Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  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 2016 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.
  
 
Depth of Feel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


I just completed a shoot where the 105 and 58 never left my camera. It was awesome. Not wasting time or brain energy with lens changes and the weight savings, oh the weight savings!!!

That doesn't cut it for a weddings though and I'd love to ditch my camera bag or at least get rid of some weight. Competition being what it is image quality is very important.

Right now I have a tokina 16-28, 24 art and 35 art. I love the idea of ditching all three and dropping down to a 20 1.8 and either the 28 1.8 or keep the 35 art. What I noticed is 35 doesn't always work, 24 is sometimes too wide and my 16-28 comes out for reception swirlies or when I'm shooting in a closet.

The 16-28 gives me adequate images, its not a money maker, its hammer that gets the job done when I need it and I have no complaints other then its a special use tool.

My 35 art takes gorgeous images. My 24 art takes gorgeous images. The 24-35 f2 wont cut based on the samples I've seen and the weight.

The 28 1.8 thread is very compelling. Lot's of neat stuff. I just don't want to rebuy a 35 later on. I also am not sure how often I'd really use a 20 regardless of who makes it though I can see it taking the place of the 16-28 and save a little weight. I wouldn't get zoom light streaks though.

An extra thought. I did notice at the last wedding I shot with the 58 and 105 that my 35 was often the other lens I used when the 105 or 70-200 was on the camera.

More extra thoughts. Where my 35 does heavy lifting as a wide portrait to get great bokeh but also tell a story. Its great for wide family portraits, wedding party photos, I love it for the "hand-off" during ceremonies, and getting a cute shots of the shawdy's coming down the isle (kids). It's great for details, and portraits in hotel rooms. The 35 art is about bokeh, story, versatility and it's complement to the other lenses. A 28 1.8 if its 90% of my 35 art will do just fine for weight savings and brain savings (lens changes and choices).

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Edited on Oct 10, 2016 at 07:01 AM · View previous versions



Oct 10, 2016 at 06:18 AM
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


Personally if I were thinking about cutting it down to one wide angle it'd be a 28 of some sort. Not too wide or too narrow. One of my favorite focal lengths.

However, you mention needing the utility of the wider lens sometimes and the Tokina not being mind blowingly good. Plus a zoom is great for utility in the fast paced environment. So maybe the right choice for you could be the excellent 14-24. The 16-35 is supposedly better than the Tokina and has more reach but f/4 is probably an issue for weddings, right?



Oct 10, 2016 at 07:01 AM
Depth of Feel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


Lee Saxon wrote:
Personally if I were thinking about cutting it down to one wide angle it'd be a 28 of some sort. Not too wide or too narrow. One of my favorite focal lengths.

However, you mention needing the utility of the wider lens sometimes and the Tokina not being mind blowingly good. Plus a zoom is great for utility in the fast paced environment. So maybe the right choice for you could be the excellent 14-24.


Not needing amazeballs from super wide. 14-24 can live with the landscape folks.

But man do I like the idea of not choosing between 24 and 35 anymore and saving weight too! Granted my 24 only gets used when I am in tighter spaces. I usually pick the 35 and back up unless I am trying to use distortion for creative effect. My 35 needed repair recently as the aperture spring needed to be fixed and I had to use my 24 a lot and fell back in love with it. But having one less lens to choose from and would be better.

I hear the argument for ditching the 35 and just cropping the 24 giving me an effective 24-35 1.4-2.0 but I just tested that theory in house and compression does what compression is gonna do.



Oct 10, 2016 at 07:07 AM
eke2k6
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


Don't be so fast to discount the 24-35 Art. There were times when I wished my 35 Art could zoom out *just* a bit, and the 24-35 has been a godsend. I'm editing the first full wedding I did with it, and I'm shocked by how sharp this thing is, and the bokeh I can get with a wide angle zoom. I did a short comparison between the 24-35 and 35A a while back totally haphazardly. Check it out in the meanwhile. I'll post images from the wedding once they're done.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1451142/



Oct 10, 2016 at 02:59 PM
BSPhotog
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


I just picked up 28 1.8g last week and used it yesterday for two shoots. The 28 was always on a camera, usually with the 85 1.4d on the other, but the 180 and 60 both saw action on the long end as well. Never once reached for the 35.


Oct 10, 2016 at 03:09 PM
Dj R
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


if you pick up a 28, do yourself a favor and don't sell anything for a good month.
at these FL you really need to take your time.
it's worth exploring, 24, 28, 35, with the right camera, you can do it all with a 24 or a 28 and just crop to 35, if needed.

I had a 35 art and while the results were good, I didn't think that the weight was really necessary for that specific tool.
plus 35 is too close to my 58 (which is an expensive and special tool) so I sold my 35 art.

I have had success with both the 24 and 28 1.8G lenses.



Oct 10, 2016 at 03:37 PM
morrismike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


Depth of Feel wrote:
I just completed a shoot where the 105 and 58 never left my camera. It was awesome. Not wasting time or brain energy with lens changes and the weight savings, oh the weight savings!!!

That doesn't cut it for a weddings though and I'd love to ditch my camera bag or at least get rid of some weight. Competition being what it is image quality is very important.

Right now I have a tokina 16-28, 24 art and 35 art. I love the idea of ditching all three and dropping down to a 20 1.8 and either the
...Show more

Have you ever shot a 28mm f2.8 voigtlander?



Oct 11, 2016 at 02:25 AM
BSPhotog
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


morrismike wrote:
Have you ever shot a 28mm f2.8 voigtlander?


Although the Voigtlander's weight and size is a huge advantage, I don't think the AF performance is up to snuff.



Oct 11, 2016 at 02:43 AM
popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


I do 20 1.8, 28 1.8, 58 1.4, 105 1.4. It's light, simple, and I don't think about gear any longer.


Oct 11, 2016 at 03:41 AM
Depth of Feel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


popinvasion wrote:
I do 20 1.8, 28 1.8, 58 1.4, 105 1.4. It's light, simple, and I don't think about gear any longer.


Well I just picked up a 28 1.8 on ebay for $400. I have not even tried it out yet but my engagement session tonight I spent way to much time deciding between 35 and 24 for certain shots. The third time I went to my bag I said F this, its just not worth it. Also for some reason the 105 doesnt feel heavy to me. Its probably the body feel with the weight distribution.

The 58 feels like a feather compared to my 35 and 24. At this point in the year where I am practically running on empty I don't want to think. I want to see and shoot nothing more.

I got the 28 cheap enough that selling it will be like a renters fee. If it goes well I might grab a 20. But with my fanny pack I can just put my tilt shift and third lens in an be just fine and happy with much less gear.






Oct 11, 2016 at 04:23 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


morrismike wrote:
Have you ever shot a 28mm f2.8 voigtlander?


Looked at it, it's tiny but Meh, inferior to the Nikkor 28/2.8 AI-S in all regards except size and being CPU enabled.



Oct 11, 2016 at 06:34 PM
Joseph.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


I love the 28 1.8G, but it doesn't render like the 24 1.4G. I think a 24 1.4, 58 1.4 and 105 1.4 would be an awesome kit!


Oct 11, 2016 at 07:04 PM
Dj R
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


Joseph. wrote:
I love the 28 1.8G, but it doesn't render like the 24 1.4G. I think a 24 1.4, 58 1.4 and 105 1.4 would be an awesome kit!


you're right,
the problem he wants to shed lbs.
and you don't need 1.4 at 24mm or 28mm
I like the rendering of the 28, there is something silky about it.

the 58 is so light!
24 or 28 1.8g and 58g is a light combo for sure.



Oct 11, 2016 at 07:14 PM
ariot
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


I think the 28 f1.8 has a max reproduction ratio of .22x -- the 20 f1.8 beats that a little at .23x

The 24 f1.4 is a bit behind that (.179x)-- similarly the 58 f1.4 and the 105mm f1.4 both at .13x

Often getting a closeup is required without swapping lenses to a macro.

There are trade-offs for everything, and this is all subjective to composition style between 20, 24 and 28.

For the money, the 28 is hard to beat, and stepping over to the 24 f1.4 is a big cost, especially if you're holding the 58 and new 105 now.





Oct 11, 2016 at 08:02 PM
Dj R
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


ariot wrote:
I think the 28 f1.8 has a max reproduction ratio of .22x -- the 20 f1.8 beats that a little at .23x

The 24 f1.4 is a bit behind that (.179x)-- similarly the 58 f1.4 and the 105mm f1.4 both at .13x

Often getting a closeup is required without swapping lenses to a macro.

There are trade-offs for everything, and this is all subjective to composition style between 20, 24 and 28.

For the money, the 28 is hard to beat, and stepping over to the 24 f1.4 is a big cost, especially if you're holding the 58 and new 105 now.



plus nobody compares 24 1.4g to 28 1.8g...
when there is a 24 1.8g, which is actually the newest of the G glass lineup.
the 28mm 1.8g is the most economical of the three, by far.
the lightest,
and probably the most versatile FL of the two,
if you shoot people often, 28 > 24.



Oct 11, 2016 at 08:03 PM
morrismike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


BSPhotog wrote:
Although the Voigtlander's weight and size is a huge advantage, I don't think the AF performance is up to snuff.

it's MF



Oct 11, 2016 at 10:23 PM
Depth of Feel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


Ok... Just did a shoot with 28 58 105. This is the perfect combo. I dont want to use anything else. I have not even looked at the images and I dont care. I might even ditch my tilt shift. So light and so much more energy to shoot and think. This is awesome.


Oct 11, 2016 at 11:52 PM
BSPhotog
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


morrismike wrote:
it's MF


I know.
---------------------------------------------

Depth of Feel wrote:
Ok... Just did a shoot with 28 58 105. This is the perfect combo. I dont want to use anything else. I have not even looked at the images and I dont care. I might even ditch my tilt shift. So light and so much more energy to shoot and think. This is awesome.


Ha, good to hear! That's how I felt with the 28/85. I think I could do a whole wedding with just those two.



Oct 12, 2016 at 01:51 AM
Dj R
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


How about 28 & 70-200 2.8ii !

BSPhotog wrote:
I know.
---------------------------------------------

Ha, good to hear! That's how I felt with the 28/85. I think I could do a whole wedding with just those two.




Oct 12, 2016 at 02:37 AM
Depth of Feel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · I have a wide problem, I need to lose some weight.


Dj R wrote:
How about 28 & 70-200 2.8ii !



If you are rocking the weight of the 70-200 you might as well have two primes in the wide side or do the 24-35.



Oct 12, 2016 at 03:06 AM
1
       2       end






FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password