wedding_photographer5

<p>Looking for a smaller, lighter and cheaper alternative, yet one that is equally bright and reasonably sharp.</p> <p>What about 24mm f2.8 + 35-70mm f2.8.<br /> They can be bought for a bargain. Plus the 35-70 isn't such a beast for walkarounds.</p> <p>Anyone experience with this combo? Can the push-pull AF track moving subjects?</p> <p>The other option I think of is just two primes: 24mm + 50mm.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Because images say more than words, I've uploaded some pics taken with the Nikon 80-200,2.8D ring design.<br> One at 85mm, 135mm, 200mm. All at f/2.8.<br> By uploading these images, some sharpness has been lost. Other than that, I don't see any shortcomings in IQ. <br> <img src="http://s7.postimg.org/4nhxwf3u3/20150718_7474.jpg" alt="" /><br> <img src="http://s16.postimg.org/9bmjsg2px/20150718_7581.jpg" alt="" /><br> <img src="http://s27.postimg.org/s1o9ot983/20150718_7622.jpg" alt="" /><br> <br> </p>

<blockquote> <p>So does the 70-200 VR11 version produce better pictures, or does the simpler heavy glass version still rule. My issues with the 80-400 are making me very skeptical of VR's real capabilities in any lens, and I might want a backup of this lens if I can not fix tune my 80-400</p> </blockquote> <p>Every telephoto picture you find <a href="http://huwelijksfotograaf.wix.com/lumicino">on this site</a> has been made with a 80-200mm f2.8 d (current ring version). Most at f2.8, a few at f4. See for yourself.</p> <p>A 70-200 will not produce better pictures. VR is useful for stills, much less for shooting people.</p> <p>The 70-200 vrii is the best of the telephotos but also the heaviest and most expensive at 2K.<br /> For half the price you buy a brand new 80-200 D which is just as fast and just as sharp and quite a bit smaller too. <br /> For a third of the price you buy a used 80-200 D and for even a sixth of the price (!) you buy a 80-200 D push pull design.</p> <p>The only difference between all of these versions is stabilisation and autofocus, which has nothing to do with producing better pictures. Hope this helps.</p> <blockquote> <p>I found the 80-200 to be quite disappointing. At long distances, it's pretty sharp, but it seems to correct very badly at short range ...</p> </blockquote> <p>Do you expect macro ability from a tele zoom? You're using the lens in the wrong way. Tele lenses are used for shooting things that are <em>far away</em>.</p> <p>There's one caveveat with the 80-200 D: if you shoot fully zoomed in <em>and</em> at maximum aperture <em>and</em> at minimum focus distance, you will get a soft result. But you have to be doing all three at the same time. Solution: zoom out a bit, to 180mm or less, <em>or</em> take two steps back <em>or</em> close the aperture two stops. Problem solved.</p> <p>Heck, if I had to shoot my 50mm, which is razor sharp, at point blank range wide open, it would also produce a soft image. Use the lens in the correct fashion and you shouldn't find anything to complain about. Good luck!</p> <blockquote> <p>Even on an undemanding D700, the VR2 is visibly sharper in close range shots at wide apertures...</p> </blockquote> <p>Do note the D lens has more magnification than the VRii. If you zoom out a bit with the D lens, to match the field of view of the VRii, you get the same sharpness.<br /> </p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>For me, an urban environment suggests the use of wide angle lenses, whereas mountains often suggest longer lenses to compress distances and make them more imposing. Weddings are mid-range to long.</p> </blockquote> <p>All of the above mountain pics were shot wide. I found no use for a tele in that particular setting.</p> <blockquote> <p><br /> For general travel, urban and landscapes, a 20-35 zoom covers the wide end, and a 50 is probably the most used for landscapes. I'd toss in a medium tele (e.g., 90) for long shots.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not sure how useful a fixed 85-90mm is outdoors? 85-90mm isn't that long either.</p> <blockquote> <p>And yet, and yet... I'm going to put a spanner in the works (in true photonet fashion) and say it's not the lenses, it's the camera. The D700 is a full-frame DSLR that weighs over 2 pounds, and with two chunky primes it's quite a bagful to carry round.<br /> <br />Given that the requirement is for a fairly small focal length range, and the intention is ultimately to print less than A4 size, this kit seems like overkill. I would suggest the Panasonic Lumix LX100, or if he is a committed Nikonista, the Coolpix A or the Coolpix P330. The A has a large sensor but no zoom, the P330 has a useful zoom range but small sensor. (Hence the LX100 getting my top spot.)</p> </blockquote> <p>Not sure if I can accomplish the same with a compact camera. Do they shoot RAW, do they allow filter use (all of the above were shot with a polarizer), do they have <em>easy</em> access to metering, iso, shutter, aperture...? <br /> How fast does diffraction occur with these small sensors? <br />How clean are the images at mid to high ISO (not all pics happen in full sunlight)? <br />How little DoF do they allow? <br /> Here are some other travel pics I took... Could a compact accomplish this too?<br /> <img src="https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/250268_10150403803059762_5519198_n.jpg?oh=3867f3589ad5a6c8f2d81347c43f8e3f&oe=56C0F6B3" alt="" width="720" height="526" /></p> <p><img src="https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/254625_10150403798559762_5748933_n.jpg?oh=9b7ddee690d1e9ae27341e4ebe023806&oe=56F928B3" alt="" width="519" height="720" /></p> <p><img src="https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/284946_10150403798034762_3232919_n.jpg?oh=96d8d20e814eb706d16082a3930e08d0&oe=56CE0821" alt="" width="720" height="703" /></p> <p><img src="https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/205623_10151724407189762_489642675_n.jpg?oh=5d5f92c7c0d5c7df2656f8e0d68bd72b&oe=56F77449" alt="" width="960" height="640" /></p> <p><img src="https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/398117_10151724407554762_482054202_n.jpg?oh=05281586661beb4ff394db31ae02220e&oe=56C0E231" alt="" width="960" height="640" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>When blending exposures, does it matter if the difference in exposures is divided equally?</p> <p>Does it matter in which order you blend the shots?</p> <p>Does it matter if the number of exposures is odd or even?</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>There's a new 45mm 1.8 from Tamron, with VR and weather seal. </p> </blockquote> <p>Cool, but way too expensive for what it is.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>BTW, are you sure you want a Flash site? They don't work with mobile devices, so you'd be missing out on a lot of page hits.</p> </blockquote> <p>True, that's why I'm starting a new site :)</p> <blockquote> <p>Getting back to the original question, if I HAD to go with primes, I'd want 24mm, 50mm (actually I'd prefer 40mm if it existed. I'm using that equivalent f.o.v. on µ43 and adore it) and then a long zoom. I find 85mm, for myself, less useless than I wish I did, and like 100 - 200mm lengths a LOT... and you already have the zoom you love.</p> </blockquote> <p>True again. Shame nikon failed to provide an update to the 45mm f/2.8 (make it f/1.8) and 105mm f/1.8.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I've seen you ask a few questions here lately.<br /> I have to ask. Are you the only wedding photographer not just using a 24-70 f2.8 zoom? Primes are nice, but for an event like that...?</p> </blockquote> <p>I've just registered and am starting a few discussions.</p> <p>While I do appreciate a good tele zoom, I get by with two primes in the wide to medium range.<br /> Most important aspect of reportage is 'knowing where to stand'. Once you learn that, using a prime or two is no big deal. In fact, it simplifies my work.</p> <p>I'm in the process of building a new site. <a href="http://inboxgm.wix.com/lumicino">You can see here</a> what I achieve with these older d lenses. Mind you, I'm not a full time pro, just a freelance shooting a couple of weddings in my spare time.</p> <p>The biggest share of wedding pics are shot with a simple 50. I do use a zoom but not a medium zoom, rather an 80-200/2.8 which is excellent. No need for VR since I'm shooting mostly 1/125-250".<br /> I do own other zooms: a 28-70/2.8 which I am selling in mint condition. It's just more than I need.<br /> And a 20-35/2.8 which is very nice but for a wedding I have enough with a 24 prime.</p> <p>Said that, I believe the medium zoom is overrated. I'm not sure how many weddings you have shot but that's what my experience has taught me :)<br /> Another half truth I often hear is that <em>pro's must own the best gear</em>. No it's not. Pro's use the cheapest gear that delivers appropriate results so that they keep more cash in their pockets rather than investing in excessive gear.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I was quite surprised to learn that a search for these lenses didn't provide any significiant results, given the fact that this was and is a popular set for those who want to cover a <em>useful range</em> in a <em>relatively fast</em>, <em>portable and affordable</em> package. </p> <p>Personally, I'm thinking of adding a 85mm f1.8 d to the 24mm f2.8 d, 50mm f1.8 d for the times I don't want to carry the 80-200mm f2.8 d but wonder if 85mm is a worthy companion to the 50mm (105mm and 135mm AF primes are too big and too expensive to justify them).</p> <p>What is your experience with such a 24-50-85 set ?<br> Has the 1.8 G series created a revival?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Anyone tried this lens? How does it perform on a d700 or d3s ?</p> <p>If performance is OK, this is a hidden jewel. Constant f/4, small and light, and dirt cheap!</p> <p>Basically, I'm looking for a lightweight and cheap telephoto with good - not stellar - performance for casual use when I don't want to carry my f/2.8 zoom. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Actually, who does use a 14mm and 50mm lens (or for that matter a 14-24mm and 50mm) ?</p> <p> </p>

<p>A few years back I went mountain hiking with a 20 and 35mm prime. I loved the light weight combo. There's something that makes me take better pictures when i keep things simple. I also had a 50 and 85 which didn't see much use (perhaps because of the setting?).</p> <p>Today I don't have those lenses anymore. I got a 20-35mm zoom instead of the primes, kept the 50 and replaced the 85 by a tele zoom.</p> <p>Since the 50 delivers so many wedding pics, I'm wondering if I would do well with a 24mm and 50mm prime combo instead of the 20-35mm zoom.</p> <p>The pics taken below are 35, 35, 20, 20.</p> <p><img src="https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/v/t1.0-9/998083_10152190489609762_1525693496_n.jpg?oh=ca626ae289bf3fa23f4ef80a2d70d83d&oe=56CDA53C" alt="" width="960" height="639" /><br /> <img src="https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-9/1011450_10152190489419762_592829660_n.jpg?oh=5f0b6cb014587b83ad61ebb7e6c81326&oe=56BB5CA1" alt="" width="960" height="640" /><br /> <img src="https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-9/1004679_10152190489599762_1193634185_n.jpg?oh=8e776a48e36e894f8d68aad8aa6fbd6d&oe=56CB3E12" alt="" /><br /> <img src="https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1176404_10152190489779762_454383372_n.jpg?oh=a44bbcafb0b9ce00af2d396b41023d47&oe=56D0A9F8" alt="" width="960" height="540" /></p>

<p>I'm aware that cropping throws away pixels but with 6 MP you can still print A4 size. Most holiday pics don't get printed to this size anyway.</p> <blockquote> <p><br /> Take the 80/20 approach. Which FL would YOU use 80% of the time - 35mm or 50mm?</p> </blockquote> <p>I took a look at a recent wedding I delivered. Seems well balanced.<br /> The 50 sees the most use. When shooting landscapes instead of people, the results might be different, who knows.</p> <table width="491" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><colgroup><col width="107" /> <col span="4" width="64" /> <col width="128" /> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr> <td width="107" height="20">20mm</td> <td align="right" width="64">48</td> <td align="right" width="64">9%</td> <td align="right" width="64">10%</td> <td width="64"> </td> <td width="128"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="20">24mm</td> <td align="right">33</td> <td align="right">6%</td> <td align="right">5%</td> <td> </td> <td>30% wide</td> </tr> <tr> <td height="20">28-35mm</td> <td align="right">74</td> <td align="right">13%</td> <td align="right">15%</td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="20">50mm</td> <td align="right">233</td> <td align="right">42%</td> <td align="right">40%</td> <td> </td> <td>40% medium</td> </tr> <tr> <td height="20">80-105mm</td> <td align="right">94</td> <td align="right">17%</td> <td align="right">15%</td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="20">135mm</td> <td align="right">48</td> <td align="right">9%</td> <td align="right">10%</td> <td> </td> <td>30% tele</td> </tr> <tr> <td height="20">200mm</td> <td align="right">31</td> <td align="right">6%</td> <td align="right">5%</td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td height="19">total</td> <td align="right">561</td> <td> </td> <td align="right">100%</td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

<blockquote> <p>So why not take the 20-35 zoom and the 50?</p> </blockquote> <p>Because 35 & 50 are too close. Even though there's a clear visual difference, I often don't feel like a lens change is in order.<br /> If carrying 35 & 50, I just leave one on the camera and not bother with the other.</p> <p>This one was recently taken at 35mm. Even though it was too short and I couldn't get closer, I simply cropped it to accommodate a 50.</p> <p><img src="https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/t31.0-8/12028848_10154398464739762_3190845939166052286_o.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="675" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>All good answers, thanks everyone!</p> <blockquote> <p>I like the huge difference, myself, and often carry only a 24 and 50. </p> </blockquote> <p>What are you shooting with these two? Don't you ever miss a 35 ?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>I'm leaving for travel with a nikon d700 and wonder which of these two sets to take.</p> <ul> <li><strong>Either 20 + 35mm</strong> (for instance a zoom 20-35/2.8 d)</li> <li><strong>Or 24 + 50mm</strong> (for instance two primes 24/2.8d + 50/1.4d)</li> </ul> <p>Ignoring the larger aperture of the 50 (I don't shoot this lens wide open), which distribution of focal length makes more sense?</p> <p>PS: I really don't feel like taking 20/24 + 35 + 50...</p>

<p>Which focal length sits better between 14mm and 50mm FX : 24 or 28 ?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Can you fit a used d700 in your budget?</p> <p>A 24mm 2.8 D + 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 D + 80-200mm 2.8 D is what I use for events. I'm sure it gives better results than a new DX kit. You get clean images till iso 3200, bigger viewfinder, shallower dof... </p> <p>Also, where's your lighting? You need at least a powerful flash for shooting indoors. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I'd hate to miss either focal length; plus, none of these are heavy or big.</p> </blockquote> <p>It's not so much a question of physical encumbrance because both 35 and 50 are small lenses, like you mention.<br /> It's rather a question of 'mental' encumbrance. I don't like too many options, I don't like burdening myself deciding between 35 or 50. The gap seems too small to consider both, don't you think.</p> <blockquote> <p>So, carrying both isn't a big burden, if you're OK with a 80-200 f/2.8 already.</p> </blockquote> <p>The tele zoom is a class apart. A 105mm, 135mm or 180mm isn't much smaller than a 80-200mm, nor is it much cheaper if at all. I wouldn't gain anything by using a tele prime instead.<br /> <br /> The difference between these and a tele zoom isn't as substantial as the difference between the D primes in the 20-85mm range and wide / medium zooms like this picture illustrates.<br /> .<br /> <img src="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBbmWfAi9nJLiNv8yyCHITPh3NFYyXh-1slb0bGvMxU17RW_He" alt="" width="257" height="196" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>So 24/2.8 + 50/1.4 + 80-200/2.8 it is.</p> <p>Anyone use this set?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the replies. <br /> So the majority prefers 35 over 50.</p> <p><br /> I like 35 for scenics, but for people or products, the 50 is better.<br /> Because of the proximity of 35-50, I'm loath to carry both though.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I use the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 between a Nikon 24mm f/2 and a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 on an FX body.</p> </blockquote> <p>And, what do you think? Would you rather have a 50 ?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>I have a 24mm d and 80-200mm d, both f2.8 on a d700 body. Both work well and I'm looking for something in between.<br /> Either<strong> 35mm d f2 or 50mm d f1.4</strong>.</p> <p>I do not want to carry both and I do not want a zoom either. Ignoring the difference in aperture (which is insignificant to me), which focal length fits better inbetween 24mm and 80mm: 35 or 50 ?</p> <p>PS: I shoot landscapes, travel, family, portraits and the occasional wedding. </p>