If I were that close Kyosh I would probably use a DX body as well (maybe I am wrong on how close you are but seems like you might wear your own protective gear or have a hay bale with your name on it).
Line of pro 2.8 zooms for DX?
(127 posts) (22 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I was reading an article on business management practices and surviving the current economic situation. The article was recounting a pseudo open table discussion with execs/owners, out of work employees. The author's/leader of the panel always came back to a theme of "adaptability" and being WILLING to adapt to the current situation and if needed, change the way you work to fit the current environment as the past is gone. I found it interesting how many said they did, but just changed the terminology they used. They tried and even forced their past tools onto the situation and couldn't figure out why they were failing or were so frustrated that nothing worked. The simple fact was, the world that existed for them no longer found the tools viable.
Just thought it was interesting.
Posted 1 year ago # -
scoobysmak said:
If I were that close Kyosh I would probably use a DX body as well (maybe I am wrong on how close you are but seems like you might wear your own protective gear or have a hay bale with your name on it).I use Dx bodies merely because I havent wrangled the funds for a fx up until now.
I don't usually use protective gear. One just has to know the sport and risks involved. I am actually pretty close to the action often 2-4feet. I Often wear an orange vest though and familarize myself with a spot before pulling out the superclose shots...
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared wrote of another forum member:
>Or are you just being a Nikon Snob. I borrowed a Sigma 50-150 before I got my 70-200, and it is a great lens and it fits that odd range.
Hi
I don't often shoot sports action, generally do landscapes and people. But in late January I shoot some young Korean cyclists who were competing at the Australian National TrackCycling championships which were held at an indoor velodrome, the SuperDrome, in Adelaide, Australia.
I tried to hire a Nikon 70-200/f2.8 to use with my D3100, but they were all out so I hired a Sigma 70-200mm/2.8 (EX DG APOMacro HSM II) which is an FX lens, and very suitable for DX bodies. (This is not the current optically stabilised version, but the previous offering which is now discontinued.)
It was a four day meet and by the end of the third day I was "almost" on top of my assignment, where getting the panning right was an important part of the gig. The venue had low available light during the day sessions and uneven, mixed, mainly sodium light in the night sessions.
All I can say is that the Sigma lens on this DX body (effectively 105-300 in 35 EFL) gave me results that were quite unexpectedly competent, especially to my self-critical eye and also the opinion of a few photographer pals.
Secondhand FX lenses on DX bodies are a cost-effective way to get your needs met, here a fast telephoto zoom, relatively cheaply. I've seen this Sigma lens for sale s/h at a price around A$500, US$550.
Michael
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68039985@N08/6845194433/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Posted 1 year ago # -
kyoshinikon said:
I don't see the need as a tele f2.8 will just weigh, and possibly, cost the same as a fx lens.Well, to each his/her own. As soon as I receive my Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX lens, I'll post a picture of the two, side-by-side:
1. Nikon D7000 + Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX (i.e., 70-200mm f/2.8 "DX equivalent"); $530 USD, if purchased new.
2. Nikon D3s + AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II; $2,397 USD, if purchased new.I should receive the Tokina tomorrow.
[Nice motocross shot, by the way!]
Posted 1 year ago # -
scoobysmak said:
In reality there are times that a 24-70 or 70-200 is not the range I want to be at. You have sporting events like wrestling that you might be really close to the action or you could be at a soccer game where you wish you had a 200-400. From baseball to basketball and with so many different styles people shoot, someone is going to wish for a diffent zoom range. It has adjusted around 24-35 and 70-85 on each end it seems for the shorter zoom and almost stayed about the same 70-200 on the long end.I actually never liked the 24-70mm range. To me, 70mm is too short. Although almost every pro photographer I know uses the 24-70mm/70-200mm f/2.8 pair to cover events, I'm thinking of going with the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VR instead. The 24-120mm will allow me to cover 90% of the event with a single lens. While the one-stop slower aperture is a bummer, at least the lens has VR, which is nice (yes, I know VR doesn't eliminate motion-blur due to subject movement).
scoobysmak said:
If you carried the 24-70 and the 70-200 on your DX cameras you will still cover all the ranges from 36 to 300. The only difference is the "split" where you pick up your other body.It's not the "split" that's the problem--it's the focal length on the wide end. I mentioned people with DX bodies buying the 24-70mm as a matter of course, whereas, if I only owned DX bodies (and didn't plan to move to FX anytime soon), that would be far from my first choice (my first choice would be the AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G DX). For most event shooting, the FOV of a 36mm-equivalent simply isn't wide enough.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well I just gave my opinion on the matter but doesn't mean I am right for everyones style or subject they want. Looking at your post, you would want to carry the 17-55 on one body and the 24-120 on the other. I just ask because for me this would be a strange combination but everyone has different needs (of course I know this does not include the lens you have on order).
Posted 1 year ago # -
scoobysmak said:
Well I just gave my opinion on the matter but doesn't mean I am right for everyones style or subject they want.Well, everyone has their opinions--nothing wrong with that! Everyone will have slightly different needs and/or preferences.
scoobysmak said:
Looking at your post, you would want to carry the 17-55 on one body and the 24-120 on the other. I just ask because for me this would be a strange combination but everyone has different needs (of course I know this does not include the lens you have on order).I think you misunderstood me. Actually, I'm not planning to mix DX and FX bodies for event coverage. As I've said before, the noise difference is too great (unless both are flash-fired). I'm basically building two, independent systems: DX and FX. The Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 completes my new "DX Trinity" system:
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX
AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G DX
Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX (70-200mm "DX-equivalent")My Nikon D7000-based "DX Trinity" system would be merely for casual picture-taking, or for when I'm traveling (i.e., anytime I don't want to be bothered with a full-frame set-up).
When covering events on paid gigs, I'm planning on getting the 24-120mm f/4.0 VR in lieu of getting a 24-70mm f/2.8 for my FX body. Until I acquire a second FX body, the 24-70mm/70-200mm pair won't work, since there's zero time to change lenses. With the 24-120mm f/4.0, I can cover most events with a single FX body, with a single lens. So, my planned FX event set-up would only be a single-body system:
Nikon D3s + AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VR
Nikon SB-800 w/Newton bracket + Quantum TurboIdeally, I would acquire a second FX body, and equip my system in the typical "pro" set-up:
Nikon D3s + AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G
Nikon D3s + AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR
Nikon SB-800 w/Newton + Nikon SB-800 w/Newton + Quantum Turbo 2x2Posted 1 year ago # -
I got my Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX lens yesterday, and so far, I'm pretty impressed. For $500, it's a pretty darn good lens. Good dampening on both the focus ring and zoom ring. "Pro-looking," metal-textured barrel. Looks tack-sharp, too, with no apparent AF issues.
I took my new, "70-200mm DX-equivalent," Tokina out this evening, and I really liked both its speed and range. The only problem is its lack of VR. Something with this range and speed, with stabilization, would be great. I just checked every available lens on B+H, and the discontinued Tokina and Sigma models are the only two f/2.8 zooms that are even close to this range (yet, neither model came with stabilization). Too bad Sigma's release of their OS version of the 50-150mm f/2.8 HSX lens is delayed yet again. But of course, if that lens ever comes out, it'll be a lot more than $500. Plus, I just read, it would be nearly as big as their 70-200mm f/2.8 FX zoom (which kinda defeats the whole purpose of a "DX zoom").
Posted 1 year ago # -
100% crop; Nikon D7000; Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX @ 135mm; ISO: 500; f/2.8 @ 1/250th.Posted 1 year ago # -
I have to admit, previous to this purchase, I was a "Nikon snob," buying Nikkor glass exclusively (except for the single Tokina DX ultra-wide I bought in 2010, primarily due to numerous recommendations right here on NR). Now, I'm going to take a serious look at Tokina and Sigma's other offerings . . . I would love to have a 300mm f/2.8 someday, at a less-than-Nikkor price.
Posted 1 year ago # -
studio460: I am glad to hear the "70-200 DX eqivalent" idea is working out. Great image. I have some questions about it though: 1. Is there a purple fringe on the eyebrow? 2. Why is the image so unsaturated?
After I ordered a D800 I gave up on the idea of finding a "DX eqivalent" to my 80-200 2.8 because I figured I would just use the 80-200 on the D800 to get the range I want. However, your positive experience interests me in the idea again and I will keep searching for the Tokina or Sigma used. I had found a Sigma that looked good but when the owner sent me some photos I could detect the same focus plane shift from a misaligned element as was pointed out in one of the reviews so I passed on that lens. I am most interested in your experience.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Tokina yes, Sigma no. Check Ebay for Sigma to see lots of faulty lenses.
Posted 1 year ago # -
studio460 said:
. . . I would love to have a 300mm f/2.8 someday, at a less-than-Nikkor price.Just buy a used one online. Shouldn't have to shell out more than $3000 or so.
studio460 said:
I actually never liked the 24-70mm range. To me, 70mm is too short. Although almost every pro photographer I know uses the 24-70mm/70-200mm f/2.8 pair to cover events,I have a feeling that with cameras like the D800 coming out that people with an eye for quality over focal range will see the advantages of using the exotic primes in place of the less capable zooms that you mentioned. Personally, I'd be a lot happier at an event with an 85mm f1.4 and a 200mm f2 instead of the two "trinity" lenses. With 36MP it'll be a breeze to crop similarly to what you'd accomplish using a zoom, and more importantly you'd have an easier time avoiding your lenses being out-resolved by the cameras sensor. Obviously not the cheapest route to go, but if overall image quality is your objective than you really don't have a better option.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes, something about the D800 that has not been discussed is how it will offer lots more "zoom by cropping" options.
Posted 1 year ago # -
SquamishPhoto said:
Personally, I'd be a lot happier at an event with an 85mm f1.4 and a 200mm f2 instead of the two "trinity" lenses.I do prefer primes, and had never previously had any interest in fast zooms. However, at the events I'm planning to cover (typically, red carpet arrivals), you're restricted to a specific space, bordered by steel barricades, and don't have any freedom to move to accommodate your field of view. You basically need the 24mm at the wide end to cover full-length verticals (they always want to see the dress), and group shots at close range.
True, I would be happier with two FX bodies: one with a 24mm f/1.4, and the other with the 85mm f/1.4 (both of which I already own), but unfortunately it's not always practical.
Posted 1 year ago # -
SquamishPhoto said:
Just buy a used one online. Shouldn't have to shell out more than $3000 or so.Both, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom, and fixed-length, Sigma 300mm f/2.8 sell for about the same price. Plus, the 300mm fixed-length lens isn't even optically stabilized. I wonder why one would opt for the unstabilized prime instead of the zoom of same length and aperture?
Posted 1 year ago # -
donaldejose said:
studio460: I am glad to hear the "70-200 DX eqivalent" idea is working out. Great image. I have some questions about it though: 1. Is there a purple fringe on the eyebrow? 2. Why is the image so unsaturated?Thanks, Donald--yes, I really enjoyed using it last night for the first time. That image in particular was an unusual one. My shutter just happened to catch another photographer's strobe, and gave an interesting high-key look to the image. The odd fringing, I think, is due to the strong reflected light from the strobe, off of the brightly colored background, although I'm not really sure myself. The normally exposed frames look fine, and don't exhibit any similar artifacts. Optically, the lens is a steal for $500, in my opinion. Congrats on the D800!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ok. I will start looking for one again.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Good luck, Donald! I'm sure you'll find one. There was one "mint" condition Tokina I found on Ebay for $600, but I bought the one from Adorama so I wouldn't have any return issues. Yes, I do wish it were longer, and was very close to getting the Sigma instead; however, the negative reports, and your recent post, still make me wary of this lens (although, I'm sure there are some good version II-copies out there).
However, the Sigma's added HSM focusing would be nice--the Tokina's screw-drive AF is a bit pokey, and hunts in low-light at times. That feature alone may tip the scale in Sigma's favor (in addition to its added millimeters), providing you can find a good copy. Also, not having stabilization is a significant handicap for a lens this long, forcing me to up my ISO to eliminate camera shake. But, unfortunately, there are simply no other options.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Quick Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 DX test with an on-camera SB-400 flash:
Nikon D7000; Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 @ 105mm ISO: 100; f/2.8 @ 1/250th; tripod; in-camera JPG (unedited, except for re-size).
Subject-to-camera distance: 5.5 feet.
100% crop (unedited).Although I didn't post examples, the lens seems similarly sharp at both 135mm and 50mm @ f/2.8 as well. Note that, even on DX, the depth-of-field is razor-thin at close-focus distances, from the mid- to long-telephoto range of the lens. At f/2.8, I had trouble keeping both eyes sharp at 105mm.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Sure seems sharp enough.
Posted 1 year ago # -
studio460 said:
I wonder why one would opt for the unstabilized prime instead of the zoom of same length and aperture?Like I said above, looking at their reputation on here and from the number of faulty lenses on eBay, Sigma seem fragile but there is less to go wrong on a prime.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@ studio460 - good examples. I love Tokina glass and if their VR works well and they release more, I will buy them. I have a 17mm, 12-24, 28-70, 300mm f2.8, and they all are built like tanks, take a real beating and are sharp. For DX, you can't get the same build quality from anyone else. Interestingly, I saw they just discontinued their 16-50mm 2.8 lens.
spraynpray said:
Like I said above, looking at their reputation on here and from the number of faulty lenses on eBay, Sigma seem fragile but there is less to go wrong on a prime.If you stick to Sigma's EX line (their Pro line) the lenses are very, very good. I have rarely ever seen advertised "faulty Sigma lens" on eBay. There are so many mainly due to natural progression. Store arranged "kits" will have the cheapest Sigma or Tamron lens and when people want to update their kit, they sell it. First time buyers rarely know that lenses cost equal or more than the camera body. They learn that one later.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"The Sigma APO 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM lens should start shipping this Spring." NR
Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/#ixzz1mEUAetNj
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
