>I'm looking at a fanny pack to hold just these two lenses, no need for all the extra's.</p>

<p>I'm looking at this sun sniper waist pack. Anyone tried to fit a 80-200 <em>and</em> 50 ?</p> <p><img src="http://s29.postimg.org/52cjdhvuv/sniperstrap_the_tph_heuptas_ssntphwaist2.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="462" /></p>

<p>What's the smallest fanny pack / waist bag to fit a 80-200mm f2.8 and another tiny lens (50mm f1.8 or f1.4) ?</p> <p>Camera does not have to fit in the bag, just these two lenses.</p> <p>Small is key here.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>It is also a very heavy lens.</p> </blockquote> <p>??</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>On the 12MP D700, it is fine, but it shows its age on 36MP.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, if the d800 degrades your pictures, the logic would be 'not to buy a d800' :) </p> <blockquote> <p>Today with new and affordable 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, and 85mm/f1.8 AF-S lenses, unless your budget is restricted or you need to use those lenses on manual-focus film SLRs, I would opt for the AF-S version.</p> </blockquote> <p>I got the 24mm f2.8 afd for 220 in mint condition. The 24mm f1.8 afs costs 850 around here and there are no used copies available. Even when they appear, they're sold for not much less than a brand new copy. The afs lenses are fine but so are the older afd if you choose wisely. Oftentimes smaller, lighter and much cheaper.</p> <p>There's this prejudice among the unexperienced that 'old must by definition be bad' and 'newer is better'. I tried to illustrate above that this is not always true. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I uploaded the pics but notice some loss in crispiness compared to the originals.</p> <p><strong>F2.8:</strong><br /> <img src="http://s15.postimg.org/ku5fxikln/20151229_3457.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="532" /></p> <p><img src="http://s15.postimg.org/6ozmvpbkb/20151229_3458.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="532" /></p> <p><strong>F8:</strong><br /> <img src="http://s13.postimg.org/i0wuit7jr/image.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="524" /></p> <p><img src="http://s13.postimg.org/ktq22u7w7/20160103_3243.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://s13.postimg.org/u4266dilz/20160103_3260.jpg" alt="" width="532" height="800" /></p> <p><img src="http://s13.postimg.org/5c75cvqt3/20160103_3262.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>I made a great little discovery recently that i want to share. I tried a nikon 24mm afd f2.8 on an fx body. It's a fun little lens. It has a dramatic look that somehow doesn't feel excessive.</p> <p>Compared to nikon's 20mm afd which I also tried, this 24mm seems to be a stop ahead: corner sharpness and fall-off are better wide open and improve faster than nikon's 20mm afd.</p> <p>Distortion is negligeable (much lower than some 24-XX zooms). This lack of distortion, solid sharpness and moderate fall-off contribute to producing clean images.</p> <p>Fall-off and color aberrations that may be present are automatically corrected. I haven't been bothered by any of these.</p> <p>This lens flares easily though. Personally, I don't mind flare and embrace it. If you don't want flare, try shielding the lens with a hat.</p> <p>Sharpness in the center is always high (see illustrations below), fall-off is visible wide open unless auto-corrected (auto-correct is easy and fall-off is less severe than nikon's 20mm afd). Border sharpness and fall-off improve at f4 and are excellent by f5.6.</p> <p>I've read some reviews of people claiming it's a poor performer. Well, I've looked at images these writers make and they expect a lens to be tack sharp, from arms length till infinity, left to right at f2.8 :-/ Taking a look at the distance scale reveals that f11 is in order to reach sharpness from 3' to infinity. Use the lens in the proper way and it will not disappoint.</p> <p>All in all, a great little performer that I can recommend and a true wide angle I enjoy using.</p> <p>Here's an uncropped illustration, pushing the limits at f2.8, 1/50" and iso 3200. Naturally, borders go fuzzy (due to limited depth rather than poor lens performance), but what needs to be sharp is sharp indeed.</p> <p><a href="http://postimg.org/image/gl0pvchc7/">http://postimg.org/image/gl0pvchc7/</a><br /> <a href="http://postimg.org/image/yp3qfzf0n/">http://postimg.org/image/yp3qfzf0n/</a></p> <p><br />Here are a few more at f8 (with the usual post-processing):</p> <p><a href="http://postimg.org/image/ze74xo2ur/">http://postimg.org/image/ze74xo2ur/</a><br /> <a href="http://postimg.org/image/vtb9efyb7/">http://postimg.org/image/vtb9efyb7/</a><br /> <a href="http://postimg.org/image/puxg47fcj/">http://postimg.org/image/puxg47fcj/</a><br /> <a href="http://postimg.org/image/yrctlvvcj/">http://postimg.org/image/yrctlvvcj/</a></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Which lens would you like to have in addition of these lenses ? </p> </blockquote> <p>I would sell them all and get a 24mm 2.8 (IS), 50mm 1.8 or 2.5, a 70-200mm 2.8 (IS), a powerful flash and a small messenger bag.</p> <p>That's pretty much what I've been using when <a href="http://huwelijksfotograaf.wix.com/lumicino">realising these pictures</a>. </p> <p>With that set, you can also make landscape / travel shots similar to these <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dd9f?start=50">at page six</a>.</p> <p>I'm not gonna post family pics because that's personal, but you understand that the above lenses are more than suited for family pics.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>What’s your favorite lens? And why? Let me be more specific. I know most of us do a variety of types of photography, and we favor different lenses for different purposes. But, I’m talking about a lens you really enjoy using and appreciating the results you get from that lens, for whatever purpose. What is it about that lens that makes it your favorite?</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't understand this affection to a particular lens. Lenses come and go, I've enjoyed trying out different lenses but never got passionate enough about one single item to stick to it forever. Each lens has its shortcomings and the joy is to use it to its strengths.<br /> <br />What often makes a lens a favorite is that it's small, light and affordable / expendable, and that it's reasonably fast and reasonably sharp. It doesn't need to excel in any particular domain, as long as it doesn't have obvious shortcomings. Good is good enough, the rest is what <em>you</em> make of it.<br /> <br /> Instead of thinking in terms of 'favorite lens' I rather remember 'favorite pictures'.<br /> To illustrate, below are just a few of my favorite pictures, each made with a different lens, from a puny 100 usd to a hefty 1000 usd lens. I couldn't tell one is ten times better or worse than the other. If there's a common factor to define these images, it's the use of <em>composition and light</em>, and perhaps some post-processing. <br /> <br /> In order: 20mm 35mm 50mm 85mm 135mm. <br /> <img src="http://i65.tinypic.com/20tm2o8.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://i66.tinypic.com/hrau13.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://i67.tinypic.com/29maees.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://i67.tinypic.com/2dkmlwn.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p><img src="http://i65.tinypic.com/11ql6gx.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the contributions.</p> <p>I just sold the 28-70mm f2.8. Not because of optical shortcomings but because of encumbrance. I ended up carrying a 50mm instead but need something wider too.</p> <p>Anyone been using the new 24mm 1.8 g on FX ?</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Truth be told, even my D7200 is far better than the D700 I had. So in my mind, If I was a wedding photographer, I would go after a modern body like a D750 or even a D610.</p> </blockquote> <p>In what way is a different body an <em>alternative to a 24-70mm lens </em>- as the title of this thread says ?</p> <p><a href="http://huwelijksfotograaf.wix.com/lumicino">Here's my site</a>, everything you see there is made with that 'ancient' d700.<br /> I'm not sure in what way a different body would improve my pictures. Do they seem underexposed or noisy to you, since you're suggesting a higher ISO body?</p> <blockquote> <p>Like Robert mentioned, the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 ED VR gets nothing but high praise by those who own it.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm sure they do, but I bet they'd be equally well off with a compact camera. <br /> I guess a faster lens with somewhat smaller coverage would suit me better.</p> <blockquote> <p>The 2-3 stop better ISO performance will more than make up the lens difference.</p> </blockquote> <p>How exactly will it make up for shallow depth of field?</p> <p>if you take a look at the pictures on the link I posted... most have shallow depth. The site would look very different with a f5.6 lens on a small frame camera.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>What body are you using ?</p> </blockquote> <p>D700</p> <p>Bottom question is: will I miss 35mm?<br> > If not, a 24 & 50 combo will do.<br> > If I will, the 35-70 is probably than a set of primes. 28-70 and 24-70 are out of the question. </p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Check out the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. </p> </blockquote> <p>I'd rather have a Nikon. </p> <p> </p>