Lusting after the trinity after this past wedding

Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
507
Location
Chicago, IL
I got a chance to shoot a wedding over this weekend. The bride contracted two photographers for this event! I actually knew the other photog and he let me use some of his glass.

For the longest time I've used mainly primes for their dof and low light capability. However I was very very impressed with how the 24-70 and 70-200 handled. I used to shoot a 24-70L, but that was back on a crop body. On my D700 the AF was scary fast, silent, dead accurate. Images were surprising tack sharp in center wide open.

I think I'm going to take everyone's word for it and begin with a 14-24mm then work my way up.

On a side note I think I've gotten a tad bit lazier using the zooms over my primes :) It's nice to stand still and work my framing.
 
L

LSSE

Guest
I used to shoot a 24-70L, but that was back on a crop body. On my D700 the AF was scary fast, silent, dead accurate.
well off course, it was from that other company that slaps red rings like beads at mardi gras :wink:

all jokes aside which one did you like best for a wedding? I'm being invited to a wedding and I'll be helping the couple get some shots of the before/after ceremony stuff. I was thinking about renting one of those two lenses. I'm thinking to go for the 24-70.

I think I'm going to take everyone's word for it and begin with a 14-24mm then work my way up.
excellent choice of lens but do you see using it for weddings? I'd think you'd want to start from the other end and leave that one for last. 70-200, then 70-24, then 14-24. On the other hand I've seen some crazy creative wedding shots done in ultra wide.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
2,296
Location
Maryland USA
I got a chance to shoot a wedding over this weekend. The bride contracted two photographers for this event! I actually knew the other photog and he let me use some of his glass.

For the longest time I've used mainly primes for their dof and low light capability. However I was very very impressed with how the 24-70 and 70-200 handled. I used to shoot a 24-70L, but that was back on a crop body. On my D700 the AF was scary fast, silent, dead accurate. Images were surprising tack sharp in center wide open.

I think I'm going to take everyone's word for it and begin with a 14-24mm then work my way up.

On a side note I think I've gotten a tad bit lazier using the zooms over my primes :) It's nice to stand still and work my framing.

They are great lenses and I hope you use them more then I did. I just sold my 24-70 and 70-200 last week, but never had the 14-24.

Have fun with them.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
507
Location
Chicago, IL
Why is everyone selling them and why not to me??

LSSE, I would say 24-70 is a great choice. I favored them over my primes (we have about the same focal lenths) during the wedding. For portraits the 70-200 worked beautifully, but the 24-70 is a great overall performer in the perfect range for shots... I'm more convinced now that if I'm allowed to have one lens, that one might be it.

I love taking creative UWA shots. I've been doing more architecture and interior shots so I lust after the 14-24mm!!
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange, CA
I'm amazed at how the modern pro grade zooms are at level if not better compared to primes. I've head the 14mm prime is NOT as sharp as the 14-24 zoom.

My 70-200 is prime grade sharp. But when I pixel peep compared to my 50mm, my 50mm prime still wins.

I've heard the 24-70 is sharper compared to 70-200 though.
 
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
184
Location
US
Although I have all three f/2.8 zooms, I mainly use the 14-24 f/2.8 plus the Zeiss 35/2 and 100/2. Both Zeiss lenses have more resolution and contrast than the Nikon zoom lenses. However, the 14-24 probably outperforms all available prime lenses in its focal length range. This kit is substantially lighter and less expensive than the three Nikon zooms kit. Obviously, you are limited to 100mm at the long end.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,546
Location
Denmark
"I think I'm going to take everyone's word for it and begin with a 14-24mm then work my way up."

----

I have all three and have shot weddings, so I would say start with the 24-70 it is the most versatile, then ??? -


Well,..... If you want to be loved by the bride then the 14-24 at 14 mm her wedding dress from behind at vertical (kneel down), but the 70-200 is more versatile and have a BOKEH that is close to the 85mm f/1.4.

So my advice is:

24-70, then
70-200, then
14-24.


for weddings.


-----------------------------


For landscape there is nothing as the 14-24 (exept it does not wear a filter).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
383
Location
Metrowest. MA
Trinity

If cost is a factor, I'd suggest looking at a used 28-70 f/2.8. It's also up in the amazing catagory. And while I'm on the topic, so is the 17-35. I have not used it, but I have heard the 14-24 is out of the park when it comes to sharpness; but if you can get reasonable deals on the, 28-70 and 17-35, glass used, I suspect you would do pretty well in any situation. The 70-200 should also be showing up used in quantity now that a new one is oficially on the horizon. If cost is not an object, I would probably start off with new glass for the added excitement opening the box provides. :smile:
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,546
Location
Denmark
If cost is a factor, I'd suggest looking at a used 28-70 f/2.8. It's also up in the amazing catagory. And while I'm on the topic, so is the 17-35. I have not used it, but I have heard the 14-24 is out of the park when it comes to sharpness; but if you can get reasonable deals on the, 28-70 and 17-35, glass used, I suspect you would do pretty well in any situation. The 70-200 should also be showing up used in quantity now that a new one is oficially on the horizon. If cost is not an object, I would probably start off with new glass for the added excitement opening the box provides. :smile:

The 28-70 is fine and sharp, but much more prone to flare/ghosting, than the 24-70.

----

I have now tryed to buy the 17-35 three times:

First: I asked my net-seller to check it, and he would not send it to me because of a fault (the only copy he had) because it did not focus right - I think it in english is called decentring.

Second: Not sharper than my 18-200 (sold now), so I delivered it back, but I know it really can be sharp - nearly as sharp as the 14-24 from f. 5.6 and up (smaller hole)

Third: Not sharp, and the ugly noise from the focus-motor (the well-known squaking, that maybe, maybe not (you never know), means that the focus motor is on its way to say goodbye) so I delivered it back.

That is the only lens I have delivered back, but I have not totally given up,because if you get a good copy and with no problems from the focus-motor you get a very, very fine lens and it wear filters, but you have to look for the need for calibration and for noise from the focus-motor.

The easy way to test the focus motor is to set the cap on and then "click", there should be no noise - called "sqeaking" from the focus motor.


About the "old" 70-200VR: Yes I agree, there is a chance for that.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
383
Location
Metrowest. MA
28-70

I have taken probably 10,000 pictures with this lens since 2003, and never seen a flare or ghost. I do not disagree with your opinion, but, I have not used this lens where this has happened so far.

The 28-70 is fine and sharp, but much more prone to flare/ghosting, than the 24-70.

----
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,546
Location
Denmark
I have taken probably 10,000 pictures with this lens since 2003, and never seen a flare or ghost. I do not disagree with your opinion, but, I have not used this lens where this has happened so far.
As mentioned it is a very fine and sharp lens, and if you ever want to use it with the sun in the image or just outside = no problems, or stop it down and you can minimize it.

Also Bjørn Rørslett:

"For its limited range of focal settings, the new AFS 28-70 might seem a tremendous overkill. It's very expensive, heavy and surprisingly bulky. Add its huge scalloped lens hood and people think you are the proverbial paparazzo. That don't impress me much - I bought this lens solely for its outstanding optical quality. It having non-rotating filter threads helped too. The stunning results delivered by this lens would indeed be expected from its sophisticated optical design that employs several aspherical and ED elements, and IF focusing. Its silent-wave motor gives blindingly fast AF focusing with D1, F5 or F100 bodies. Compared to the vast majority of wide-angle zooms (and most wide primes too), the AFS 28-70 convinces by its extreme sharpness, total lack of colour fringing (an effect due to residual chromatic aberration and coma, the bugaboo of retrofocus-designed wide lenses), low vignetting even used wide open, and nice rendition of out-of-focus areas thanks to its nine-bladed aperture. It is among the few modern zooms that match the 25-50/4 for landscape photography.

However, flare can be a serious problem when shooting into the sun, much more so than with the 20-35 f/2.8 Nikkor, and there occasionally is some ghosting too when scene contrast is high, but the latter can be largely avoided by stopping the lens down.

Sharp images are produced even when the lens is shot wide open, and this holds when extension tubes are added. Stopping the lens down to f/5.6 yields sharp pictures corner-to-corner and there is negligible field curvature as well. It shows only a small degree of barrel distortion. An outstanding lens if it suits your shooting habits."

You can not directly link to this - but only to his site generel - go to lenses and then to zoom lenses


http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html



-----------------------
 
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
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom