AF-D lenses for lighter weight and portability?

PB_PM

Good choice, it's a good performer overall.

KnockKnock

Why crop in camera? You are just throwing away the edges. Better to zoom with your feet, a talent that many should learn in my view....

Because you can? :P BTW, I agree about zooming with feet with primes, but it does have side effects pertinent to the OP: perspective distortion and getting closer to your subject which might intimidate them.

It's highly subjective, but applying the slowing-down principle, choosing a field of view and composing with that in mind generally leads to better compositions. Because the 1.2 or 1.5 crop feature exists, one can chose to crop in camera before taking the picture and pre-visualize the shot. (Does the 750 mask out the crop or just draw the lines? If the former, then it helps to see your composition better.)

So for example, the idea of taking just a wide and short tele to a dinner party, with the 85mm, you could specify the 1.5 DX crop, stand on the other side of the room away from subjects, take a candid, or get the person's attention and still get a decent ~10MP shot with the same field of view and perspective of a 128mm lens. Upsides are carrying two small un-intimidating primes.

This approach works better with a 36MP camera and a digital viewfinder, but in this pixel-race age, in-camera cropping isn't the ... (what's the opposite of a no-brainer?) it was in the 6-12MP days.

Golf007sd

michael66

@Golf007sd I always laugh when I hear zoom with your feet. Truly nonsense. That works only to a small degree. Matt didn't say, get a zoom, he said use the right focal length. And I was surprised at the actual differences in the side by side compare of the same scene.

donaldejose

Zoom with your feet "works" between 28mm and 35mm or between 85mm and 105mm because there isn't much difference in angle of view but it surely doesn't work between 24mm and 200mm! It is one of those phrases which must be understood within its limits.

WestEndFoto

Yes Donaldejose. A good stable of primes is required.

seewhatididther

I think of "zooming with my feet" more like leaning forward or backward to include just 1 family member or squeezing in 2, respectively, with the 35mm DX at Xmas!

WestEndFoto

To me it often means forward or backward 20 or 30 feet.

ggbutcher

Back when I shot film, I had (well, still have) three primes: 28mm f2.8, the venerable 50mm f1.4, and 105mm f2.5. When I mounted one or another on the camera, it was primarily to attain a certain perspective, e.g., compressed for portraits, expansive for interiors. I did try to frame my shots as I wanted, but I never was above cropping to get my composition.

I still think that way with my zoom. When I crank it in or out for a shot, I'm primarily thinking of the perspective; I'll actually walk back to frame a 200mm shot because I want the compressed perspective. Right now, I think if I were to replace my 18-200mm with better lenses, I'd get 2: a fixed wide-angle and a tele-zoom. And, probably a second body to avoid lens switcheroos. Well, off to buy my lottery ticket...

WestEndFoto

I think you understand one of the rationales to shoot primes better than most. It is about framing and perspective.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@ WestEndFoto

"I think you understand one of the rationales to shoot primes better than most. It is about framing and perspective."

If people really believe this, then I have to ask why shooting with a zoom lens isn't about framing and perspective? If that makes the pictures made from zoom lenses less arty? Less photographic?

Perhaps less purposeful?

My best,

Mike

ggbutcher

If people really believe this, then I have to ask why shooting with a zoom lens isn't about framing and perspective? If that makes the pictures made from zoom lenses less arty? Less photographic?

Hope not, zoom is all I have.

Focal length is focal length, whether you get it from a fixed lens or a zoom. A certain perspective is what I look for at the time of the shot, because no post-processing I know of will change it. For the type of shooting I'm doing now, the zoom lens lets me change that perspective quickly as large (locomotive-sized) things move around me. I'd gladly switch to primes for better sharpness if I didn't have to worry lens-switches standing between train tracks. Oh, and if I had the funds to buy a set...

WestEndFoto

If you take a thousand zoom shooters and a thousand prime shooters and found some way, somehow, to plot them on a bell curve where the Y-axis is number of shooters and the X-axis was "quality of perspective and framing" with quantity increasing from left to right, I would bet that the prime shooter bell curve would be further to the right.

Would there be lots of overlap sure, as there is no technical reason why you can't have good framing and perspective with a zoom. And as ggbutcher has pointed out, sometimes a zoom is more practical.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

"If you take a thousand zoom shooters and a thousand prime shooters and found some way, somehow, to plot them on a bell curve where the Y-axis is number of shooters and the X-axis was "quality of perspective and framing" with quantity increasing from left to right, I would bet that the prime shooter bell curve would be further to the right."

For god's sake, why?

There's little reason to think that there's much sharpness to gain from a prime lens (except by those with imagination) - some speed for sure and some weight loss, yes. The quality of the bokeh changes.

But the effervescent quality of 'perspective and framing' is far, far better served by a zoom lens _any day_ than a prime lens.

Why anyone would think that changing lenses to form compositions, thus making it more difficult instead of making it easier, is baffling.

My best,

Mike

WestEndFoto

Because a zoom shooter is more likely to be a documentary photographer and a prime shooter is more likely to be an artistic photographer and therefore more likely to be thinking of composition, including framing and perspective.

Besides, a zoom would only save time on walking to get the right framing. I still have to move around to get the right perspective. I want my subject to fill the frame (for example) and the focal length will determine the background. A zoom will not help me there, except to save me the trouble of changing lenses, which is no trouble.

PB_PM

Sorry to say this, but that's utter non-sense. There are plenty of reasons to use primes and or zooms, and those reasons have little to do with how artistic the photographer behind the camera is. More often than not it's the person behind the lens that makes the creative difference, not f-stops, or fixed focal length. If a person understands perspective whether they use a prime or a zoom is utterly irrelevant. I can park my 24-70mm at 24, 35 and 50mm just as easily as when I use my primes. There are simply some conditions when using a zoom is more fitting of a given situation, just as primes have a place.

If you want to be part of the "prime users are holier than thou" fan club, feel free. I sure don't have problem with it, I'm just rather tired of those who feel the need to dump their limited vision on others who don't think that way.

ggbutcher

For lack of other entertainment during my recent holiday visit home, I took exiftool and gnuplot and produced a histogram of focal lengths used for one of my recent albums. By far, the majority of my shots were at 18mm, the lower limit of the zoom. Next highest number of exposures were made at 200mm, but not a large percentage of the total. The rest were onesies and twosies at arbitrary intermediate focal lengths, more clustered at the lower focal lengths. Considering this behavior and my reminisces of the olden days with the F2 and primes, if I were going to ditch the zoom I may well just get (DX) ~18mm and 200mm fixed. Back then (FX), the 28mm stayed on the camera, and I'd switch to the 105mm occasionally. Pretty much the pattern the histogram suggested.

The zoom is just not as sharp as most any fixed lens, and the D7000 is showing it to me. But, for wandering around in a train yard with moving locomotives, I can't be fiddling with lens switching so the zoom stays. Nothing to do with composition, perspective, or even sharpness, just safety.

Getting back to the OP's questions, if I were shooting his subjects, I might consider starting with just a single wide-angle, ~28mm, and get the G optics for the 750. I'd think that combination would produce a large number of really nice pictures.

If anyone is interested, here's the exiftool/gnuplot command:
exiftool -p $focallength -n -focallength *.jpg | gnuplot -persist -e "set style fill solid border -1; set boxwidth 0.9; bin(x) = floor(x); plot '-' using (bin($1)):(1.0) smooth freq with boxes"


I put this in a batch file, ran it on a Win7 laptop. I think the exact command would run on a Linux distro. Oh, you have to download/install exiftool and gnuplot...

WestEndFoto

Sorry to say this, but that's utter non-sense. There are plenty of reasons to use primes and or zooms, and those reasons have little to do with how artistic the photographer behind the camera is. More often than not it's the person behind the lens that makes the creative difference, not f-stops, or fixed focal length. If a person understands perspective whether they use a prime or a zoom is utterly irrelevant. I can park my 24-70mm at 24, 35 and 50mm just as easily as when I use my primes. There are simply some conditions when using a zoom is more fitting of a given situation, just as primes have a place.

If you want to be part of the "prime users are holier than thou" fan club, feel free. I sure don't have problem with it, I'm just rather tired of those who feel the need to dump their limited vision on others who don't think that way.

Why don't you reread carefully what I have been saying and you will see that some of the things that you are attributing to me I did not say. You can probably delete your entire first paragraph.

Second, your argument is not any stronger because you sprinkle disrespect and name calling within it.

Third, I am trying to make a valid point while being respectful to Mike, whom commands an enormous amount of respect from me. When he speaks, I listen closely and choose my words carefully. I find it offensive that you introduce the disrespect and personal attacks against me that you have. Very disappointing actually....

WestEndFoto

Back when I shot film, I had (well, still have) three primes: 28mm f2.8, the venerable 50mm f1.4, and 105mm f2.5. When I mounted one or another on the camera, it was primarily to attain a certain perspective, e.g., compressed for portraits, expansive for interiors. I did try to frame my shots as I wanted, but I never was above cropping to get my composition.

I still think that way with my zoom. When I crank it in or out for a shot, I'm primarily thinking of the perspective; I'll actually walk back to frame a 200mm shot because I want the compressed perspective. Right now, I think if I were to replace my 18-200mm with better lenses, I'd get 2: a fixed wide-angle and a tele-zoom. And, probably a second body to avoid lens switcheroos. Well, off to buy my lottery ticket...

I draw attention to ggbutcher's second paragraph which is very insightful in my opinion and the point I have been speaking to. I am not saying that a prime is superior to a zoom in this regard. I am just saying that a zoom is of no particular help in this regard. You can't change this perspective by zooming in and out. You need to establish the right camera to subject to background distance first, then select your focal length.

Now personally, I prefer to select the right focal length from the primes in my bag due to the generally better IQ and wider aperture ranges. If these two factors are not important to you, then a zoom is fine.

I also have a perception that on average, a photographer shooting a prime is more likely to be more thoughtful about composition. This does not negate the fact that there are large numbers of photographers that use zooms that have more talent than me. Prime vs zoom is not deterministic of shooting ability.

Those are my views. I am sorry if they cause offense to anybody, but I stand behind them. It is not a personal attack on anybody and I would be appreciative if I am shown the same respect. If someone wants to argue a view or tell me I am wrong, I would welcome, in fact enjoy, that.

WestEndFoto

I fully agree with this video (I just watched it now on my IPad as I temporarily don't have sound on my desktop). He illustrates well the differences in perspective that I am discussing above.

However, I still say "zoom with your feet" to people that are worried about covering every focal length, either with a zoom or an excessive stable of primes. But I am talking about the range between say 24 and 35. Do you really need 28? Or between 85 and 135. Not sure I need a 105.

Seewhatitdidther, if you add some well spaced 1.8 primes to your D750 kit, I think that you will have a really nice kit.

Hammie

I just did a test tonight with my zoom lenses at various prime lengths to see how they would look. The test today was indoors. I used a 10-24mm DX lens in forced FX mode, a 24-70, and a 70-200 lens.

Since I live in an older home (est. 1910), the rooms are small. If I wanted a nice prime for indoor photos, I think a 20mm would be good. 24mm often seems a little too tight quarters when you want a group of people.

My 24-70 and 70-200 zooms cover most lengths I would ever want, therefore a 14-24, although a nice to have, would not be used very much.

I also use a 50m 1.8D as a frequent walk around lens. I've considered a 35mm lens as an optional walk-around lens. I hope to do another test outdoors tomorrow getting the same focal lengths to compare the inside versus outside shots.

I can post my complete results if anyone is interested.

sevencrossing

More often than not it's the person behind the lens that makes the creative difference, .

+100

IMHO I would say it's always the person behind the lens that makes the creative difference
Yes the equipment you use is going to have an effect , but it is you that chooses the equipment

sevencrossing

More often than not it's the person behind the lens that makes the creative difference, .

+100

IMHO I would say it's always the person behind the lens, that makes the creative difference
Yes the equipment you use is going to have an effect , but it is you that chooses the equipment in the first place

Not too sure of the relevance of this to the Ops question

heartyfisher

lol ..
creativity is something that is really not a factor in the the choice of prime or zoom. really guys ..
as if you can change your level of creativity by your choice to pick up a zoom or a prime.

@ggbutcher : i did that experiment some time ago and and as you would expect I got a very different result from you :-) .. what I believe I got from that experiment was my perspective on the world. I believe its a natural instinctive perspective that is the culmination of your attitude about people and the environment and your perception of the world around you. Like you I found my primary FOV. my secondary FOV and a couple or 3 tertiary ... view ports( I dont call them FOV bec it seems to me like a certain "look" that I like)

This has helped me decide on my lense choices. ie I have spent most on my primary view-port. I have 3 lenses that cover it. One is a prime and the other 2 are zooms. I am hoping to add a 4th or 5th some time in the future.. probably a prime and a zoom. Maybe even an AFD Prime.

And no its not 18mm(FX 28mm) .. though thats my secondary and I also have 3 lense that cover that.. though I hardly use them. 50mm? lol its not even my tertiary!! I have 1 fav lense and that covers my primary and almost all of my tertiary view-ports.
Its really a shame that I cant have 1 lense that covers my primary and secondary ( with great IQ) but them the breaks. I know some of you are lucky and have a couple of primary and secondary view-ports close together in focal length. While some of you are unlucky enough to have your primary in the 500mm - 600mm range !! ($$$ :-( )

spraynpray

Call it a rant if you like, but:

To be Honest I would say there is too much of that whole elitist mindset going on. The better the gear you buy, the more weight your opinions have in any given discussion and of course you must be an expert because of the gear on your posts footer. If you use primes, you're serious, if you shoot with zooms, well, they are 'convenient'.

Set a Nikon zoom to 50mm against a Nikon 50mm prime, shoot a subject using both, click the lens correction button in lightroom and post them here without exif and let's see the difference and who can even see the difference. Shoot the same subject +/- 20% the same distance and zoom to the same composition and let's see the difference. Most of the time it wouldn't matter, it's only with more extreme f-l differences and on certain subjects that it really matters.

Even over the last week or so some of the people on this forum have said that the great thing about the D800/e/D810 is that they shoot wide and crop later - where the heck does that 'grab and go' mentality fit in with 'creative vision'?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - some of the best shots I've seen have been taken with very ordinary bodies and lenses. Granted they would be technically better if they were taken with a top new camera, but also, some of the most ordinary shots I've seen have been taken on very high end gear or high end gear good shots spoiled by heavy handed or amateurish post processing.

My keeper rate hasn't been affected in the slightest by my acquisition of my D750 over my D7100. Neither has the quality of my work improved except in the very top end of my high-ISO work. I screw up just as bad with both!

It is the brain behind the gear that makes the shot great, from seeing it, to setting up and capturing it and then PP-ing it.

Take the best shot from last months PAD - sevencrossing's Clifton Bridge in the mist shot. Beautiful - but any of Nikon's reasonably recent cameras could have got it if set right.

All IMHO of course.