where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
i shoot at a lot of night clubs and concert i have a d7000 with a 18-105mm and 50mm f/1.4
I'm looking to get a new lens but can't decide which one would be better
option one would be a UWA - I'm thinking the tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
option two fisheye - most likely nikon 10.5mm f/2.8
any thoughts or opinions?
Have you considered the 70-200 f/2.8? I find that reach is often a problem for me at concerts and this is a great lens. If you like the look of people in UWA and can get close enough, then the 11-16 might be a fun choice. If you find yourself at the 105 end of your zoom a lot then the 70-200 is a good choice, but you're talking some significant $$. Another interesting possibility is the 135 DC f/2. I find that ultrawides and fisheyes require me to get too close for practical use in club and concert venues, but that is just me.
Keep us posted!
I've been real pleased with my 10-24 DX NIKKOR on my D7000 shooting concerts.
I agree with Eric on the 70-200 2.8 for long shots. Also, Nikon is coming out with an F4 long zoom but I haven't heard when the release date will be.
What do you want to shoot in the environment? I personally would get the 10.5mm (actually I own and love mine). It is great for small environments and will stuff a lot into a frame
The 70-200 is as has been stated superb, and if you need length, would also be my recommendation. The problem is in that sort of environment even 2.8 can seem kind of slow. That why, and if you are up close, I've got the 24 1.4 on my shopping list (or for you even the 85 1.4 might be a good choice). In my experience 2 stops of light comes in mighty useful.
I'm never really at the higher end of the zoom the company i work for mostly has me shoot close ups of people and the DJ's the concerts are all EDM type concerts so they like seeing up close and personal of people looking wasted and going crazy. i heard good things about the 10-24 nikor however people i know who have had both swear by the 11-16 tokina
i also dont just shoot from photographers pits a lot of time they like it when i get into the heart of the crowd and shoot from there so the wide angle at this point is really key for me
side note if anyone wants to check out exactly what type of work I'm talking about search menbarphotos on Facebook my page should come up
I would think the first to pick up is the 35mm f1.8. Under $200 and is a no-brainer for DX bodies. The 85mm 1.8 is the other lens I would go for. On the high end, 17-50 2.8 from Nikon or others would be good as well. The 70-200mm... I don't think I have ever heard anyone say a bad thing about owning one of these.
2.8 for ultra wide angles not that beneficial. I can hand hold my 12-24mm f/4 down to 1/20th easily. Shakes show up much less for those. Personally I felt the 11-16 was way too limiting. Great lens, but so little range when there are other options. I'm not a fan of fish eyes used for wide spaces. They have their specific uses but just to grab a "large area" I find the distortion distracting. kyoshinikon has some great shots with theirs but generally speaking you need the subject very close to make it work.
If you search the forum for "concerts" you will find many, many, many threads. They really don't change on the suggestions.
i see how the zoom and farther ranges are good for concerts but more often than concerts I'm doing club photography. I'm looking for something wider than the 18mm i can already reach so a 35mm wouldn't soot my needs for what I'm looking for
Over the past few years I took loads of pictures of people dancing salsa with my D90 and D7000. Normally I use my Signa 30mm F1.4. Sometimes I use a Tamron 60mm F2.0.
Yup, non Nikkor so not good enough for some, but they work just fine for me...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aperazzo/sets/72157628452987407/
At concerts I normally manage to shoot while standing pretty close to the stage, so I take both camera's with the same lenses on them. Sometimes I'll use my ancient 35-70mm F2.8 instead of the 60mm.
I prefer using primes instead of zoom. I find I can quite easily crop my pictures to the scene I want/ need.
I'd go for a 85 or 105mm instead of a huge zoom.
I have a 10-20 but never use it at a salsa party or concert. I find I get too many things that are totally uninteresting in my pictures when I use it there.
But at a concert a razor sharp 85 or 105 would be ideal...
Gotta love how OP asks between two lenses, an UWA and fisheye, but gets advice recommendations for telephotos instead. LOL!
Menbarphotos, I used to own both the Tokina 11-16mm and N10.5mm fisheye but sold both and now I have the N10-24mm. The fisheye was very cool and gave interesting pictures but it wasn't something I wanted to use consistently so the lens ended up collecting dust. The Tokina is actually one of my all time favorites (since my Canon days actually) but the limited zoom makes it feel more like a prime instead. I really like the range of the N10-24mm and the variable aperture really makes very little difference in UWA anyway.
One thing though, if you plan to photograph people (faces specially) with these lenses than I'd consider something different. Faces tend to look wider and unflattering with UWA and anything not in the middle will end up being stretched. There are software that can correct these distortions but I still haven't seen any acceptable results from them.
I would also take a look at the 14-24 f2.8. Somewhat pricey but well worth the money. It might be a drawback for concert photography that you can't attach a protective filter in front of it though.
iris chrome said:
Gotta love how OP asks between two lenses, an UWA and fisheye, but gets advice recommendations for telephotos instead. LOL!
haha im glad i didn't seem insane and was the only one noticing that people were just focusing on larger end zooms and not my actual question
here is an example of what i do since my focus is on people in the crowd
https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/555532_289163197830645_1867969195_n.jpg
@iris chrome would you really say that the n10-24 is that much better than the tokina? taking price difference into account since the nikor is a bit more expensive
once the novelty has worn off, fish eyes tend to sit in the cupboard, rather than on the camera
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4066
The 11-16 is going to be a lot more flexible
I shoot Fx and find the biggest advantage of the 16mm f 2.8 fish eye is its small size and light weight when compared to the 16-35 f4, but other than that, the zoom wins hands down
sevencrossing said:
once the novelty has worn off, fish eyes tend to sit in the cupboard, rather than on the camerahttp://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4066
The 11-16 is going to be a lot more flexible
I shoot Fx and find the biggest advantage of the 16mm f 2.8 fish eye is its small size and light weight when compared to the 16-35 f4, but other than that, the zoom wins hands down
I agree with this in the principle that a fisheye is for a very special effect. It can dramatize a building, in a manner that only can be done by the fisheye "effect." And, when used with a great deal of care, can produce some interesting shots. The 16-35 is a monster lens. And the angle of coverage, while it states is 107° is actually only 89° horizontally. The other alternative is the Nikon AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED Autofocus Lens, which will give about 95° horizontal coverage.
However, the 10.5mm f/2.8 Nikkor is a very sharp lens and can be reasonably cropped so as to produce a nice rectangle, albeit with some very clear distortion. If one maintains certain key elements, e.g., people standing, vertical doors, things our mind "sees" as vertical, then the distortions are less obnoxious. I find my modified version is quite handy at doing some of the things I want to do.
What I have found shooting wide angle at concerts is I only use one when I'm done with the shoot and I love wide angle band shots. However, most all of my crowd shots are done with wide angle (DX 10-24).
10mm
17mm
I've never shot with this lens but if I had to have one lens to shoot a concert with it would be the NIKKOR DX 16-85. I know it's only a 3.5-5.6 but it would work great with the D7000 in low light.
menbarphotos said:
...would you really say that the n10-24 is that much better than the tokina? taking price difference into account since the nikor is a bit more expensive
Simple answer is no - it's not "that" much better. It is a great lens though and if you have the $$, why not. Since I'm teetering on the DX/FX divide I stuck with the Toking since it is cheaper. Personally I think the Tokina is better built as well.
The difference between 10mm, 11mm, and 12mm is almost nothing. The only real difference between the Nikkor 10-24, 12-24, Tokina 11-16 & 12-24 is just on the long end and your pocket book.
You must log in to post.
