where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Everything is in the title.
Who prefers which setup ? Why ?
If you are shooting with 2 bodies, which setup do you prefer for what type of shooting ?
The respective advantages of both setups are obvious (both are about the same price):
2 primes: faster (1.4 vs 2.8), lighter, smaller
2 zooms: convenience, more reach (200mm)
What are your experiences/thoughts ?
2 primes. They will take better pictures in every way. I'll gladly take quality over convenience any day, but Im rarely in a position where im constrained to the point of wanting a zoom.
24mm + 85mm + 70-200.
I tend to say primes for prepared shots (best quality, time to change lenses), and zooms for PJ-style (events, weddings) because you don't prepare the shots and there is no time to change lenses. If you can't move around, what do you do without the reach of the zoom ? But if there is not enough light and you can't you flash, what do you do without 1.4?
Who would chose 2 primes over 2 zooms for weddings ?
As spraynpray suggests, an intelligent mix of primes + zoom might be the best solution. Start with the zoom, change for the prime when there is not enough light.
Body A: 24mm
Body B: 70-200
85/1.4 in the pocket in case the 70-200 is not fast enough.
spraynpray said:
24mm + 85mm + 70-200.
Hey that's cheating! ;-)
I use those two zooms on 2 bodies 80% of the time. If I need something wider than 24mm I have the 14-24 2.8. For me it's zooms all the way, as I rarely have the time or opportunity to move location or change lenses (hense 2 bodies).
the issue is not having a tele.
i can use my 35 1.4 instead of a 24-70, and I do.
I can use my 105 instead of my 70-200, but rarely do. if i'm shooting tele, i get out my 300,2.8, which is "bokehlicious"
by the way, "boke" is an insult in japanese. lol how we use it in english.
All depends on the situation. I don't shoot weddings, fill in on some receptions which I only shoot primes due to the lighting. For everything else, I'm always fighting this - I love primes (mainly for size) but most times Zooms are indispensable. Like spraynpray, (ON dx) I shoot 35mm, 85mm, 70-200mm the most. I find needing the compression and narrowing of the 70-200mm too much to leave it at home.
I never lever home with out my 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 ("bokehlicious" too). Thus, those would be my picks. For those incidences where light is an issue...my 35 1.8 or 50 1.4 come into play. Moreover, one can buy both and still have plenty of cash left over when compared to either the 24 1.4 of the 85 1.4. As for wide angle shots, I'm on the same boat as SkintBrit...14-24 2.8 is ready for action.
Cheers...
Even in DX the 70-200 at 2.8 has a very narrow DOF. I Would not like to use a 85 at 1.4 on a FF close up (eyes in focus but nose out of focus) - I would use a flash.
1.4 is for DOF control not for "no light".
Maybe I just dont know what Im talking about
A. Personal work w/one FX body: 24mm/85mm f/1.4G "fast-prime" pair.
B. Event coverage w/two FX bodies: 24-70mm/70-200mm f/2.8G "Trinity" pair.
X. [Event coverage w/one FX body: AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VR.]
A. Fast-prime pair:
I just happen to love these two, specific focal lengths, the 24mm and 85mm. They were my two, most-favorite focal lengths among the four lenses I owned (24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm) when I began taking photo classes in college way back when, using them on "full-frame" film bodies (FM/FE).
I not only like them for their reduced weight and bulk (not to mention, their incredible speed), I mainly like them for the discipline of vision they impart. I'm "forced" to think in 24mm frames. I'm "constrained" to compose using an 85mm field-of-view. I believe this encourages stronger, more effective pre-visualization in my photography. I like the discipline, the "rigidness." These "borders" define a specific "space" within which I must create.
These days, the 24mm/85mm pair are pretty much the only two lenses I use with my FX body for personal work. I did a paid portrait session a couple months ago, and the only lens I took out of my bag was the 85mm f/1.4G. In fact, I only have three lenses in my bag when I go out shooting for myself, the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G, being the third.
Plus, Nikon had never produced a 24mm f/1.4 lens before. This was literally a brand-new, potential vision for me. Never before had I been able to shoot that wide, with such little light, or such shallow depth-of-field. In addition, with the speed of these two primes, I can shoot damn-near anywhere, under virtually any lighting conditions. These were really my two dream lenses, and although they cost a small fortune, I just had to get them. The only thing better would be if they both had VR.
B. "Trinity" pair and option 'X':
This is the requisite lens-pair for shooting events (assuming you have two FX bodies to go with them). Although I prefer primes, zooms are a necessary evil when your position is restricted (most events I shoot are restricted). The standard de rigueur for events is the 24-70mm/70-200mm pair, but I only own one FX body (and don't own a 24-70mm), so I'm planning to use the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR for event coverage instead. Buying a second D3s, plus a 24-70mm f/2.8G is simply beyond what I can justify at this point.
To conclude, if you just love shooting primes, often shoot in ultra-low light, and don't have to accommodate assignments where you either need further reach, or are restricted in your shooting position, get the primes. If you're shooting events for paid gigs, get the zooms.
Under control environment: fast primes
Fast pace (event): 24-70 (useful focal length, fast AF) & 70-200 (good range, fast AF, love the bokeh).
You must log in to post.
