24-70 + 70-200 vr I vs primes

Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
34
Location
New York
any thoughts? after doing an engagement shoot yesterday, i really noticed how annoying and inconvenient it is to have to switch lenses in the middle of a shoot. i guess during these portraits its easier, but weddings and events i can imagine you'd miss a lot of shots if you don't have two bodies...

So for portraits, which do you guys prefer?

i currently own a sigma 85mm 1.4, sigma 50mm 1.4, nikon 50mm 1.8g, nikon 20mm 2.8af-d... and have a 70-200 vr I on order... shooting with a d700... can't afford to keep all... been trying to sell both the sigmas as the 1.8g is great and good enough for me.
i think i can live with a 70-200 vr I, 50mm 1.8g and 20mm af-d as a kit
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
4,793
Location
Nutley, New Jersey
sigma 85 1.4 and 70-200 are two totally different lenses...I see the need for both. But I can def "live" with just the 70-200 2.8 if that means anything....

I would prefer a 85mm over a 50mm on FX.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
918
Location
nj/nyc
I'm a little different............didn't really like the 85 after making the switch to FX, but I loved it on DX:biggrin:


I went from a prime kit of.....

24 2.8ais / 35 1.8G & 35 f2 / 50 1.4G & 50 1.2ais / 84 1.4D / 105vr / 180 2.8D

to what you see in my sig......:smile:
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
3,969
Location
Chicago
I know many Photogs who did weddings with 35/50/90 Leicas.

You have to anticipate action and know where to stand.

I have looked at 24/70 2.8 and it is like a brick hanging on the format of my D3. I bought all the G primes. All a bit large, bit none as heavy as a 24/70.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
1,370
Location
Canada
If you have the room to move and the time to change, primes are okay, otherwise 24-70 it is. I recently shot an outdoor event where I needed to switch from my 70-200 to a 35mm constantly. It was do-able for this particular event, but two bodies would've been nice. Then again, I have a certain repulsion towards dealing with two bodies. Seems very photo-nerdy to me. But is vanity worth not getting the shot when you're working...?
 
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
34
Location
New York
lol i only have two hands. i agree with the opposition of two bodies. i'd rather have two photogs.

@lexdiamonnyc
how do you like your kit? i was thinking of having the same identical FLs.
16-35 vr for 35mm and landscape/creative wides...
i have a 50mm 1.8g that i found great... just sold my sigma 50mm 1.4 because i didn't see to much difference and i like an extra $200 in my pocket.
and well... the vr ii is quite a bit different than the vr1 that i bought, but i think i can live ;)
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
918
Location
nj/nyc
lol i only have two hands. i agree with the opposition of two bodies. i'd rather have two photogs.

@lexdiamonnyc
how do you like your kit? i was thinking of having the same identical FLs.
16-35 vr for 35mm and landscape/creative wides...
i have a 50mm 1.8g that i found great... just sold my sigma 50mm 1.4 because i didn't see to much difference and i like an extra $200 in my pocket.
and well... the vr ii is quite a bit different than the vr1 that i bought, but i think i can live ;)

Keep in mind that I'm "just" a hobbyist when you read my comments....


I love the kit, it works very well for me.....and travels much, much better than the prime kit!
A lot less lens swapping, and I find myself using the 2 zooms about 90% of the time........
You being a wedding photog might want to consider the 17-35 2.8 for the speed in those dimly lit reception halls/churches. For me, VR and Nano coating were more important than speed.

The 70-200VR1 is a great lens for the money and imho not that different "in use" than the VR2...
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
5,301
Location
San Jose, CA
See my signature for my gear list, but needless to say, I feel like I have long covered (70-200), low light covered (50 f/1.4), macro covered (60mm AF-D), short zoom covered (24-70) and wide kinda'-sorta' covered (24mm end of the 24-70).

I still have the major jonesin' for a 14-24, 16-35, or 17-35, but at this time, they're all so far out of my budget, I can't even think about it. But needless to say, if you're shooting FX, the 24-70 and 70-200 should cover well over 80% of your shots without you having to move an inch.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
48
Location
Vienna
Personally, I absolutely prefer primes. I switched all zooms except the 16-35 4 for primes and never looked back. I prefer the smaller size, less weight and the extra 2 stops they add for the stuff I shoot. I don't do weddings though, I think I'd use a zoom there...

Something that might only be true for me: With primes, when selecting a focal length, it is an active choice how I want the picture to look. With zooms, selecting focal length was more a convenience thing so I didn't have to move, more or less ignoring the impact it would have on the picture.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
54
Location
Vietnam
I am trying to build my kit with 16-35, 50, 70-200,

A 85 would be another alternative for portrait if i'm out shooting and need lighter equipment
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
380
Location
Maui
eh decided to go 24-70, 50mm and 70-200 vr I.... god help my back in the coming months

Good choice. the 24-70, 70-200 and a fisheye is my main carry around. It's a good work out but it gets great results for just about every situation.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
728
Location
travel
I find the 70-200 to deliver much nicer results for this type of situation than the 85 1.4. the compression at 200mm is something personaly enjoy more than anything I get out out of the 85. except for the weight that is because that beastly thing will surely break your spirit after a few hours. However the 24-70 is just boring IMO compared to the superb look of the 1.4 primes wide open even if you have to plan your shots and switch lenses in between.

so I shoot all primes plus a 70-200 to compress backgrounds.
 
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
184
Location
US
The duo 24-70 plus 70-200 is hard to beat in terms of convenience and achievable IQ. Only the very best prime lenses show comparable or better performance. While I most frequently use 24-70 plus 70-200, for ultimate performance I prefer 14-24, ZF35/2 and ZF100/2.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom