What Equipment Next?

ANDS! · Nov 28, 2009

I would say the 85 would be a good suppliment (unless you could afford the 1.4 variety), but with sports photography, you have quite a bit of latitude with your ISO settings so you could I suppose find an F/2.8 80-200, but that would push you above the cost you're looking at, but still under 1000. That would be my suggestion, a cheap 85MM F/1.8 (or 1.4) or a used 80-200 F/2.8D

wescobts · Nov 28, 2009

Glass

jpeters · Nov 28, 2009

I tell newer photographers to buy nicer glass before anything else. You will keep nice glass for a long time, bodies come and go. Also I say get good with Nat. light, I feel it helped out a lot with my strobing.

BoxPhotographer · Nov 28, 2009

I hear the auto focus on the 80-200 F2.8 Nikon lens is terrible and takes a few seconds to auto focus. Is this true?

ANDS! · Nov 28, 2009

Few seconds? Sure if you're focusing on something with zero color gradient and contrast. The 80-200 focuses from near to infinity in I'd say less than a second. The less light (and less contrast) you have, yes it will be more difficult to hammer on focus. But thats not a limitation unique to the 80-200.

BoxPhotographer · Nov 28, 2009

Ah, well, I probably wont be buying the 80-200 because it's just too large for me and portability is rather key. I wouldn't want to bring that into an high school dance or a nightclub.

So the 85mm 1.4 is the best lens out there for portraits? Any other options? Because now I think I'm just going to wait a bit for better lens, cause I definitely don't want to skimp on this one.

KmH · Nov 28, 2009

BoxPhotographer said:
I hear the auto focus on the 80-200 F2.8 Nikon lens is terrible and takes a few seconds to auto focus. Is this true?

+1 what ANDS! said.

fiveoboy01 · Nov 28, 2009

85 1.4 is an awesome lens. Good focal length for portraits on DX. It's on my (long) list of lenses to get in the next year or so.

BoxPhotographer · Nov 29, 2009

What are the main differences between the AF-S NIKKOR 50MM F/1.4G and the AF NIKKOR 50MM F/1.4D?

TJ K · Nov 29, 2009

$120 difference. G has silent wave motor. No aperture ring. Nifty black look. The 1.4D is still an awesome lens and I would probably get it over the G for the price difference as long as you have a camera with a focusing motor. GL
tj

BoxPhotographer · Nov 30, 2009

Right now I'm contemplating between, a macro, a wide angle, and the 50mm 1.4 I mentioned earlier. Is the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR and the Nikon 12-24mm great lenses? I'm also considering the 35mm f/1.8 instead of the 50mm 1.4. A good consideration?

TJ K · Nov 30, 2009

Well it depends if you ever want to go full frame. The 12-24 and 35 1.8 are both DX lenses so if you did upgrade to full frame they aren't designed to work with an FX camera. I have heard nothing but great reviews though on the 105 2.8 though. GL
tj

BoxPhotographer · Nov 30, 2009

Ah, I see. I'm thinking of upgrading to full frame in the next 2-3 years. So what would you reccomend, in pace of the 12-24 and 35 1.8?

TJ K · Nov 30, 2009

Well it depends on your budget. The 14-24 is about 7-800 more than the 12-24 and the 35mm 2.0 is about 150-200 more than the 35 1.8. There is a bit of a price distance there if you want 35mm though. What about do a 50 1.8 do you have one already?
tj

BoxPhotographer · Nov 30, 2009

The 50mm 1.4 should work well in theater lighting right? I'm doing a shoot for a show this coming Friday. Any suggestions? I'm always finding that I'm shooting in pitch black with spotlight on someone.