The big Prime lens Con Trick.

13

Comments

  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,443Member
    There is a lot of posturing to justify the cost with wedding photographers ...the more they charge the more assistants/reflectors/flash stands they must have ..oh yes and a bag of primes.
    While I confine myself to a fishing stool, a large piece of artificial grass and some tennis balls. My D800 has the 14mm Samyang ..so sharp you can crop like crazy and the 28-300 on the D810. My wife uses the D7100 with 18-140. We crop if required on that lens and find the result better than pushing to the soft end of an 18-300. That gives me three grips ..all third party and dumb..one has a spare camera battery ,another spare flash batteries and the third the GPS tracker in case of theft. Spare equipment chained down in the car.
    Never bounce a flash just SB400 on a flash flipper
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    Thankyou @haroldp, you saved me a lot of typing.
    Always learning.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    @heartyfisher I did focus on Nikon. I haven't tried any of the newer third party stuff, but I haven't heard anyone coming around saying how great they are either, which makes me think they might not be. I have tried the third party 17-55 equivalents and although they were OK....I own the Nikon version for a reason. Same with the Tokina 12-24 f4...had it and it was sharp, but overall it wasn't Nikon.

    @Pistnbroke I wasn't meaning to question how you shoot or what you use. Been there done that. It works for you. What do you want though? Do you not agree the primes outperform the super zooms? Is it cost? Have you tried the 17-55 or 17-50 lenses? Why not crop those? Or if you want to crop why not the 24-70 on a d800? Is your dream a $300 really sharp with low distortion 18-300 zoom? Of course I would be happy if I could carry one lens that did everything really well and never had to change lenses...I don't think you are alone in that respect, but it isn't reality.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,443Member
    edited March 2016
    I would just like a 10x lens that would not drop to mush at the long end..double the price would be fine. I made a big mistake in changing to FX when I bought the D800..just horrible and noisy but for the 50 or so per wedding I take with the 14mm Samyang it works fine. The wider you go the more pixels you need....IMHO
    D810 quiet and the group focus feature is great but still rubbish on the memories and the lower DOF is a pain. My customers don't get anything better from the D810 than they would from a D7100. When a days pics from the three cameras are all mixed up in lightroom you don't go ..that's junk its the D7100...you cannot tell.
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    17-55 with D7000
    The mansion kiss

    Knowing what I know today I would still jump to FX and Crop body for the alter shots when 200mm or 300mm is not enough
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    edited March 2016
    Old school comment: zooms are harder to design and more complex functioning than primes so as a general rule primes will be sharper than zooms at the same f-stop. You can check DxOMark to see how primes compare to zooms in sharpness and I think you will generally find zooms lag behind the primes. However, sharpness is not always the most important factor. I was struck by Art Wolfe's bag: artwolfe.com/2014/10/16/whats-in-arts-bag/ When things are happening faster than you can keep up with by moving to change positions, zooms are the lens of choice. Us "oldies" used to shoot with a camera bag open full of primes so we could swap them as needed. Now you can set the bag down and just carry a zoom.
    Post edited by donaldejose on
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    Even though we like to parse image quality, it is only interesting when it is not good enough.
    Today's zoom's 24-120/4, 24-70/2.8 (either version), 70-200/2.8 (either version) when used well are more than good enough for event photography. With almost all customers, any edge in IQ using primes will likely not be noticed, might not even exist if you have to crop more heavily, and will not compensate for the shots you miss changing lenses or even swapping pre-mounted bodies.

    I only use primes at events if I am specifically looking for available light, and those shots are a very small portion.
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member

    I would just like a 10x lens that would not drop to mush at the long end..double the price would be fine. I made a big mistake in changing to FX when I bought the D800..just horrible and noisy but for the 50 or so per wedding I take with the 14mm Samyang it works fine. The wider you go the more pixels you need....IMHO
    D810 quiet and the group focus feature is great but still rubbish on the memories and the lower DOF is a pain. My customers don't get anything better from the D810 than they would from a D7100. When a days pics from the three cameras are all mixed up in lightroom you don't go ..that's junk its the D7100...you cannot tell.

    I see your point and I am saying it...I agree. The worst part of the super zooms are the long end. This is one reason I got the 300 f4. It was the most economical good performing lens over 200 mm.

    As for the pics from the different cameras. Totally agree. I shot my d5000 and d5200 while my friend shot his d800. Besides knowing in some cases which picture I took I can't tell between the three in my lightroom catalog. My friend has better Photoshop skills so he did some better editing on a few pictures, but the bride picked about half mine and half his for her wedding book.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,443Member
    So much sense talked by so many on a forum...this must be Nikon Rumors forum
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    I had sort of a contrary experience recently: zoom too sharp! I just shot an event and found the 24-120 f2 too sharp at f5.6 even though I had put a soft focus filter over the lens to degrade sharpness even more. I couldn't go to f4 because there would be insufficient depth of field. The event was a 70th birthday party. Lots and lots of wrinkles in those faces which I was trying to diminish! The last thing I wanted was more sharpness. The opposite end of young people getting married.
  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 993Member
    It sounds to me like a combination of one camera with a zoom lense like the 24-120 and one camera to be used with primes like the 300/4 and 24/1.4 could be a good solution.

    @donaldejose: If you use Lightroom you could try a brush with negative clarity on those wrinkles.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,742Member
    snakebunk said:

    It sounds to me like a combination of one camera with a zoom lense like the 24-120 and one camera to be used with primes like the 300/4 and 24/1.4 could be a good solution.

    @donaldejose: If you use Lightroom you could try a brush with negative clarity on those wrinkles.

    And everything else would be sharp. It seems to me that if everything is soft, you have soft wrinkled people. If only the faces are soft, they will look a little younger.
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    12mp Camera with Nikon 58mm 1.4g at f2 would be ideal :)
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    Vipmediastar: great idea for single portraits! I wish I had that lens. But I wonder if DOF would be sufficient at f2 when you have a group of people, especially if there are two rows of people or people sitting around a table so the faces are not on the same plane.
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    for a group I would say 5.6 or f8 and/or a DOF calculator

  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    Yes, I was shooting at f5.6 and f8. The 24-120 f4 zoom was too sharp at that f-stop. That is my point. Most lenses, zooms included, sharpen up a stop or two down.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,443Member
    I re visited the Sigma 50-500 lens on DXO and if you love DXO green sharp and field coverage this lens has got it up to 400mm....So this shows it is possible to do sharp 10x lenses with full frame coverage at sensible money. so why do we have 24-120 with strange characteristics at 85mm I don't know.
    If we could just widen the wide end to 24/28 and chop 200mm off the long end it would be a fabulous lens...
  • BVSBVS Posts: 440Member

    I re visited the Sigma 50-500 lens on DXO and if you love DXO green sharp and field coverage this lens has got it up to 400mm....So this shows it is possible to do sharp 10x lenses with full frame coverage at sensible money. so why do we have 24-120 with strange characteristics at 85mm I don't know.
    If we could just widen the wide end to 24/28 and chop 200mm off the long end it would be a fabulous lens...

    Maybe it's because of the need to use more complicated retrofocus lens designs for anything wider than about 43mm or so, whereas the 50-500 can use a more classic design?

    D7100, 85 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 35 1.8G DX, Tokina 12-28 F4, 18-140, 55-200 VR DX
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member
    haroldp said:

    Even though we like to parse image quality, it is only interesting when it is not good enough.
    Today's zoom's 24-120/4, 24-70/2.8 (either version), 70-200/2.8 (either version) when used well are more than good enough for event photography. With almost all customers, any edge in IQ using primes will likely not be noticed, might not even exist if you have to crop more heavily, and will not compensate for the shots you miss changing lenses or even swapping pre-mounted bodies.

    I only use primes at events if I am specifically looking for available light, and those shots are a very small portion.

    I agree with this ^^ except that I would use primes if I know I am going to be shooting distant action, as the increase in light and sharpness help the focusing and cropping abilities, respectively.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,443Member
    Thanks BVS ..forgot that ...Mirrorless it is then ..if its a Nikon mirrorless and 54 MP !!
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    @Pistnbroke Yes indeed! The 10-100 (27-270 equiv.) is actually a beautiful lens on the N1 system. It is sharp enough to out resolve the sensor (future camera?) and covers 99% of all of the focal lengths you need. It's tiny, light, and collapses to like 4.5" when not in use, extremely well balanced on a N1 body. Its almost like they designed the system around this lens. There is a power zoom version for video freaks too.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,443Member
    I don't like and wont use lenses that require me to push a button to get them to extend ..that's another time wasting action to do /remember
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    @Pistnbroke: How many times do you turn your camera on/off? @-) One at the pre-wedding, once at the church and once at the reception? Not too arduous really...
    Always learning.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,675Member
    @Pistnbroke: You don't have to remember. The camera won't shoot until you do extend the lens.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,742Member
    I think Pistnbroke is talking about pushing a button to zoom it while you are filming, not to turn it on. I agree with him, I would hate push a button and waste space on the body for such a button to zoom. The zoom ring is perfect.
Sign In or Register to comment.