Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.
  
 
JCraigLynch
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


Jan,

Beautiful shots!



Jan 27, 2013 at 05:27 AM
popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


Two23 wrote:
Over the past year I've done six weddings. I use a combo of D300, D5100, and D7000 bodies. My most used lens is th3 17-55mm f2.8 (equiv. to your 24-70mm), but in every wedding I have used the Nikon 70-200mm VR f2.8 for many (if not most) shots during the ceremony. With it, I can stand in the back and take shots from a ladder that otherwise are impossible. I can't imagine doing weddings for pay and not have this lens. The f4 version would not work for me as it won't isolate my subjects as well.

Kent in SD


Great post. This is what I like to hear. I don't shoot weddings, but as I said there is a void in my area so naturally I get asked. I love gear so buying new stuff is fun, I just need to wisely allocate my funds right now so I am debating the merit of the 70-200. I don't plan on shooting many weddings but I won't pass up an opportunity if I am truly needed. I also bet the F4 might be a problem in some really dark churches. I had a sigma 10-20 3.5 in a church last year for a wedding and I just barely was getting by with that lens.



Jan 27, 2013 at 05:43 AM
DontShoot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


The 70-200 VRII was a great lens, but didn't work for me. I replaced it with the 200 f/2 which is more my style and I LOVE it. I currently shoot with primes only and I find that most zooms leave me with more confusion. I hate deciding all the time.. I want one focal length and be done with it. The simpler the better.


Jan 27, 2013 at 05:57 AM
fishfilm
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


Well, the Nikon Big Three (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) are aimed at the PJ market and the organizations that support them. They are not the best at any one thing other than framing fast in the field and moving these images from the field to a publication. For my part, I'm always a bit surprised at how many NG images are used with the 14-24 at full wide. LOTS of distortion if faces and heads are at the corners. But it works inside a tent or yurt or cave. Same with the rest. If I'm on the clock I use the zooms but on my own I prefer the primes. Not that the images with the zooms aren't great but prefer the mind set of working with primes when there isn't crazy stuff going off all around me.


Jan 27, 2013 at 06:48 AM
popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


DontShoot wrote:
The 70-200 VRII was a great lens, but didn't work for me. I replaced it with the 200 f/2 which is more my style and I LOVE it. I currently shoot with primes only and I find that most zooms leave me with more confusion. I hate deciding all the time.. I want one focal length and be done with it. The simpler the better.



Beautiful looking lens, but $6k wow. I hear you on the zooming, like I said I generally on a 70-200 I would stay at 70 or 200 and treat it like a prime.



Jan 27, 2013 at 07:02 AM
popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


fishfilm wrote:
Well, the Nikon Big Three (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) are aimed at the PJ market and the organizations that support them. They are not the best at any one thing other than framing fast in the field and moving these images from the field to a publication. For my part, I'm always a bit surprised at how many NG images are used with the 14-24 at full wide. LOTS of distortion if faces and heads are at the corners. But it works inside a tent or yurt or cave. Same with the rest. If I'm on the clock I use the
...Show more

Yep the big 3 are the standards and maybe its just a result of convenience. I personally want VR on a 24-70, so I have no desire for the Nikon 24-70. I hear you on the primes, to me it feels more artistic to use a prime and have to work for a shot, but like you said, its hard to play with primes with a lot of activity.



Jan 27, 2013 at 07:05 AM
egd5
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


I second shoot weddings for a friend. We both use the 70-200 a lot, especially in the ceremony. Many churches have "church ladies" (aka-church nazies) who won't let you get close enough without a long lens. And frankly, I wouldn't want to be up front in any way distracting from the bride and groom. So if you are going to shoot weddings I would recommend getting some kind of longer lens. Otherwise it doesn't sound like you much need one.


Jan 27, 2013 at 03:37 PM
Two23
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


popinvasion wrote:
1. Yep the big 3 are the standards and maybe its just a result of convenience.

2. I hear you on the primes, to me it feels more artistic to use a prime and have to work for a shot, .




1. Weddings are fast moving, almost like sports. The LAST thing I want to do is to be fumbling around trying to change lenses, missing shots. Or, trying to back up in a crowded room. I've been shooting about 2,000 shots per wedding, and a "real" pro shoots twice that. It's as much about speed in getting fleeting shots off as anything.

2. Keep in mind I am still shooting 4x5, and love to use lenses that are 100 to 150+ years old. I actively shoot everything from a 2012 Nikon DSLR to a 1943 Leica to a 1904 Brownie to an 1880s half plate tailboard to an 1847 Voigtlander lens. I own and shoot just about everything ever made. I can honestly say that I quit thinking that artistry comes from gear quite a while ago. Artistry comes from artists, not gear. Gear does not make you more creative. I can be just as creative/artistic with anything I hold in my hands. It's my my mind that limits me.


Kent in SD



Jan 27, 2013 at 06:36 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


Two23 wrote:
1. Weddings are fast moving, almost like sports. The LAST thing I want to do is to be fumbling around trying to change lenses, missing shots. Or, trying to back up in a crowded room. I've been shooting about 2,000 shots per wedding, and a "real" pro shoots twice that. It's as much about speed in getting fleeting shots off as anything.

2. Keep in mind I am still shooting 4x5, and love to use lenses that are 100 to 150+ years old. I actively shoot everything from a 2012 Nikon DSLR to a 1943 Leica to a 1904 Brownie to
...Show more

Absolutely, but what inspires the artist is what makes the artist more creative. Some shoot better on a leica, because it inspires them. That was my point.



Jan 27, 2013 at 08:26 PM
DontShoot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


I don't shoot weddings but if I did, I'd definitely opt for the 24-70 and 70-200 on two bodies. I'm being paid to document the event exactly how the client wants and the zooms are pretty much "safe bet".

Now for personal use - that's a different story. I'd rather take very few really fantastic and well-composed shot with a prime than take hundreds of mediocre shots with a zoom. I really love the workflow and challenge involved with shooting a prime.

If I were to shoot a wedding with primes, I'd use 3 bodies, with a 24/35, 60/85, and 135/200.



Jan 29, 2013 at 06:36 PM
Two23
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


DontShoot wrote:
1. Now for personal use - that's a different story. I'd rather take very few really fantastic and well-composed shot with a prime than take hundreds of mediocre shots with a zoom.

2. I really love the workflow and challenge involved with shooting a prime..



1. Mediocre shots can come from any lens--it''s not the lens that makes them mediocre. I highly doubt you'd be able to tell the difference between shots from a single focal lens and a state of art pro zoom. I also doubt you'd be able to tell the difference between images made from a consumer zoom and a single focal lens if lenses are shot at f8. The choice of using a tripod or not has a bigger impact on image quality than there is difference between single focal lens and pro zooms. Composition is a mental exercise, not a function of photo gear.

2. For challenge, I like to shoot either pre-Civil War lenses on 4x5 (no shutters, no f-stops.), or a 1904 Brownie. Are my shots better from that gear? No. It's just more of a challenge.


Kent in SD



Jan 30, 2013 at 01:07 AM
fishfilm
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


Two23 wrote:
1. Weddings are fast moving, almost like sports. The LAST thing I want to do is to be fumbling around trying to change lenses, missing shots. Or, trying to back up in a crowded room. I've been shooting about 2,000 shots per wedding, and a "real" pro shoots twice that. It's as much about speed in getting fleeting shots off as anything.

2. Keep in mind I am still shooting 4x5, and love to use lenses that are 100 to 150+ years old. I actively shoot everything from a 2012 Nikon DSLR to a 1943 Leica to a 1904 Brownie to
...Show more

Weddings are like a combination of war and sports. Maybe more frightening than both. I'll take a pissed of SI editor over a pissed off bride anytime. A photo editor will fire you, a fighter forgets about you but an angry bride or FIL will track you to the ends of the earth and kill you.



Jan 30, 2013 at 04:17 AM
static808
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


what's to explain?? the 70-200 is an awesome lens if you need it, or its a really expensive paperweight if you dont. if you feel the need for flexibility, more light and shallower DOF, then by all means give it a shot. worse case scenaio, your arms get more toned from carrying all of the extra weight around. i gotta admit, if the 70-200 didnt perform so well, theres no way i'd willingly carry that thing around all day.

as for focal length redundancy, i say just get the tools you need to get the job done, regardless of whether you've already got that focal length covered.



Jan 30, 2013 at 05:28 AM
popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


static808 wrote:
what's to explain?? the 70-200 is an awesome lens if you need it, or its a really expensive paperweight if you dont. if you feel the need for flexibility, more light and shallower DOF, then by all means give it a shot. worse case scenaio, your arms get more toned from carrying all of the extra weight around. i gotta admit, if the 70-200 didnt perform so well, theres no way i'd willingly carry that thing around all day.

as for focal length redundancy, i say just get the tools you need to get the job done, regardless of whether you've
...Show more

I like it!



Jan 30, 2013 at 07:02 AM
James R
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Can you explain the 70-200 to me? and lens redundancy.


Pop,

Over the years I have reworked my kit lenses numerous times. As your skills and preferences change, so does your lens lust. I have settle on my current kit and don't intend to change again; and i've said that more than once. But, one lens has always made it into all those revised kits and that is the 70-200 in all its iterations. Its sharpness is stellar and it plays well with TCs. The 70-200 FL tends to be a flagship lens for all major DSLR makers.

My advice is to not rush into buying lenses and only buy top quality glass.



Jan 30, 2013 at 05:11 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password