phillip ino wrote:
Nice one. I didn't know you shot weddings, Dom. Is this something new for you?
Hey Phillip, yes it is. I shot two last year and really like it. I am in no way going to quit my day job anytime soon. If I shoot 5 weddings this year I would be very pleased. So far I have two booked and a few engagement sessions upcoming. I am not going after those 5k weddings, I'll leave those to the larger studios here in NJ NYC but I found a happy middle ground with the sub 2k budgets. Anyway not to derail the thread I am eager for this lens to come back in stock, let's hope it's sooner rather than later.
domdog31 wrote:
just sold my 24-70 and I shoot weddings (am I nuts?) maybe, but I know my receptions and e-sessions will only be shot with primes 24,50,85 !!! I always felt like I was cheating with the zoom and thinking more about other things than the image - now that I am going back to all primes I feel the challenge will be there up front but I like that. I still have the 70-200 VRII for receptions and other portraits
That is going to be my new setup. 24,50,85 all 1.4 for weddings. Now the question is can I get rid of the 70-200 and get the 200f2? Go all prime??
Tobin28 wrote:
That is going to be my new setup. 24,50,85 all 1.4 for weddings. Now the question is can I get rid of the 70-200 and get the 200f2? Go all prime??
Nice!
The 70-200 is almost a prime for me since it stays on 200mm most of the time. The 200 f/2 would be awesome!
I really like the look of it. Distortion seems VERY well controlled in what is practically a 20mm. Color and contrast are great wide open as well. If this is a on full-frame sensor I am very impressed.
fishfilm wrote:
I really like the look of it. Distortion seems VERY well controlled in what is practically a 20mm. Color and contrast are great wide open as well. If this is a on full-frame sensor I am very impressed.
not to mention those of us with 2nd DX bodies have a 24 1.4 on FX and a 35 1.4 on DX - best of both worlds!
domdog31 wrote:
Hey Phillip, yes it is. I shot two last year and really like it. I am in no way going to quit my day job anytime soon. If I shoot 5 weddings this year I would be very pleased. So far I have two booked and a few engagement sessions upcoming. I am not going after those 5k weddings, I'll leave those to the larger studios here in NJ NYC but I found a happy middle ground with the sub 2k budgets. Anyway not to derail the thread I am eager for this lens to come back in stock, let's hope it's sooner rather than later. ...Show more →
Sweet!
I can't believe they're OOS that fast. I called JRs last week and they said they had 60 coming in with only 5 people having any on hold.....
Tobin28 wrote:
That is going to be my new setup. 24,50,85 all 1.4 for weddings. Now the question is can I get rid of the 70-200 and get the 200f2? Go all prime??
Though the 200/2 is stellar, not sure how practical it is to lug such a heavy beast around for weddings.
I seem to get by with my 105DC as my tele during weddings. I occasionally use the 180/2.8 if I need the reach.
fishfilm wrote:
I really like the look of it. Distortion seems VERY well controlled in what is practically a 20mm. Color and contrast are great wide open as well. If this is a on full-frame sensor I am very impressed.
domdog31 wrote:
not to mention those of us with 2nd DX bodies have a 24 1.4 on FX and a 35 1.4 on DX - best of both worlds!
The thought of having a "pseudo" 35/1.4 is really nice, but I can't stand the thought of using dx anymore...and especially not my D200! That dinosaur is a backup for my backup.
Ah man, why'd you have to go and say that... Really incredible lens then. Distortion and bokeh are much nicer than 24-70. Which is a great lens btw; killer for PJ apps. I like mine. Just apples and oranges.
brett maxwell wrote:
I'm so desperate for a good 35mm that I've been seriously considering picking up one of these 24s and a DX body.
Don't forget that the compression is still that of a 24mm even on DX - so faces may exhibit some enlarging of the nose, etc..
But, since my Fuji S5 spits out near flawless retouched jpegs I think the 35mm FOV on DX (24mm compression) will be just fine.....
Now Nikon PLEASE get these in stock ASAP
BTW: Why does Adorama allow you to place the order (and then charge your CC when it ships) while B&H doesnt. The reason I ask is because I am forced to only use B&H because Adorama charges sales tax in NJ and B&H doesnt.
domdog31 wrote:
Don't forget that the compression is still that of a 24mm even on DX - so faces may exhibit some enlarging of the nose, etc..
Actually, not true. A lot of point-n-shoot cameras have lenses at 8mm and the like, why aren't all the photos distorted like crazy? Because a smaller sensor with a shorter focal length gives the same compression as well as field of view.
domdog31 wrote:
Don't forget that the compression is still that of a 24mm even on DX - so faces may exhibit some enlarging of the nose, etc.
Huh? The size of noses is purely a function of the relative distances to the nose and to the rest of the face. Using a 24mm on DX or a 36mm on FX would get you the same nose. There is no compression inherent to a focal length, barring unusual distortion, just perspective.
It's decent. I also got the 35/1.8 to use wide-open on FX. I like it better, but only usable in certain situations because of the vignette. I'll be first in line for the 35/1.4, even if it's $2500.
