Hi,
I've recently returned from a music festival here in Norway where I was one of the more-or-less designated festival shooters. Kind of a non-paying job really, the festival itself gets all the pictures and rights to use them, and I get to attend all activities for free, free sleeping accomodations and Access All Areas pass...considering I'm a bleedin' noob I consider myself lucky. I came home with about 1500 pics of different artists and bands, and had tons of fun. No pressure while doing it either, very nice.
I used my brand new D700 for the entire 3 days, and got to know it a little better, loved the high ISO low noise btw...
I ended up using my Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 G AF-S VR ED and no flash for the entire period, partly because I kept a little bit in the background while down in the press-pit, not wanting to interfere with those that actually was taking pictures as a reallife paying job. Lots of good...ish pics, but as always I ended up looking with envy on some of the gear the pro-guys were using.
Now, everybody around me was using Canon bodies, various models but EOS 1D seemed to be the most common. Whether it was 1D or 1Ds I don't know, but...
Anyway, at least three of the pros had the Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM lens, and I saw some of the pics they took with that. Awesome pictures of course, and I'm already thinking about getting a similar lens for my D700. I haven't got any wide-angel zoom at all at this time, so it is a lens I will get sometime in the future. But what to get...?
What Nikon D700 compatibel lens is recommended for similar use as the above Canon lens?
Yep, that's what I was thinking of, but you are right, neither are cheap here in the UK either. I was lucky to pick up the 24-70/2.8 just before the prices jumped up and it is a super lens and sharp sharp sharp.
Never used the 14-24 as I never need to go that wide.
Yeah, I was kinda wondering about how the pics would look that wide, but looking at the results from at least one of the guys with the 16-35, I was quite impressed with the effect. It looked really cool, and one of those pics has to be the festival-shot of the year, for that specific festival. Having a band that kind of "helps out" the photographer while on stage helps too, of course...
It would be nice to have the extra "range" of 70mm, but what difference would I see between the lower 16mm on the Canon and the 24mm on the Nikon lens? Just wondering, since the wide-angel part would be nice as well, and the 24-70 seems to be more of a normal zoom...might be wrong of course, just notice that this lens is listed as a normal zoom, not a wide-angle zoom.
If those guys you saw with the 16-35mm were using it on a 1D series (1.3x crop) body the lens would appear less wide than on a full frame 1Ds body like the D700 so that is something to keep in mind.
Certainly for my uses, 24mm is wide enough on my D3/x but depending on how close you are to the stage 24mm may not be wide enough for you. Do you have the option to borrow a lens from a helpful dealer where you are in Norway? The other option is renting one for an event to try it out and here in the UK some places offer to option to rent the lens and if you then buy it the rental cost is deducted from the cost price.
If you want to stay in the range of the Canon 16-35 (with or without crop) you could think of a 17-35/2.8 as well.
The IQ is about the same as the 16-35 but is not as good as the 14-24 (best WA at the moment).
The 17-35 is an expensive lens as well.
Hmm, I might have to check out more closely what body he was using I guess.
I don't know whether rental is an option, but I'm pretty sure I can at least test it out down in the shops and see how it looks on my camera.
Chris Dees:
I was wondering why I couldn't find a similar sized lens for Nikon as the Canon lens I saw, but it turns out that the online shop I was looking at simply didn't have that lens...
You're refering to the Nikon Nikkor AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED right?
Yup...looks expensive as well, about the same price as the two other lenses I've been talking about so far.
The 17-35 looks big but the 14-24 is quite a beast (1kg)
"Problem" with the 14-24 it can't hold filters and the front element is very big (form is like a fisheye).
a 14-24 will be too wide. A 17-35 will be fine. I think on FF a 24-70 will be great as well. But as you have a 50mm, you can get by with a 17-35, 50, and 70-200. In fact, that is what i use to photograph concerts in Canon format on a 5D.
When i shoot concerts, and I do that in Oslo quite a bit actually, I exclusively use primes. Mostly beacause most of the concerts I cover are in dark venues, but also beacause I just like the smaller size of the 85 1.4 compared to my 70-200 2.8. My concert kit is 24 2.0, 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4. Sometimes I bring 105 2.5 and 180 2.8 in a backpack, just in case, but almost all shots are 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4
ulrikft:
...I noticed I had to update my gear on my profile...
Yeah, last year on the same festival (Træna btw...) I used the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 a lot, but also the 70-200mm 2.8. It's mostly the wide-angle part I'm after, but if I'm able to get that as well as a little bit of range, that would be very nice.
The more I can get outta a single lens, the better.
My experience from the last two years, is that switching lenses in the pit out on Træna is a non-starter, with beer, spit, sweat, rain and seagull-droppings flying all over the place...
Well all I can say is that the promoters must really love you, as not only are you giving your work and your rights away for free in exchange for access, but your so dedicated in doing so that your willing to spent even more additional money out of pocket on even more gear so you can give them an even wider variety of free images. Why on earth would you think this sounds like a good idea ?
Also for what its worth, I really don't see why you were looking on with envy at guys with a Canon 1D, mostly likely mkII's, maybe a few mkIII's and 16-35's. I was a Canon shooter til last year and can assure you those guys are far more likely looking on with envy at you. Well not at you per say, as they are far more concerned with doing their job that what camera the other guy is holding, and especially not when they find out how your giving away your work and rights for a weekends worth of work.
But just the same, the D700 is a much better performer at high ISO's than the 1D mkII or mkIII. Additionally the Canon 16-35 is pretty darn poor compared to the 14-24. I actually know a number of Canon guys who use an adapter on their 5D mkII's just so they can use that lens since Canon's wides are so lacking. Nikons 24-70's are actually a bit better than the Canon version as well.
Only camera Canon has thats "better" than the D700 is the 21meg 5D mkII. Thats a very nice camera in terms of image quality, but the downsize is they didnt upgrade the AF system so its basically a consumer level body with a really nice sensor. D700 is better build, better af, better flash metering etc.
I'm shooting a show tonight in fact, and in addition to a D3 I'll be using a D700. Its an excellent camera for that type of work.
millsart:
Hehe, not envious of their cameras, but just that single lens
I'm very happy with my D700, and as You hinted at there WERE a few longing looks on my D700 and also my 70-200 2.8. I only wish I had it sooner...
As far as giving my rights away...I'm into this as a hobby, I got another full time job that steals almost all my time. In other words, I'll never be a full time photographer, and I'll never be able to make a living doing it either. This festival that I've attended the last four years in a row is a very small festival, about 3000 attending, and most of the work that is done to make it happen is done by volunteers. This festival wouldn't even exist if it was run like a more well-known festival, with the costs associated with a big show like that. All of us that are helping out are doing it because we love that specific festival, not because we expect to earn money on it.
Most of the people working there knows each other, and we all know that we're getting "unskilled" labour. So far the festival have not had regular photographers attending, apart from those that are associated with the press and news agencies, and the festival is simply not able to hire a professional photographer to take pics for their own promotional use.
Hell, even a few of the pros have GIVEN pictures to the festival, just because they enjoy it immensely.
Finally, I've not given my rights away, they are my pictures, but the festival has been given the right to use them on their own webpage and for marketing.
As for spending my own money to buy gear, well...this is a hobby, and getting more capable gear is a part of that hobby. For me thats no different than spending $2000 to buy a new Trex 600 RC helicopter or buying another kayak
I see what You're saying, but there is no way that I'll show up at for example Roskilde festival in Denmark and take pics and give away to the promoters. First, I'm not good enough for such a show, second, I'm not a pro and third, they're able to pay pros properly for the job.
I tend to like primes for that sort of thing, too (in this case, the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 are especially good). For a zoom, a 17-35 is probably a lot more useful than a 14-24.
For what its worth, I do think the 14-24 is a bit of a better idea because it can give your images something those other shooters can't duplicate with a 16-35.
The difference in FOV between those lens is pretty big even though its only a few mllimeters and the corner sharpness of the 14-24 is just unmatched by anything, even the 14mm primes.
You can either spend a lot of money on a 17-35 and be able to duplicate the same as "the other guys" or you can spend a lot of money on a the 14-24 and be able to get shots they can't (unless they are shooting Nikon! lol)
17-35 ins't bad but its nothing special either. 14-24 is a reason a bunch of people actually have switched to Nikon. That type of UWA performance and from a zoom! Unimaginable but they did it.
