Who wants to see me burn money?

17-55, 105 VR, Gitzo pod and head, and Macro Flash?
 
Bump. Any recommendations on the tripod?
 
Good grief man, what are you going to get? :)

I decided to spend some money yesterday and it took me all of 10 minutes to do it. I called Adorama, talked to Meyer (#28, great guy - they work on commission) and within 10 minutes I had racked up a $3,600 nut.

Just do it.

:lmao:
 
I'd suggest that if you are happy with the body you are using, then you ought to drop most of the money on studio lighting. The 70-200 is a great portrait lens in and of itself, and with lights you can stop down the 16-85 just fine. A nice three or four light Alienbee or White Lightning setup, plus seamless paper/background stands, etc, would set you up far better for doing portraits than any lens that you buy.
 
For portraiture either the 85mm f/1.4 or the 105 f/2.8 VR are going to be the only things you ever need. According to B&H prices that's $850 + $970 = $1820 and you have $1180 left. Getting the Nikon SB-900 flash for $430 leaves you with $750, keep the head (since it presumably still works), get a nice new set of tripod legs (~$500) with that and a nice carbon-fiber monopod (~$250). The 105 will let you take macro if you want to try that in the future, and the 85 is known as the "cream machine" for a reason (bokeh is unbelievable). If you're a little over-budget once it comes around to the shipping, then drop the flash down to the SB-600 or the SB-800 if you can find it.

Also consider used equipment.

Or, just get the freakin' tripod and flash and save the rest. Nothing really wrong with the 70-200 for portraiture.
 
I appreciate the recommendation, however many of my clients appreciate environmental portraits. I have PMed the member you recommended. Thanks guys, now I just gotta pull the trigger.
 
Do you want a lens that does landscapes and close (maybe indoor) portraits? If so, you have two options. If you want to "burn" money, get the Nikkor 17-55 2.8. If you want to save money and get something that will work almost just as well, get the Sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM. For a wide lens, I would recommend a Tokina 11-16 F2.8. From what I've heard, its a phenomenal lens. However, if you want one lens for portraits and the other for landscapes, I would recommend a Tokina 12-24 F4 (or just the 11-16 if you don't mind the gap in range) and a Sigma 24-70 2.8. Keep in mind that this lens is FF, so the crop factor makes it the equivalent of about 36mm-105mm, which is good for portraits, but a bit awkward on the wide end.

You can get both the Nikkor wide angle and the normal zoom instead, but I would reccomend saving that money for a D300. According to various magazine tests, the Sigma is on par with the Nikkor. I doubt you would benefit much from the Nikkor unless you are a seasoned pro who needs the build quality the Nikkor has to offer.
 
Last edited:
Environmental portraiture calls for lighting just the same as stuff done in-studio.
 
Yes, but available lighting doesn't. They just want very natural ones, and I have lighting for that.
 
Good grief man, what are you going to get? :)

I decided to spend some money yesterday and it took me all of 10 minutes to do it. I called Adorama, talked to Meyer (#28, great guy - they work on commission) and within 10 minutes I had racked up a $3,600 nut.

Just do it.

:lmao:

What did you buy now?
 
Nice, I am going to order soon.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top