Michael DeRose said:
hmm, after reading all this, i have to add, i found the 50mm to be a bit too soft when i tested it out on my d7000 at my local camera shop.
Which 50mm, Michael? The new AF-S 50mm f/1.4G?
D7000 - Which of the Holy Trinity would you take when you hang out with friends?
(120 posts) (23 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
no the 50mm f1.8. I did try the 1.4 out and liked it a great deal. Sadly, the store was out of stock, which i guess is good, because i have a ton of other things to buy before that. : )
Posted 2 years ago # -
If US/Canada got limited edition box set for holy primes i'd get it right away ]:
I'm thinking 16-35 because it's wide enough for walk around, as well as good mid coverage without having to pull out my 35 until low light, on Dx, and it's very usable on a FX unlike ultra wide, less coverage, but faster, 14-24 where that'll be way to wide on the FX for me :P
I'm considering the 16-35 and 50mm f/1.4G together for my D7k. Unsure if I should get them new or used. New = ~1000 for 16-35, and ~470 for 50 ... I don't know if I can trust them though. @_@
Does it sound like a plan? :D
I don't think I'm ready to use 24 prime cuz I'm still just an amateur.
Posted 2 years ago # -
soshigee said:
I'm thinking 16-35 because it's wide enough for walk around, as well as good mid coverage without having to pull out my 35 until low light . . .I'm considering the 16-35 and 50mm f/1.4G together for my D7k. Does it sound like a plan?
Sounds good to me!
soshigee said:
I don't think I'm ready to use 24 prime cuz I'm still just an amateur.I wouldn't consider that a barrier to getting a lens that you want to explore. The new AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G is at the very top of my personal "most-wanted" list.
Posted 2 years ago # -
but would you consider yourself an amateur studio?
i think an almost beginner would be much better served with a 16-35 than a 24 1.4.
if you dont have any good glass i would think the 24 should wait for at least 2 or three other things. eg a standard and a short tele. i wouldn't even suggest my favourite 35 1.4 which is a lot closer to standard.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Michael DeRose said:
no the 50mm f1.8. I did try the 1.4 out and liked it a great deal. Sadly, the store was out of stock, which i guess is good, because i have a ton of other things to buy before that. : )Hmmm by most accounts the 1.8 is sharper than the other nikkor 50mm. Maybe you got a bad copy.
However I do very much prefer the images from the 1.4 G lens. The 50G is lower on my buy list cos I have the fabulous but old AIS version. the only things lacking on that old lens is the nano coating and an Auto Focus :-) otherwise I think the images form it is still the best!
Posted 2 years ago # -
So 50 1.4G is softer than a 50 1.8 o.o
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
Gareth said:
but would you consider yourself an amateur studio?i think an almost beginner would be much better served with a 16-35 than a 24 1.4.
if you dont have any good glass i would think the 24 should wait for at least 2 or three other things. eg a standard and a short tele. i wouldn't even suggest my favourite 35 1.4 which is a lot closer to standard.
Yes, I would tend to agree. But the 24mm f/1.4 is an exciting lens with unprecedented speed, and has a lot of creative potential. As I mentioned before, my first Nikon film set-up included only four primes: a 24, 35, 50, and 85. And as a result, I learned by seeing in specific focal lengths. Yes, the conventional wisdom would be to recommend the 35mm for beginning photographers, rather than the more exaggerated-perspective 24mm, but the 24mm may also have the potential to offer the beginner a more exacting lesson in composition, due to its exaggerated perspective.
Now, getting a $2,000 lens as your only lens, at the expense of other "essentials" may not be the most practical route for a beginning photographer. But, I also wouldn't discount its consideration out of hand simply because it's "too advanced." However, I would probably recommend a 24mm f/2.8 (or, 20mm), and a 35mm f/2.0 instead, for the beginning photographer (remember, I prefer primes over zooms for those still "learning" focal lengths).
What he's planning to buy, the 16-35 and the 50 f/1.4, also works.
Posted 2 years ago # -
However, the lens I'm trying for as of right now is a versatile zoom lens for the "comfort" of walk-around general use where I don't really have to run my brain to try to get the shot. Isn't that what a zoom is for? :P I found primes to be very 'uncomfortable' when I'm hanging out with friends, which I do alot, and like someone said, the main thing I should be focusing on is hanging out, not photography. Don't get me wrong; I'd really like the 24 1.4... However, that's pretty much breaking my bank as well as being stuck with a prime again, and I can't justify the price/performance ratio (for now).
Now, I did have some issues deciding on a wide zoom that covered a bit of the mid too and had a choice of: 14-24, 17-55 2.8 DX, and 16-35 f/4. While choosing, I had to bear in mind that I'd have to use these for nearly the same purpose on FX (that's IF I get one though). So, while the 14-24 would be pretty beneficial to have for my D7000, the moment it touches my FX, it becomes ultra-wide and I'd have to readjust how I shoot with that one. The 17-55 really caught my interest but I'd have to sell that next year when I get an FX, and I figured not many people would want to actually invest in such an expensive DX lens. There would be those who aren't willing to go FX, but I don't think finding those people willing to buy my lens would be an easy task... Then comes the 16-35. I've read it's an excellent wide zoom for FX, but haven't read much good reviews on its use on a DX. Some say I'd be better off saving my bank and using an 18-55 kit, which does nearly the same thing. Is that true?
I'm right back to where I started... aimlessly reading through recommendations, reviews, and pictures taken with ____ lenses on flickr.
With a wide zoom, I considered getting a 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8. But I've read that it's a little bit short on the DX for portraits, and I do have a 70-200 VRII for my portrait use. Some say that the 35 is good enough for general street walk-around stuff, and I should save my bank and just use my feet with those. The thing about that is, my logic is to use my legs and arms to set wide shots, while using the comfort of a zoom for the mid ranges for just fast snaps of friends in a funnny situation, no? Which is how I came to consider the 24-70. I know it's a bit weak on the 24mm side but I'd rather have the versatility and comfort over that problem. 24mm might be wide enough for what I shoot (mentioned in page 1) and I'm just walking in circles trying to find a wide zoom and what not when what I really actually need is sitting right infront of me: a mid range zoom.
One last thought. The chances of my upgrading to an FX when the new models come out is quite slim. I'm a college student with limited funds, and I don't think it's smart to carry around 2 bodies while being an amateur hobbyist. I'm probably not going to need two when going out with friends, and only going to be needing them when I go shoot concerts, which isn't that very often. Therefore, logically, I would be better of taking the chance that I would not upgrade to FX and go for the 17-55mm 2.8 DX, than getting the 24-70? I don't know if the 17-24 range is much help for what I shoot. I'd have to ask you guys for advice on this one :)
Can I have some opinion on my thoughts? Thanks ^.^
Posted 2 years ago # -
Testing123 said:
Speed don't come for free.After using all the 50's and now having the new AFS G, I have found it to be just as sharp if not sharper than either the 1.8 or 1.4. Personally I like the Bokeh better on the AFS since the "circles" are circular and not hexagon shaped. All three are very sharp lenses and perform great. Can't go wrong with any of them. I find it a great portrait lens.
@soshigee - It sounds like you have encountered the "My opinion is better to read than to actually evaluate the lens" sites where there are way too many interjections of opinion how a lens is to be used, rather than an objective review of what it's potential is.
You already have the 70-200mm which is a great lens and will be able to last you for many years and through an FX upgrade when you do. It sounds like you are moving towards a 17-55mm (whatever brand) and that sounds like a good choice for what you are looking for. With two lenses you cover pretty much everything. If you are not looking to upgrade in the next 6-12 months, don't worry about FX only.
This is what I ask myself when I'm looking at buying lenses.
Who or What is your subject?
When are you shooting? (Day/night, pleasure/work)
Where are you shooting? (Indoors/out, traveling/studio)
Why are you shooting X? (Paid/Fun, Art/capturing the moment with friends)
and How do you want it to look?With covering 17-200mm you can then look at the exif of your images and find which focal lengths you shoot the most. From that you can see if you should consider another lens or if 2.8 isn't fast enough.
All of us at one point in time have asked the same questions you have. Sometimes you just have to dive in and try what you think is right at that time.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@soshigee well, i guess the only thing i can say to help you decide on which lens to get, is to check out pixel-peeper.com . MAKE SURE TO HAVE THE DASH MARK!!! But the site is full of photographs taken with all different bodies and lenses.
also @hearty that very well could be. It was the stores demo lens. Im sure its been used a great deal. When the time comes, ill likely test it out again.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@soshigee
I think you have the same problem a lot of mid-range photographers have. By mid-range, I mean not new to the game, but not full-time pro either.
The advice I can give isn't really advice so much as the thought process I followed to solve similar problems. The value you take from it may vary, etc. etc.
I'm a nerd. Give me a list of options, especially tied to technical gear, and I will go under and not come up for air until I know far more facts and figures than is healthy. I've learned this process does not solve my problems when planning purchases, but is handy to go through as a check-and-balance system after a decision is made.
Instead, I start with a simple question, the answer to which has changed a few times since I bought my first DSLR:
How far am I going to take my photography?
The answer began as "I want a camera" and has evolved to "as far as I can no matter what". The shift is due to the growing enjoyment I get out of it as I do more shooting.
The change is apparent through my lens choices. When I bought my camera, the logical choice was the 18-200mm vrII. I am lazy, I thought, and it sounds like the perfect solution for the lazy photographer. Now it sits in my lighting bag, and I haven't used it for a long time.
At risk of this getting too long and boring - If you're not going to get a FX body, because what you do today is what you'll be doing five years from now and beyond and DX meets your needs, then focus on building a good DX kit. Get the 17-55 2.8 DX, shoot it and love it.
But if there's indication you'll grow your abilities and focus (I would argue that if you've dropped the cash on a 70-200mm vrII, this is probably the case), then buy for the future and pay whatever you can afford now. Treat whatever lens you buy as a tool, one of many in your kit, and don't sweat how it won't 'do everything' because that kit will change over time. It might mean buying the super cheap 18-55 kit lens and offloading it to a friend when you've worked and saved for the trinity, or the 1.4s, or whatever. It might mean buying the 24-70mm and working it for years.
At least the decision will be made from the proper perspective, which for me, is usually the real challenge.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Thank you guys for your great tips. I think I gotta take my time and think this through as well as trying out the lenses myself.
Yes, I'm willing to take it further than just a hobby; however, I don't intend to become a full-time professional. I usually take concert and I'm able to sell the pics because I have backstage and front-line pass to most of them, which most others don't. (Korean pop-star concerts lol)
I'm pretty much stuck in between staying with DX and maybe upgrading to fX in the future. I'm not entirely 100% sure if I'm going to do the upgrade though... I just hate the hassle of selling used items...
A pro told me that pros use ultra-wide, and then tele zooms. For mid range they make it up with a prime. Now, I don't think I should go this route because of the fact that I won't be shooting special wide angle shots as often. I tend to take mid-range stuff alot more.
@Tao
Who or What is your subject? Friends, random things on the street?
When are you shooting? (Day/night, pleasure/work) Day, pleasure
Where are you shooting? (Indoors/out, traveling/studio) both, traveling
Why are you shooting X? (Paid/Fun, Art/capturing the moment with friends) Fun, both
and How do you want it to look? Uhh.. super good? :PI have a slight interest in upgrading to FX later on... I guess that leaves me with 14-24, 16-35, and 24-70 for zooms. 14-24 won't help me much. 35 is a little too short for walk-around, even on DX, non? I guess I don't have any problems with the 24-70. However, when the time comes, I'm going to add the 50 prime to my kit. :| Hmm... What I'm thinking is the 16 is a bit too wide for what I shoot. I'm seeing mostly landscape for the 16 end. I don't think I have the time or money to go to places to shoot landscape. Sure I might snap a couple when I go on vacation but that'll probably be it.
Also, I see that the trinity lenses outperforms the 16-35 unless it's stopped down to f/8+ ?
I guess it's the 24-70 for me.
Tao, what are your thoughts?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Soshi:
When you look back at your concert shots, what focal length does the EXIF data tell you they were shot around? I'm thinking that would tell you whether you could get away with a prime or two for some or all of your work. Say 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 or f1.8. Obviously if they were shot over a range of focal lengths that helps you make the decision what zoom to get.
Regs,
Posted 2 years ago # -
Most were at around from 30-60, sometimes 11-14, when I do get front passes, and 150-200 when it's out of their control to give me backstage front line pass..>_<
Yes, I do borrow lenses when I get press pass. :]
Here's an example of what the concerts I go to look like:
haha, talk about standing out of the crowd.
and when I'm not so close...
http://jerrybrice.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/photo-1.jpeg
i'll leave it up to you to figure out what "not so close" is in that last picture.
Well actually it's not that bad. I sit around where the red light reflecting off the crowd infront of the main stage ends. When I'm close, I actually have a 'press pass' and I get to move along the side of the stage.
As for the actual pictures I took, I'm not allowed to distribute them ><;;
Posted 2 years ago # -
soshigee said:
So 50 1.4G is softer than a 50 1.8 o.oyeah but although the 1.8 is sharp the bokeh is not to my liking. some people find it acceptable but on DX the 50 becomes a portrait lens and bokeh is important for portraits.
I think for your stated uses a 18-55 is good but since you like good IQ and stage events I would say get a F2.8 lens with VR/VC/OS also as you are on a budget I would still say go 3rd party ie the tamron or sigma 17-50VC/OS these will give you all the features you need. ie excellent IQ, VR, Low light and a general zoom range.
the 17-24 range of a normal zoom like the 17-50, is a great range when horsing around with friends. 24-70 is an amazing lens on DX for portraits and stage shows, I use my old 35-70 for that and I don't miss the wide end much in those scenarios. what I do miss is the lack of VR.
I recently "discovered" K-POP.. very interesting and was totally engrossed for a while. but after a while I find that most are so "manufactured", although I still dont mind listening to some when I am in the mood for fluffy and sweet with a nice dollop of corny ;-) .
Posted 2 years ago # -
So you're suggesting me something wider like a 17 to a regular mid-ish range like 50-55. :o that's like a 17-55 DX LOOL
Are you sure that 24-70 isn't really capable of horsing around too? :P (i don't care how heavy it is hehe)haha kpop yeah. it's like... factory-made haha. but I love the individuals for their talent, hard-work, and dedication. plus i get $$ for taking pictures of bands I love. haha
Posted 2 years ago # -
Right then, that's sorted - you need a 11-200 f2.8 zoom.....
WOW! I can see why this is on 4 pages already. Well, If it were me - and I am on a low budget too - I think I would get a used 18-55 in the cheap kit lens range (which isn't really fast enough I know), a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and borrow somebody's 70-200 f2.8 until you can afford to buy one. The Tokina is the keeper there.
Good luck!
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
spraynpray said:
Right then, that's sorted - you need a 11-200 f2.8 zoom.....WOW! I can see why this is on 4 pages already. Well, If it were me - and I am on a low budget too - I think I would get a used 18-55 in the cheap kit lens range (which isn't really fast enough I know), a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and borrow somebody's 70-200 f2.8 until you can afford to buy one. The Tokina is the keeper there.
Good luck!
My budget is around 2500 dollars for 1 or 2 new lenses. I already have the 70-200 VRII actually. :P
The Tokina 11-16 costs around 600. I still don't think I should buy DX lenses... I mean, I don't use them as much, and to use 600 on a lens I won't be using much of is kind of a waste... I only use around 11-16 focal length like maybe around 2-4 times per concert. One to get the shot of the whole stadium, and some when I can't move back at all.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Budget of $2500?!? Your kidding me about a small budget! Do you already have an FX as well as the D7000 or are you just expecting to get one?
So OK then, analyse the dispersion of your pics over the range of focal lengths, discount those you can get with the 70-200, and wah-la - you have your lens requirement prioritised by numbers of shots over the ranges of the lenses you are considering. With that budget, you haven't got any worries.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't have an FX yet. I'm thinking of getting one when the new ones release next year
Uhh... funny thing is, my shots are mostly 11-15 and 30-60 o.o ultrawide PLUS mid. haha
Posted 2 years ago # -
soshigee said:
With a wide zoom, I considered getting a 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8. But I've read that it's a little bit short on the DX for portraits, and I do have a 70-200 VRII for my portrait use.The 50mm shoots pretty nice on DX as a 75mm-equivalent. You could get the 85mm f/1.8, but you already have the 70-200.
soshigee said:
One last thought. The chances of my upgrading to an FX when the new models come out is quite slim . . . Therefore, logically, I would be better of taking the chance that I would not upgrade to FX and go for the 17-55mm 2.8 DX, than getting the 24-70? I don't know if the 17-24 range is much help for what I shoot.You answered your own question. I think the 17-55 is perfect for your needs. A 17mm lens is still wide enough on a DX body, and with the kind of shooting you do, I think you need the speed of an f/2.8 lens. I also think the 17-55 is an ideal focal range for a walkaround as well. Plus, if you keep shooting DX for a while, you'll also benefit from the the weight and bulk savings of a DX lens, compared with any other f/2.8 wide FX zoom, which is going to be big and heavy.
I would recommend getting both the 17-55 f/2.8, and a 50 f/1.4. You'll then have three fast lenses, allowing you to shoot almost anywhere, and among those three lenses, you'll also have pretty decent field-of-view coverage.
Posted 2 years ago # -
heartyfisher said:
I recently "discovered" K-POP.. very interesting and was totally engrossed for a while. but after a while I find that most are so "manufactured", although I still dont mind listening to some when I am in the mood for fluffy and sweet with a nice dollop of corny.It's not about the music, hearty . . . it's about hot Asian chicks in miniskirts!
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
