A up and coming photographer in need of some lens advice!

[gsgary]

I try and shoot with no flash whenever possible. But will also be looking to purchase the correct flash equipment for when i feel i need it.

Flash kills the ambiance.

Not if you know how to use it

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, so regarding focal length. My suggestion would be to take the lens you have currently (I'm assuming it's something like an 18-55 or something similar) to some of the venues you want to photograph and take some pictures.

They don't have to be fantastic, they are just for reference. It will help you decide for yourself what focal lengths you really need to get the kind of shots you want. If your shots seem like the FOV is too narrow and you can't back up any further, then maybe an UWA (ultra wide angle) lens will be a good option.

If you find that something in 18mm is wide enough, then you can save yourself a lot of money because the UWA lenses are generally more expensive. Also your looking at a choice of zooms or primes, so if it were me I'd set your current lens at 35mm and leave it there, take some shots that way. Then do the same at 50. See which focal length gives you the results you want most often.

If you think a set focal length like 35mm or 50mm would do the trick a good fast 1.8 prime would be fairly inexpensive and produce some good results.

If you think after doing some test shooting that the fixed focal length might be too limiting and you'd prefer a zoom, perhaps something like a Tamron 17-50 2.8 would be a good investment. It will be more flexible than the prime however it won't be quite as fast.

 

[Vtec44]

Flash kills the ambiance.

I have mixed feelings about this. I'm no flash expert but here are shots from me (using flash) and my second shooter (using high ISO but no flash). When used correctly, it's hard to tell IMHO.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

 

[robbins.photo]

I have mixed feelings about this. I'm no flash expert but here are shots from me (using flash) and my second shooter (using high ISO but no flash). When used correctly, it's hard to tell IMHO.

I dunno, I was all set to see if I could figure out which of these were flash and which were high ISO just by looking at the photographs.... then I got all hung up in trying to figure out why these people where sniffing each others shoes.

But yup, just from my initial glance pretty hard to tell the difference.

 

[asukaoyl]

The reason i was talking about no flash before is in a really really dark venue, with specific lighting for example like this. Instagram photo by @youremissingit • Apr 9, 2016 at 8:15am UTC I wanted to keep the dark vibe, the super low light red color etc. Flash would kill the color and idea completely.

I think im going to get a 24-70 f/2.8 for a all around lens before making my way to more specific lenses.

 

[Alexander Dingley]

sigma 18-35 1.8 would be a good lens for APS-c but if you shoot low light you might want to upgrade to FF later down the road and this lens will not be able to go on FF so I would look at a 35mm 1.8 if you want to be able to use it on FF.

 

[asukaoyl]

Looks like im going to pick up these two but i keep changing my mind so ya. I would say they cover most of what im looking for as well as fit into my pricerange.

Sigma - 24-70mm f/2.8
Sigma - 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DS HSM Standard Zoom Lens for Nikon - Black

Nikon - AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G
Nikon - AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Standard Lens - Black

 

[nerwin]

I totally forgot the Sigma 18-35 1.8! I highly recommend that one actually.

 

[asukaoyl]

I totally forgot the Sigma 18-35 1.8! I highly recommend that one actually.

Do you think the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 with VC is worth the extra $500 compared to the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8

 

[nerwin]

I totally forgot the Sigma 18-35 1.8! I highly recommend that one actually.

Do you think the Tamron 18-35 1.8 with VC is worth the extra $500?

Do you mean the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC?

 

[asukaoyl]

I totally forgot the Sigma 18-35 1.8! I highly recommend that one actually.

Do you think the Tamron 18-35 1.8 with VC is worth the extra $500?

Do you mean the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC?

Sorry it was a type, been looking at so many lenses my numbers got messed up. I was comparing the

Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 $749
to the
Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC - $1299

 

[PaulWog]

Sorry it was a type, been looking at so many lenses my numbers got messed up. I was comparing the

Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 $749
to the
Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC - $1299

The Tamron is significantly better than the Sigma. On a crop sensor, this difference is going to come through even more. The Sigma is a soft lens on full frame, and on crop it will perform even worse.

 

[goodguy]

I totally forgot the Sigma 18-35 1.8! I highly recommend that one actually.

Do you think the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 with VC is worth the extra $500 compared to the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8

Yes!

 

[goodguy]

Few of us through to the air the idea of 35mm 1.8G
Just so you know Nikon has 2 Nikon 35mm 1.8G lenses, one is a DX lens and the other is FX
The FX is more expensive, if you ever decide to go FX and is considering this lens then it will be worth considering it, the DX is a valid option, easy to sell it so you can get the FX version if and when you move to FX body.

 

[Dave442]

I would suggest just getting the 35mm f/1.8G DX lens. As you bought the camera used, then look for this lens used, it is very cheap. I have often used it in dark events and as long as you have room to move around it can work nice. Get this and shoot it in the f/1.8 to f/2.8 range.

After one or two events then you might look for one of the higher priced fast zoom lenses.

Another lens to look at is the Tokina 14-20mm f/2. It is a DX lens and covers a very usable wide angle range on your D7200 body. I would much prefer that range in a club over a 24-70mm on a crop sensor body (such as the D7200); even the 35mm lens can be very difficult to have space between you and the subject without someone stepping in the way in a busy venue.