Need lens suggestion...

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by N'Kolor, Jan 3, 2008.

  1. N'Kolor

    N'Kolor TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Currently I have a 70-200 f2.8 VR and a 50 f1.8. I am looking to add a lens to my arsenal! I am trying to decide what to do. I currently have found that I will make more money with portrait photography as I have no idea of where to start for wildlife. I aspire to be a wildlife photographer some day but I need to do something that is going to make me money now so I can get the necessary equipment to reach wildlife.

    I have about $1200 to spend at this moment but can definitely save up to $2000 if need be. For portraits I was thinking the 24-70 f2.8 at $1700 or a 24-85 f3.5-4.5 Nikkor lens at $300.

    Now with these two options in mind and anything else you may be thinking, there is one more thing I want to consider. As another way to bring in money, I plan to speak with local wedding photographers and see they need an assistant and that is where I thought the 24-70 f2.8 would shine.

    Of course someday I would like to get a 200-400 f2.8 but that ain't happening anytime soon. Please provide any suggestions. I need a battery grip but I figure that is the least of my worries right now.

    Thanks!
    Mike
     
  2. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I'd say 17-55. Its a more useful range on DX, has the f/2.8, and the wider angle is dynamite for the environmental portrait.

    Now if you were shooting film or a D3, than yeah, 24-70 no question, but on DX, 24-70, 28-70, and 35-70 are awkward ranges for a zoom.

    I used to have the 35-70 f/2.8, dynamite lens on film, a little awkward on digital. I never used it, It was usually my 18-35 or 80-200, the 35-70 was just hardly ever needed. I got rid of the 18-35 and 35-70 and bought myself a 17-55 which is pure gold. the 55-80 gap isn't missed, and the 17-55 at 17mm is just spectacular.

    Also consider the 18-70, it's clarity is pretty damn good if you get a good sample, I used one that was on par with my 17-55! However the distortion isn't easy to fix, whereas the 17-55 is, and it's f/4.5 at the long end, a stop and a half slower. Now the 18-70 is a little under $300, so if you use that, than you'll have $900 left for whatever else you might need, such as lighting equipment.

    I've been starting to do portraits more often and I'm considering selling my 17-55 for an 18-70, sigma 10-20, and another speedlight. That would make me FAR more flexible for the client and give me more creative freedom and even though the 17-55 is one of the sharpest Nikkor zooms i've ever used, I'd rather be able to do a 2 light portrait at 10mm than have a one light at f/2.8.

    For a wedding though, I'd opt for the 17-55 everytime, the clarity at f/2.8 is just unbelievable, and you'd be able to shoot at 1/125th of a second, not 1/45th. That's a big difference hand held.
     
  3. N'Kolor

    N'Kolor TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    17-55 looks to be a good option and almost $200 cheaper than the one I was looking at. I had considered getting the 24-70 because I had hoped to have the following lenses someday.

    12-24 f2.8
    24-70 f2.8
    70-200 f2.8
    200-400 f4

    It seems that this covers everything and there is no overlapping. But these lenses are expensive. So I guess I could go with...

    17-55 f2.8
    70-200 f2.8
    200-400 f4

    This would save me about $1600 total in lenses over the next two years. But I just feel like I am missing something...the wide angle. I do appreciate the suggestion and I am definitely considering it!
     
  4. N'Kolor

    N'Kolor TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Correction...its a $500 difference!!!!
     
  5. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    17mm is nowhere near as wide as 12mm. I might be able to save you some more money and sell you my 17-55, with sample images. If you're interested, PM me.
     
  6. N'Kolor

    N'Kolor TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    PM Sent!
     
  7. chrisb2794

    chrisb2794 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    That new Sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM is supposed to be a pretty sweet lens (sweet on the wallet too). I have the old model and love it. It's my everyday lens.
     
  8. JerryPH

    JerryPH No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,111
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Yup, 1/3rd the price and sharper than even the 17-55 Nikon lens plus it comes with a 3:1 macro. ;) I love mine.
     
  9. N'Kolor

    N'Kolor TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    342
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    That lens received a below average review on AF speed and the AF's ability.
     
  10. chrisb2794

    chrisb2794 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    From what source? I would say that mine is average and it's the old version. Just curious, because I have not heard anything bad yet.
     
  11. jstuedle

    jstuedle No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,889
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    S.E. Indiana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I personally would go with the 24-70. Super sharp and will be there when you step up to full frame. I think in a few years, D80 style cameras and up will be FF. For portraits, the 24-70 f/2.8 is a super piece of glass.
     
  12. nicfargo

    nicfargo TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I'm not sure how the 24-70 2.8 compares to Canon's 24-70 2.8L (pro grade) lens, but if it shows the same performance it is a great lens like jstuedle said.
     

Share This Page