Back in the day I used to cover concerts and red carpets with a 28-70 2.8d and a 70-200 2.8. If we had to be positioned further back near the sound board I would use a 300 2.8. Now days with the available crop factor on the Z8, two fast zooms in that focal range should cover everything you need.
Rich..
If budget is a concern, maybe consider the 70-180mm f2.8. It 95% of the 70-200 f2.8 and is lighter and less expensive. I think you could get the 70-180 f2.8 and 17-28mm f2.8 for the price of the 70-200 f2.8. Furthermore, these lenses use have the same filter size if you are using filters for portrait sessions.
That’s super tempting. I have to do a few more shoots to afford any choice but that’ll be this summer. Hopefully sooner than later.
Wouldn’t mind the extra reach but if it means having it vs not, could be a great choice.
I have heard the AF on ppl isn’t as good. True? *****
Never mind I was confusing it with the old micro.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Rich..
If budget is a concern, maybe consider the 70-180mm f2.8. It 95% of the 70-200 f2.8 and is lighter and less expensive. I think you could get the 70-180 f2.8 and 17-28mm f2.8 for the price of the 70-200 f2.8. Furthermore, these lenses use have the same filter size if you are using filters for portrait sessions.
newyork wrote:
That’s super tempting. I have to do a few more shoots to afford any choice but that’ll be this summer. Hopefully sooner than later.
Wouldn’t mind the extra reach but if it means having it vs not, could be a great choice.
I have heard the AF on ppl isn’t as good. True? *****
Never mind I was confusing it with the old micro.
I owned the 70-180 and still have the 17-28. I don't think the AF is slow. The lens is worth a look if you are trying to make the most of your dollars. With the impending price increases, the S-series optics are going to get more expensive.
I used to use the mf 85/1.4 Rokinon on people speaking behind podiums, etc. I really liked the 170/1.4 ff equivalent aspect of it, though you could probably run the iso up to 6400 on modern ff (vs 1600 12mp m4/3) making up for the 2 stop loss to 2.8
I dont really feel like sharpness is super important on people, you could probably adapt older nikkor if needed. Which it would probably be pretty sharp.
I haven't really done this professionally, but 17-28 doesn't sound particularly useful. 150mm is pretty close to 200mm imo, 35-150 could be great if you need <70mm, might not be that useful though believe it or not
If it matters I’m told the 35-150 also has less magnification
AmbientMike wrote:
I used to use the mf 85/1.4 Rokinon on people speaking behind podiums, etc. I really liked the 170/1.4 ff equivalent aspect of it, though you could probably run the iso up to 6400 on modern ff (vs 1600 12mp m4/3) making up for the 2 stop loss to 2.8
I dont really feel like sharpness is super important on people, you could probably adapt older nikkor if needed. Which it would probably be pretty sharp.
I haven't really done this professionally, but 17-28 doesn't sound particularly useful. 150mm is pretty close to 200mm imo, 35-150 could be great if you need <70mm, might not be that useful though believe it or not...Show more →
Last night I did another red carpet at the theater. The one where I get to shoot the event on the actual stage is in 2 weeks.
I watched the play after the red carpet and this time I was 3rd row. I also got the opportunity (since I showed up really early) to look at all the ins and outs of shooting from different positions there. I wasn’t allowed to shoot this play though.
Anyway, from the ends of the aisles a 24-70 would be plenty. But I’m thinking the 35-150 would be minimum at the tops of the aisles. Either DX and 150 or have 2 lenses in the 24-120 and 70-120. Maybe zf with 2-120 and z8 with 70-200.
If you rent you may consider adapting the Sony 50-150mm f2.0 as well. That extra stop may come handy.
I just shot a dance event last week and decided to go prime so I shot it with 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.2 and 135mm f1.8, all wide open all the time. It enabled me to never go higher than ISO 9000 on the Z6III and Z9, with most images shot around ISO 3600. Shutter speed at 1/1000.
The 35-150 is f/2-2.8. I think it’s 2.8 at 150 only but wasn’t totally sure about that.
bernardl wrote:
If you rent you may consider adapting the Sony 50-150mm f2.0 as well. That extra stop may come handy.
I just shot a dance event last week and decided to go prime so I shot it with 35mm f1.2, 85mm f1.2 and 135mm f1.8, all wide open all the time. It enabled me to never go higher than ISO 9000 on the Z6III and Z9, with most images shot around ISO 3600. Shutter speed at 1/1000.
newyork wrote:
Oh dang. Not terrible but not what I thought. Thank you.
I own that lens btw, I think it is only f2.0 between 35mm and 50mm or so.
I terms of max aperture in its tele range it has basically no value over a 70-180mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f2.8. And optically it's ok considering the range, but the 70-200mm f2.8 S is significantly sharper and focus is both faster and more accurate.
The Sony 50-150mm f2.0 is IMHO in a different league.
I have been expecting Nikon to release soon a 100-200mm f2.0 S TC that will open many more doors, but is likely to be very expensive and a bit heavy.
That Sony is $4000 plus an adapter. That’s some serious coin. The $2200 for the 70-200 is already a putting Pennie’s away type of purchase. Sony does sound great though.
bernardl wrote:
I own that lens btw, I think it is only f2.0 between 35mm and 50mm or so.
I terms of max aperture in its tele range it has basically no value over a 70-180mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f2.8. And optically it's ok considering the range, but the 70-200mm f2.8 S is significantly sharper and focus is both faster and more accurate.
The Sony 50-150mm f2.0 is IMHO in a different league.
I have been expecting Nikon to release soon a 100-200mm f2.0 S TC that will open many more doors, but is likely to be very expensive and a bit heavy.
