PDA

View Full Version : Future lens line up.. Need opinions



cchart.photo
07-11-2007, 02:33 AM
Well I will be purchasing my Nikon D200 soon and I was wondering what would be a good lens line up. I have a general idea of what I am considering of purchasing. One that I will need soon must be for event photography. I will be doing automotive (static/action) and sports and portrait as well. Could anyone suggest a good lens for event photography?

My line up which I will be getting (in no particular order)

Nikkor 10.5 Fish Eye
Nikkor 12-24
Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR

Possibly looking at the 18-200 VR.

Is there any lens that you would recommend over another or just replace? I was kind of thinking about getting the 24-85 f/2.8

Is there an equivalent lens for the Canon 24-105L lens? That seems to be a prime lens for many Canon users.

Much thanks for the advice.

Rooz
07-11-2007, 03:50 AM
Well I will be purchasing my Nikon D200 soon and I was wondering what would be a good lens line up. I have a general idea of what I am considering of purchasing. One that I will need soon must be for event photography. I will be doing automotive (static/action) and sports and portrait as well. Could anyone suggest a good lens for event photography?

My line up which I will be getting (in no particular order)

Nikkor 10.5 Fish Eye
Nikkor 12-24
Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR

Possibly looking at the 18-200 VR.

Is there any lens that you would recommend over another or just replace? I was kind of thinking about getting the 24-85 f/2.8

Is there an equivalent lens for the Canon 24-105L lens? That seems to be a prime lens for many Canon users.

Much thanks for the advice.

wow...talk about a dream line up ! :eek:

you obviously must have a healthy budget and if you;re looking for the "best of the best" then you just named them all pretty much. lol there are obviously cheaper alternatives to some of those lens' but none are going to perform quite as well.

the 70-200VR is outstanding. this is a no brainer and a must have.

the 12-24 nikkor ? well there are some alternatives like the 10-20mm sigma and the 12-24 tokina which are almost as good. if you were looking to save some cash for other lens'/ accessories, this is probaby where i'd be looking to go for a 3rd party lens.

the 17-55 is outstanding. the MTF charts of this and the 18-50mm sigma are very similar however they don't tell the full story at all. being the owner of the 18-50 sigma and a pretty regular user of the 17-55nikkor i can say unequivockly that the nikkor is hands down a better lens in the real world by quite some distance. in ideal conditions the sigma is just about on par but i found for anything challenging like low light or high contrast subjects the nikkor was in another league for focussing, colour rendition and contrast. not to mention it is whisper quiet and super fast. (it is quite heavy though).

i think you'll find that the 24-105L users may be more the 5D and 1D owners who have FF cams. 24mm is a little long imo for the 1.5x crop of the d200. i have no experience with a lens of this length. i could be wrong but 36mm as your shortest focal length withoug going to a wide angle lens could be a pain in the ass. (i certainly found using the 28-70mmf2.8 quite limiting).

i have no experience at all with the nikkor fisheye.

not sure how the 18-200VR fits in with your kit or why you would want it, perhaps you could explain the reasoning behind this. i have owned it and loved it. not sure when you;d use it though, it is not anywhere near your other lens' from an optical point of view. i think this may frustrate you a little. althoug hof course the versatility is unequalled.

perhaps you should be considering the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 in your kit. especially for portrait work. if its studio work, the 85mm1.4 is the bokeh king and is an unbelievabley beautiful piece of kit. the 50mm is nice to have aswell as something light and sharp which also renders beautiful bokeh.

you haven't mentioned lighting in your kit, don;t know what you are doing about that. aparmley in particualr is great at remote lighting and technique so i think he's well qualified to give you some heads-up with this kind of thing. i'd imagine a couple of sb800's should be somewhere in your future.

i sure hope you buy your kit soon and start posting. love to see your results.

erichlund
07-11-2007, 09:52 AM
While I agree with the evaluation of the 17-55, it's not the best of the Nikkor lenses in it's range. The 17-35 / 35-70 combination is perhaps as good as it gets in that same range. They are definitely on my someday list. Not as convenient as the 17-55, but they are equally outstanding on a full frame camera, something that could eventually be on the horizon. They, along with the 70-200VR, would be the Nikon version of the event kit. The one I've seen most concert photos from is probably the 35-70.

I went with the Tokina 12-24 rather than the Nikkor. The Nikkor is slightly superior in overall image quality, but at very wide angles has some significant mustache distortion, where the Tokina has simple distortion. Simple is much easier to deal with in post processing. That and about half the price is very appealing.

The 24-85 is f2.8-4, so not a constant aperture lens. It's a very good lens, but shy of the standards set by the 17-35 and 35-70.

The 18-200 lens is very good at what it is, a lens you can throw on for a full day of shooting with just the camera, the lens, some CF cards and maybe a spare battery in your pocket. Great for a day at the zoo or beach with the kids.

I've never used a fisheye, but it's also on my list of things to get someday.

LR Max
07-11-2007, 11:00 AM
Jeez. That is one heck of a line up there. I think thats the dream lineup for everyone.

I know a lot of pros out there that use the 17-55 and the 70-200VR with excellent results. I've seen the 17-55 used a lot in conjunction with a flash (usually the SB-800). Considering you are going to be doing action photography, both of these lenses would be excellent. I would also recommend a teleconverter to add a little more reach to your lenses.

I echo the comment on the 50mm f/1.4 lense. My friend let me borrow his f/1.4 and I did some quick comparison to my f/1.8. It produces a better image overall. Also this lense is VERY small and VERY compact. Takes up hardly any room. Also look at the 85mm prime and the 105mm prime. I've heard both are excellent for studio/static work. I use a 50mm for my studio work, but if I was serious I'd get the 85 or 105.

The 18-200VR is the jack of all trades lense (imo). I have one and it is excellent. The only two things I don't use it for is macro and studio work. Otherwise, its the only lense I use. It is the only lense I carry while out on assignment. I would highly recommend this lense for when you aren't dealing with action shots. The reason I say this is because you've got to stop this lense down a lot to get good shots. From 18-100 (ish) f/8 is the best and from 100-200 f/13 is the best. When I've got good light, this isn't a problem but in low light conditions I can forget about running these ideal settings. However, this lense is smaller and lighter than the 17-55 and 70-200VR lense. As well as extremely compact compared to these two lenses.

The fisheye is pretty awesome for close ups of vehicles. Gives off a cool effect that people love.

If you are going to doing a lot of action shots, heavily consider a D2H. I've played with a D1H and they are pretty awesome. I can only imagine the D2H is superior. Definately the king of action cameras.

Or consider buying two camera bodies. The problem I had was I couldn't switch lens fast enough. So I'd miss the shot. A lot of guys have two camera bodies, one setup for close shots the other for telephoto shots. Heavily consider this. I can tell you, with vehicles, the "moment" for a shot happens in a split second. You don't want to be fumbling around in your camera bag trying to decide what lense you want to use. Instead, you can drop one camera and pick up the other one to get the shot...the money shot to be exact.

coldrain
07-11-2007, 11:17 AM
The lens I would change from your list is the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye.
I would change it for the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom lens.

At 10mm they are quite similar, and you get a zoom range to play with. A very impressive and unique lens.
http://www.photodo.com/topic_243.html

cchart.photo
07-11-2007, 02:15 PM
I greatly appreciate the advice everyone has given me so far. I also had a slightly different line up in mind..

Nikkor 10.5 fisheye
Nikkor 12-24
Nikkor 17-35
Nikkor 28-70 or 24-85
Nikkor 70-200

So the only thing I changed is the 17-55 and w/ the 17-35 and added a lens that fills the void. I am considering about the change w/ the Nikkor 12-24 to the Tokina 12-24. Does anyone have any personal opinions/experience on this?

I have been thinking about the 18-200 VR because it cover a lot of the lenses, but I'm just skeptical and maybe would rather not get it because I'd like to have a variety of lenses that seem appropriate. Especially w/ fixed aperture. And yes I will be considering prime lenses and flashes as well. My main concern right now is getting a lens for event photography. Specifically something for a convention/trade show called Magic in Las Vegas. Also something that could be considered a everyday/candid lens.

If anyone has personal experience/opinions on any of these lenses, please let me know.

erichlund
07-11-2007, 04:32 PM
I greatly appreciate the advice everyone has given me so far. I also had a slightly different line up in mind..

Nikkor 10.5 fisheye
Nikkor 12-24
Nikkor 17-35
Nikkor 28-70 or 24-85
Nikkor 70-200

So the only thing I changed is the 17-55 and w/ the 17-35 and added a lens that fills the void. I am considering about the change w/ the Nikkor 12-24 to the Tokina 12-24. Does anyone have any personal opinions/experience on this?

I have been thinking about the 18-200 VR because it cover a lot of the lenses, but I'm just skeptical and maybe would rather not get it because I'd like to have a variety of lenses that seem appropriate. Especially w/ fixed aperture. And yes I will be considering prime lenses and flashes as well. My main concern right now is getting a lens for event photography. Specifically something for a convention/trade show called Magic in Las Vegas. Also something that could be considered a everyday/candid lens.

If anyone has personal experience/opinions on any of these lenses, please let me know.

Ah, yes. I get those two confused all the time. Don't know why. I meant the 28-70, not the 35-70, though both are good lenses. The 28-70 is better optically, except for a tendency toward strong ghosting and flare. OTOH, that's probably why you see the 35-70 used at more concerts, because the stage lighting is less likely to be a problem. The 28-70 also has the AF-S motor and internal focusing, both good things.

wh0128
07-11-2007, 07:33 PM
I would have to second the suggestion of looking into getting a D2H. If you can find a used one off Ebay, that'll reduce the price alot. If not, its around 4000$ New.

I'd wait for the fisheye.

One thing I'd like to ask is, is this photography going to be professional, like you will be paid to take pictures? Or is it just a hobby to take photos of events such as Magic?

In any event, you've got a strong line up that most people drool over (like me:D)

cchart.photo
07-12-2007, 01:24 AM
I would have to second the suggestion of looking into getting a D2H. If you can find a used one off Ebay, that'll reduce the price alot. If not, its around 4000$ New.

I'd wait for the fisheye.

One thing I'd like to ask is, is this photography going to be professional, like you will be paid to take pictures? Or is it just a hobby to take photos of events such as Magic?

In any event, you've got a strong line up that most people drool over (like me:D)


It started off as a hobby but I've gotten more interest into photography. I hope to turn it into a profession. I am supposed to be submit a portfolio to someone for a freelance job. But I haven't gotten around to it quite yet.

wh0128
07-12-2007, 06:20 PM
I was going to say, this is a pretty expensive hobby you're getting into. And with that type of equipment and some experience in photography you can go a long way with the business side of photography.

Hope you get the line up that you want. It'll come later rather than sooner for me:(

longroad
07-12-2007, 07:13 PM
I dont know about dream line up... for me a dream kit would have to include a big telephoto 400mm +

Just depends if you mean realistic dream or all out ridiculous fantasy :D

TNB
07-12-2007, 10:20 PM
Well I will be purchasing my Nikon D200 soon and I was wondering what would be a good lens line up . . . I will be doing automotive (static/action) and sports and portrait as well....

Nikkor 10.5 Fish Eye
Nikkor 12-24
Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR

I usually use my D200 with the 70-200VR for sports and I usually end up sticking the 17-55 on as well for things like openings, awards, and so on. Of course, I use the 17-55 for many other shots as well, i.e. head shots, night shots, etc. I also debated the purchase of the 10.5 for quite sometime and still like the idea that the Nikon software will automatically straighten out the photo. However, after running into more and more automotive photographers, most appear to rather "back up" the old fashion way (with legs) than use a fish-eye--I haven't shot any skateboarding, but can see where the fish-eye may provide some cool effects. It's just that too many times I have heard how someone purchases the 10.5 and uses the heck out of it for the first few months only to let it sit afterwards. Consequently, I decided to purchase the Nikkor 1.7x TC which works quite well with the 70-200VR instead of the 10.5. I've also considered the 12-24, but have just never got around to purchasing it since it would end up being another one of those lenses that sits in my bag(s) most of the time like some of the other Nikon and Sigma lenses I own. For now, I'll probably purchase more SB-800s. :rolleyes:

LR Max
07-12-2007, 10:54 PM
Really sounds like you are jumping the gun here (imo). If you've got the $$$ laying around, then yea! Go for it!

But I was in your exact same position but didn't have the $$$. I scratched up enough money for a 18-200VR lense. I shoot off road photography and with that lense I was able to get a gig with a magazine. I've pretty much built my "career" on this lense (and my D70s!!). So, if this isn' a "sure" thing for you, then rolling with the 18-200VR might be a better baby step in the right direction. That way you can still get some decent shots but not have too much money in it.

Also, I would disagree on a used D2H. If you think about it, just about every D2H is heavily used and beaten. Many examples are on their third shutter mechanism. Just beaten up for the price.

cchart.photo
07-12-2007, 11:56 PM
Thanks for the feedback everyone.

So has anyone used the Tokina 12-24 & the Nikkor 12-24? I've been reading many reviews and both seem good. And the seldom opinion that goes back and forth. Is it really worth the extra about 500$?

longroad
07-13-2007, 12:01 AM
Thanks for the feedback everyone.

So has anyone used the Tokina 12-24 & the Nikkor 12-24? I've been reading many reviews and both seem good. And the seldom opinion that goes back and forth. Is it really worth the extra about 500$?

The general consensus is that the Tokina is the one to get unless money is no issue. I know that's what I'll be getting, even if I could semi-comfortably afford the Nikkor I probably wouldn't get it. If $500 was nothing to me then yes I'd get it. Really depends on your financial position.

From what I've read, it's not *that* much better than the Tokina.
I'm not trying to be expert here because I have not used either, Im just going by reviews and forum comments as I know you are too.

jcon
07-13-2007, 12:15 AM
From pictures I have seen here and user comments, if I were looking for a wide, id get the Sigma version.

erichlund
07-13-2007, 09:02 AM
When I tried both the Sigma and the Tokina, I didn't like the Sigma from a user standpoint. The manual override on the lens doesn't work the way it should. To be honest, I'd rather the lens made you flip a switch to manual override, because it seems like you need to switch the camera to manual anyway. You can't just grab the focus ring and refocus, because as soon as you stop, it goes back to the autofocus point.

The Tokina, OTOH, is not an AF-S type lens. But, manual override is very slick. The switch is built into the focus ring. You simple pull it toward you and then manually focus. Pushing it back away from you puts the lens back in autofocus.

The Tokina's distortion (all the lenses distort, that's just the nature of super wides) is the simplest to correct in post processing.

If you use Nikon Capture NX or Photoshop, CA from any of the lenses is easily eliminated. With NX it's basically automatic. I don't use Photoshop, so I can't say how much effort that takes. Of course CA is where the Sigma shines, as it has little to none, quite an achievement for such a wide angle lens.

All the lens reviews say that the Nikkor has the best image quality, but IIRC, that's particularly in sharpness wide open. Of course, super wides are mostly used as landscape lenses. Most people don't shoot landscapes wide open, and all these lenses are sharp stopped down. So, the Nikkor's advantage seems to be more in its fringe use than in the main use for this type of lens.

OTOH, indoor party/group shots are a perfectly valid use for this lens, and that is where it would be nice to be sharp wide open. In the test shots I took with the Tokina, is seemed reasonably sharp wide open.

I did learn one thing taking test shots of a painting. You have to be VERY level with a super wide. Any degree off axis is going to make it much harder to correct the distortion of your image. Of course, at 12mm, I was shocked when I looked up after taking a shot and saw how close I was to the wall the painting was on. Still, because of the distortion, I wouldn't use any of these lenses for actual copy work.