Lenses, Coverage

[krfessl]

I've just started thinking about what's next lens-wise (I always have a running wish list), and posted the file below with my current lens set (not counting the "old" manual focus glass)... it's all Nikkor stuff...

I'm just setting up a studio (check the studio lighting getting started thread), and will add product, portrait and macro to my usual available light/sometimes flash, general photo (shoot it if I like it... usually images of neat subsets of bigger scenes or objects, and then travel stuff, and Friends/Fam...

So, assuming you can see the .pdf... I've got a mix of DX lenses from my D7K and several new ones from my newer FX D610...

I KNOW it's an open-ended question, but was interested in a dialog on what others are using... It's not a specific lens oriented question, so, I opened a new thread, and happy to bag this one if it belongs elsewhere...

Some of the glass is of course duplicate coverage focal lengths between the DX and FX stuff, but again, it's one of the reasons for the post... Some of it can be replaced/sold, I imagine (it's all MINT stuff)...

[Shadowman]

File is too small to view. Did you use Tinypic?

[PaoloMtl]

Hi Keith, I have a wish list too as I'm sure many others have! I would suggest you take a look at the 50mm 1.4. I rented it lately for use on my D7K and it was impressive. I was getting beautiful portraits with little effort. I found the focus a bit finicky at wide apertures but I was shooting an event indoors, shouldn't be a problem in a studio setting. It's FX so it'll work on both your bodies. I think it might fit well in your current mix of lenses. I haven't tried the 50 1.8 but maybe someone can comment on that given it's much cheaper than the 1.4.

[PaoloMtl]

File is too small to view. Did you use Tinypic?

Hi John, I was able to click on it and it opened in Adobe Reader.

[Shadowman]

Hi John, I was able to click on it and it opened in Adobe Reader.

Hi Paolo,

I tried it on my other computer and it opened up.

Thanks

[Shadowman]

Keith,

It looks like you have everything you need, perhaps a 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 for portraits?

[krfessl]

Hi Keith, I have a wish list too as I'm sure many others have! I would suggest you take a look at the 50mm 1.4. I rented it lately for use on my D7K and it was impressive. I was getting beautiful portraits with little effort. I found the focus a bit finicky at wide apertures but I was shooting an event indoors, shouldn't be a problem in a studio setting. It's FX so it'll work on both your bodies. I think it might fit well in your current mix of lenses. I haven't tried the 50 1.8 but maybe someone can comment on that given it's much cheaper than the 1.4.

Hi PaoloMtl, thanks... I've never been much if a straight 50 guy, but agree on the 1.8 being more reasonable than the 1.4... Thanks for the perspective! General question also... Does ANYONE do a map like that pdf to get a sense of what's next for their gear?? I've always had it in my head but as I looked at the simple chart it did give me pause to think harder on what I needed vs what I want (which is usually how I buy). :-)

[krfessl]

Yeah John, the 70-300 was a kit lens... Picked-up with the d610 body... Got it because I never had a focal length that long... Is your experience that it won't work well in 70-200 mode?? I was wondering myself... I do have that 55-200 DX, but candidly NEVER used it (so when I said some were mint, I meant MINT). :-). Same with the 70-300, but I really just got it... I was thinking maybe an 85mm for portraits to go with the 105mm macro, which I thought could be used as portrait too??

[Shadowman]

Yeah John, the 70-300 was a kit lens... Picked-up with the d610 body... Got it because I never had a focal length that long... Is your experience that it won't work well in 70-200 mode?? I was wondering myself... I do have that 55-200 DX, but candidly NEVER used it (so when I said some were mint, I meant MINT). :-). Same with the 70-300, but I really just got it... I was thinking maybe an 85mm for portraits to go with the 105mm macro, which I thought could be used as portrait too??

Keith,

It'll work just fine, I've used it for studio portrait work but you might prefer something with a little more light gathering, at 100mm you are limited to f/4,5 and at 200mm you are at 5.3mm. The lens is still capable but depending on your shooting environment, you might also want a little more depth of field as well as light on the sensor.

[rpcrowe]

I really don't have many lenses that overlap in coverage to any great extent (with the exception of my 40mm f/2.8 pancake and 50mm f/1.8) so I don't need to do graphic chart to let me know where my lens collection stands.

I use crop cameras (Canon 7D) and shoot possibly 90-95% of my imagery with two lenses: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS. My other lenses are specialty lenses which I may not use for weeks or even months but, enjoy having when needed. They are 90mm f/2.8 Tamron macro and 12-24mm f/4 Tokina. My two long telephoto lenses are 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L.

These six lenses could cover anything I ever needed to cover. I could make do with the 300mm f/4L IS + a 1.4x TC in lieu of the 400mm f/5.6L but, I got the 400L at a bargain price and will keep it. I also got the Tamron macro at a rock bottom price and, even though I don't shoot a great deal of macro, it is worth keeping. I purchased my 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L, used, at the price of a new 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom so, it is worthwhile for me to keep bth lenses.

My philosophy regarding lenses is to obtain the best mid-range zoom lens you can afford, preferably with a constant f/2.8 aperture. That should be your primary lens and the one which you shoot the majority of your images so, you should have the best glass possible in this focal range.

Flesh out that mid-range zoom with a wide angle lens, a macro lens or a tele-zoom lens, depending on your shooting style and needs.

I would much rather have one or two top-line lenses than an assortment of lesser lenses.

I keep my lenses for extended periods so the pro-rated difference (over many years) between top-line lenses and lesser glass is not that great...

[Saorsa]

Hi PaoloMtl, thanks... I've never been much if a straight 50 guy, but agree on the 1.8 being more reasonable than the 1.4... Thanks for the perspective! General question also... Does ANYONE do a map like that pdf to get a sense of what's next for their gear?? I've always had it in my head but as I looked at the simple chart it did give me pause to think harder on what I needed vs what I want (which is usually how I buy). :-)

There is a freeware program called exposure plot that you might find useful. You can use it to analyze how you actually use all your gear.

[Shadowman]

There is a freeware program called exposure plot that you might find useful. You can use it to analyze how you actually use all your gear.

I use a pen and paper and I have about five of these lists floating around. I also usually have a list of wishful thinking lenses I would love to own. I have a tendency to scratch these off the list after a few weeks contemplating purchasing.

[ajohnw]

If the 105 macro is the F2.8 I don't think you will gain much by buying and even faster 85mm lens just for portrait work. There isn't sufficient difference. You would just need to be a little closer with the 85 to frame the same as the 105.

I recently bought a twin lens D7000 kit that came with the 18-55mm and the 55-300mm. Good price wise but the 18-55 is a bit of a liability being limited to 55. I would want to go longer for a number of things so after looking rather carefully at tests have just ordered the 18-105mm to replace it. I feel this would be too slow for serious portrait work but I wouldn't get carried away with aperture as when doing things like partly blurring back ground the blur build up at F1.8 is rather rapid and uncontrollable. The gain with the F1.8 or even your macro lens is hopefully good performance even at the max aperture of the zoom where as those generally need shutting down a stop or so before they get to the best they can do. The fact that that it is a prime will also make a difference.

John
-

[krfessl]

John, thx... Doyou think the 70-300 will give me that?? It is a AF-S f/4.5-5.6 IF-ED VR lens...

[krfessl]

Good price wise but the 18-55 is a bit of a liability being limited to 55. I would want to go longer for a number of things so after looking rather carefully at tests have just ordered the 18-105mm to replace it. I feel this would be too slow for serious portrait work but I wouldn't get carried away with aperture as when doing things like partly blurring back ground the blur build up at F1.8 is rather rapid and uncontrollable. The gain with the F1.8 or even your macro lens is hopefully good performance even at the max aperture of the zoom where as those generally need shutting down a stop or so before they get to the best they can do. The fact that that it is a prime will also make a difference.

John
-

John, thanks ... The 18-105 is a great choice too... Candidly I love the 18-55 for daily photo, backyard, friends & fam stuff, vacation too for dinner (food) pics and I tend to keep the VR versions on my D80 and D7k bodies for the quick grab shots..

The 24-120 and/ or the 80-200 are on my wish list (one of the many) as Shadow/John mentions

And Saorsa, thx, I'll look for the SW!

[PaoloMtl]

There is a freeware program called exposure plot that you might find useful. You can use it to analyze how you actually use all your gear.

Sweet! Thanks for the link, seems I like 80mm... who knew!

[RustBeltRaw]

Keith, I think you can safely sell some gear. Unless your DX cameras have some features you need at longer focal lengths, I'd look at ditching the 18-55mm DX and 55-200mm DX lenses. Those lengths are fully covered by your FX lenses. Keep the 10-24mm DX for ultra-wide work, but you'll probably stick with the FX camera for most of your portrait work.

I recommend the 105mm macro as your portrait lens. It's probably the highest-quality lens in your kit. See if you need the focal length flexibility the 70-300mm provides before deciding if you need a higher-quality replacement.

Does ANYONE do a map like that pdf to get a sense of what's next for their gear??

I don't, but I don't have much to remember. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Canon 20mm f/2.8, Canon 50mm f/1.4, and Canon 100mm f/2.0. Two cameras, with 1.6x and 1.3x crops, which gives me very good focal length granularity with a small glass collection. Effectively (same order as above, on 1.3x, then 1.6x cameras) 18-26mm, 26mm, 32mm, 65mm, 80mm, 130mm, and 160mm. Considering adding a 200mm f/2.8, but that's out-of-budget for a while.

There is a freeware program called exposure plot that you might find useful. You can use it to analyze how you actually use all your gear.

That's clever. Thanks, Saorsa.

[krfessl]

Lex, as I've seen is usual for you, you're right on point ! I was hoping the 105 was right for portrait getting started given the length I have to work with in studio (and then micro use too)... The 55-200 is completely unused, and I don't mind selling it...I've got a lot of lights to pay for :-)

As I said in another post though, I LOVE the 15-85 for day to day and travel use... actually own 3 of them from various kits (2 VRs, one oldie)

I did add a new version of the simple coverage chart with the Lens details...and thanks Saorsa... I just pulled down the tool... looking forward to giving it a try...

[krfessl]

I recommend the 105mm macro as your portrait lens. It's probably the highest-quality lens in your kit. See if you need the focal length flexibility the 70-300mm provides before deciding if you need a higher-quality replacement.


I don't, but I don't have much to remember. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Canon 20mm f/2.8, Canon 50mm f/1.4, and Canon 100mm f/2.0. Two cameras, with 1.6x and 1.3x crops, which gives me very good focal length granularity with a small glass collection. Effectively (same order as above, on 1.3x, then 1.6x cameras) 18-26mm, 26mm, 32mm, 65mm, 80mm, 130mm, and 160mm. Considering adding a 200mm f/2.8, but that's out-of-budget for a while.

Lex, I'm also thinking about a 200MM FX, based on some of the other inputs... What's, in your mind, the best glass for portraits ? Of course, as I get up into the non-kit good glass I'm looking at at 1K++ each... One reason for the little chart was to look at it more thoughtfully than I had been... The 10-24 was a binge buy (unfortunately right before I went to the D610 (and I've not had the chance to use the lens on the new body)... the 105 Micro was a considered buy...

[PhotomanJohn]

I can't help but make a comment about the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 I realize that most folks just love the lens but there are some bad copies out there. I bought one a couple of years ago and it had more longitudinal chromatic distortion wide open than any lens I have ever seen. Everything in front of the focus point was very purple and everything behind was slightly green. I immediately sent it back to Nikon who did nothing but adjust the focus setting and sent it back. I then called someone I trust at NPS who told me this was not that unusual for this lens but mine was on the extreme edge and Nikon wouldn't do anything about it. I asked how these lenses are successfully used in portrait work wide open. I was reminded that most portraits have nothing in the image that is closer than the focus point so the lens works.

I kept the lens for another year or so but it annoyed me so much every time I used it that I sold it at a loss and went back to my old 105mm AIS that works flawlessly.

Sorry about the rant but I do feel just a little better now.

John