02 – lenses « Neil vN

02 – lenses

.
Nikon:

.

Nikon 14-24mm f2.8G ED AF-S
This lens is destined to become a legend. An extreme wide-angle zoom lens that is crisp from edge to edge, with minimal chromatic abberation, and mild optical distortion. For any Nikon shooter who wants an excellent wide-angle lens, this is the dream lens.

Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G ED AF-S
I still use the original 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S lens, and still regard it as the best zoom lens I have ever owned. This 24-70 updates this lens and by all accounts even manages to surpass the 28-70mm lens.

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8G ED AF-S VR II
With this specific range and the fast aperture, this is one of those indispensible lenses that will inevitably find its way into any serious Nikon shooter’s bag.

Nikon 50mm f1.4D AF
The Nikon 50mm f1.4 is an excellent lens for anyone who wants a compact and affordable prime lens with a wide aperture.


Nikon 85mm f1.4D AF		Nikon 85mm f/1.8

The Nikon 85mm f1.4 is a highly regarded lens and for good reason – its outstanding optical performance even wide open. For a more limited budget though, and for someone who wants an alternative that also gives excellent results, the Nikon 85mm f1.8 is available too.

Nikon 105mm f2.8D AF
The Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro lens just got better – they added vibration reduction, which really helps with image sharpness when working at such short distances.
.

Canon:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
The 70-200mm is an indispensable range. The stabilisation just makes it an even easier decision to own this lens. It is heavy, but nothing else comes close. The f4 optic might be a good choice too, especially if your budget is limited, but in the end, the faster optic is what I need for my work.

Canon EF 35mm f1.4L


Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II		Canon EF 85mm f/1.8

The Canon 85mm f1.2 L II is one of those flagship lenses that many photographers aspire to own one day. Is it really that good? I’d say yes. For a more limited budget though, and for someone who wants a fast-focusing 85mm that also gives excellent results, the 85mm f1.8 will do the trick.

next: the flashguns and accessories that I use …

78 Comments »

Neil,

During portrait shoots, which lens do you find yourself using more often, the Nikon 85/1.4 or 105/2.8? I will use the lens mainly for portraiture on an APS-C sensor. The 85/1.4 is the ideal portraiture lens, but I hear great things in respect to sharpness of the 105/2.8. I am sure I can also find use for the short focus distance of macro lens.

Thanks in advanced!

-Jose

Comment by Jose — September 19, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
Jose … tough choice between the two lenses. They do overlap a little in use as portrait lenses .. but still, the two lenses have different application.

The 85mm f1.4 just begs to be shot wide open. That fast aperture on a short telephoto lens looks just wonderful.

At the moment I don’t use the macro 105 for anything else but close-up shots, since I lean heavily towards the 70-200mm f2.8 when I shoot portraits.

So with that, I’d say my vote would go towards the 85mm f1.4

Neil vN

Comment by Neil — September 21, 2009 @ 2:22 am
Hi Neil,

I am looking for a professional-grade portrait lens to use on DX. Bokeh and optical performance wide open are probably my primary concerns. Could you please give me some opinions on the following?

- The 85mm f/1.4;
- The 105mm f/2 DC;
- The 135mm f/2 DC.

Thanks a lot and have a nice day.

Comment by Minh — September 23, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
Minh .. I’ve owned the 105mm f2 DC lens, but sold it. Since I also had the 85mm f1.4 and the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 the 105mm f2 DC lens felt like too much of an overlap.

If I had to choose between the 3 lenses you mention there, especially with the DX crop sensor, then I’d go with the 85mm f1.4 lens.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil — September 25, 2009 @ 2:26 am
Neil,

I have been shooting with a standard zoom cheapie lens for awhile. I wanted to make sure I was ready to commit to photography as a business before I dumped a lot of dough into it. I have a wish list but not sure what to get first. I am shooting with a Canon 30D right now and will eventually upgrade my body down the road. I want to get a 24-70mm, a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 16-35 wide angle. Do I get the 70-200 first since it will cover portrait length then get the 24-70mm next year? Or should I get a general zoom like a 24-105mm now? Not sure what to do? I will be shooting on location photos of children, families, engagements, seniors and weddings.

Your input is greatly appreciated!

Jenn

Comment by Jennifer — September 28, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
Jennifer .. this is a tough one for me to give advice on, since I don’t have much love for the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L .. for a truly believe it is a problem child of Canon’s. There is a tendency for this lens to back-focus or go out of alignment, or go soft as you zoom towards 24mm (while at infinity). This has been my experience with 3 copies of this lens .. and this experience is supported by many photographers on the various forums.

It really should be an obvious choice as a workhorse lens, but I can’t recommend it in all honesty.

A better combination would be the Canon 24-105mm f4L IS .. which is a sharp lens. The smaller aperture is less than fortunate, but it makes up for that perhaps in the versatility of its range.

A 70-200mm f2.8 IS / VR lens is indispensable in my opinion when you do portraits and weddings.

A general purpose lens would be the 24-105
.. but the lens that you really want, is the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS … it is perfect for portraits and seniors. And as a 2nd photographer at weddings, it will be your staple lens.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil — October 1, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Hi Neil,
I am a newbie. But lately developing quite a bit of interest in photography and learning a lot through reading and experimenting.
Currently my equipment is very basic (a D90 18-200 mm and 50 mm 1.8). I have now budget approved (by my wife!) for about 80,000 Yen (about 800 USD). If I had not stumbled up on your site I would have gone for another lens (say 105mm f2.8 / 85mm f1.4). But now I am in a dilemma whether to add another lens or buy a speedlight.

My work is just snapping (mostly indoors) my 10 month old baby and my 3 yr old girl.

Also could you compare (based on your experience) the bokeh on the 85mm f1.4 and the 105mm f2.8?

Arun (Tokyo)

Comment by Arun — October 2, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
Arun .. if you don’t have a speedlight at all, then I would say right now you are due for a good flashgun, rather than getting more lenses. It will open up more things for you right now than another lens would … although the 105mm f2.8 Macro and the 85mm f1.4 are exceptional lenses.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil — October 3, 2009 @ 8:34 am
Hello Neil

Iam a Nikon Shooter and Waiting for NIKON 70-200mm 2.8 VR2. and it says VR2 is equal to 4 Shutter stops but Existing Model 70-200 mm 2.8 VR is Equal to 3 Shutter stops. My question is New VR2 is 4 Shutter stops in addition of Existing model or Just 1 Stop. Should i wait for VR2 or Just Get Existing 70-200 mm 2.8 VR .
Thanks
Anooop

Comment by Anoop nair — October 7, 2009 @ 8:46 am
Anoop,

The new 70-200/2.8 VR2 can provide vibration reduction up to 4 stops total, not in addition to the previous version. So, it only offers an extra stop over the previous version. Not having used the new lens, I have heard that the new lens improves the corners for FX or full frame sensor as the previous version can be soft in the corners. However, if you shoot with a DX camera the previous version of the lens is excellent.

To help you decide, consider the price between the two lenses and whether you use or plan to use a full frame sensor with the lens. Personally, I use the lens with a DX sensor for the extra reach associated with a crop sensor and therefore don’t have the need for the new lens.

I hope this helps.

-Jose

Comment by Jose — October 8, 2009 @ 12:34 am
Hi Neil,

Thank you for sharing your insights with us. As an owner of both the 200mm f2 and 70-200 f2.8 I would like your opinion please (as subjective as it could be I would still find it valuable)

I already have the 14-24/24-70 and 85 f1.4 and 105 f2.8 so in terms of focal length I have the range between 70-105 reasonably covered.

I sold my “Old” 70-200mm f2.8 because I had moved to full frame and had the issue with soft corners and vignetting (perhaps I just had that 1 in a million copy that was particularly poor).

My question is this. In terms of practicality/use, do you find yourself using your 200 f2 as often as your 70-200 for weddings/portraiture on full frame or is it still very much a speciality lens? I am looking at either the new 70-200 or the 200f2.

Kind Regards,

Etienne.

Comment by Etienne Bester — October 9, 2009 @ 4:27 am
Ettiene … I don’t find the 200mm f2 as versatile a lens as the 70-200mm f2.8 VR. I like a zoom lens. With the new updated version of the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II, it becomes an even more logical purchase over the 200mm f2

Neil vN

Comment by Neil — October 12, 2009 @ 12:23 am
Hi Neil,
let me first appreciate your contribution to our photography knowledge through your website.
I’m just switching to an all Nikon set up for my weddings and wanted to get you input in these lens line ups:

17-35/2.8
50/1.4 G
70-200 VR

or
Fisheye (/or not)
24-70/2.8
70-200 VR

Many thanks,
Daniel

Comment by Daniel — October 16, 2009 @ 5:35 am
Daniel, if I had to go shopping now for a top-notch kit that covers everything below 200mm, I’d instantly go for the three main zooms:
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 AF-S
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 AF-S
Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR

There are non better than those. (But there is the brand-new Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 that is about to hit the streets.)

Neil vN

Comment by Neil — October 18, 2009 @ 12:45 am
Daniel,

I think the workhorse of event photography is the 24-70/2.8. Following Neil’s recommendation, I would also recommend the 70-200/2.8 VR.

For a wide angle lens, I use the 16-85/3.5-5.6 VR DX. Although this lens is not nearly as good as the 14-24/2.8, I just don’t use lens wider than 24mm often to justify the added price.

For the amount I use a wide angle lens, I would get something less expensive and add a 85/1.4 or 1.8 and 50/1.4 or 1.8.

The 14-24/2.8 is definitely a great lens, and I believe it is used more often by landscape photographers. However for weddings or other events, I seldom use ultra wide focal lengths.

Neil – On average, what would you say is the percentage of your delivered shots are taken with 14-24 lens?

Hope this helps.

-Jose

Comment by Jose — October 18, 2009 @ 1:26 am
Jose .. some weddings I don’t even take the 14-24mm f2.8 out of the bag. So overall I’d say I use it for less than 2% of images that I deliver.

But an ultra-wide angle lens is one of those lenses which, when you need it, you really do need it and nothing else will suffice.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil — October 18, 2009 @ 1:46 am
Hello heil

Iam Waiting for NIKON 70-200mm 2.8 VR2. and it says VR2 is equallent to 4 Shutter stops but Existing Model 70-200 mm 2.8 VR is Equallent to 3 Shutter stops. My question is New VR2 is 4 Shutter stops in addition of Existing model or Just 1 Stop. Shuld i wailt for VR2 or Just Get Existing 70-200 mm 2.8 VR

have recieved a Copy of your book and i must say i had that book before, Surprised? i have kept print out of almost all articles and Techniques and kept in a File and that was a quite good book for me. but i like the new version which is more organised . I have a Question About White balance, I have a Expodisc and thats quite good allways give me correct white balance. in a Situation where my subject is under Flourescent lighting and i want to add a soft touch of warm flash is it okay to keep my White balace in “PRE” after correcting with Expodisc and use the flash with 1/2 CTS Filter? i hope I will get a Proper color balace. Pls Advise.
Thanks
Anoop

Comment by Anoop nair — October 18, 2009 @ 3:25 am
If I may add my 2 Canadian cents to this list… As a long time Canon shooter I heavily relied uppon my 28-70 f2.8L for maybe 80% of my work.
One of those lens, aquired in good condition on the used market could be a pretty nice, less expensive alternative to the 24-70 f2.8L. It is also a bit sharper (albeit it’s contrast @70mm /f2.8 is nothing to write home about).
Cheers!

Comment by Bogdan — December 23, 2009 @ 9:14 am
Do you think the Canon 85 1.2 is worth the extra money compared to the 1.8? I know many say the 1.8 is good value, lighter, faster to focus etc. But then people swear they love their 1.2

Do you think the difference between the 2 are huge?

Cheers!

Comment by Abbie — December 29, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Abbie, I do think most serious or professional photographers, when they have the money, migrate towards the Canon 85mm f1.2 or the Nikon 85mm f1.4 .. over the f1.8 lenses.

There are times you need the extra bit of aperture. But I do think that part of the very wide lenses’ appeal, is the snob factor. And yes, I do subscribe to that. ;) I LOVE my Canon 85mm f1.2 and there is no lens better than that.

Do you really need it to create a specific look? Here I think that the difference between f1.8 and f1.2 is incremental.

Have a look at this recent post on how I used bounce flash to mimic window light, and there I specifically mention that even though I used the 85mm f1.4 that since I used it at f1.8 … I may as well have used the f1.8 optic for the same result.

Is it an excellent upgrade from the 85mm f1.2 to the f1.8 lens? Definitely.
Is it necessary? Not really, unless you need that extra stop.

And sometimes you do.

With this image, I wanted the last vestiges of the ambient light to still register, but also open up the lighting on the couple by bouncing flash off the side of the building.

For my ambient exposure I was at 1/100th @ f1.2 @ 1250 ISO
So as you can see, I am pretty much at the extreme edges of my settings. I couldn’t go much lower on my shutter speed without much more risk of camera shake.

I shot the image with the Canon 5D, and 1250 ISO was the highest I was comfortable in pushing the camera, and still be sure of getting good enough results for a large image in a wedding album.

And for that, I needed f1.2

So sometimes you need a lens like that, but more often than not, an f1.8 optic is a great choice too.

So there you have it .. no definitive answer.
I love it and wouldn’t want to be without it. (Or the Nikon f1.4)

Neil vN

Comment by Neil — December 29, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Amazing articles and so much to learn from. I have been so scared of (and ignorant of) using the flash. You have give good insight with all your articles and I am determinded to practise with your techniques. Thank You Neil.

Comment by Aruna — January 4, 2010 @ 2:49 pm
Hi
I am really looking for a portrait lens, I am having a Sigma 17-70 lens canon 18-55 kit lens. Which one I should go for? reading soo many articles I am bit confused. Regards Lorance

Comment by Lorance — February 14, 2010 @ 12:58 am
Lorance .. what are the apertures of the individual lenses? I would always go for the faster lens, and the lens with a constant maximum aperture.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — February 15, 2010 @ 3:57 am
I’m just before choice what lens would we good to my D300 for weddings. Reading many posts I’m little lost. 14-24mm f2.8 is not used often on weddings but you mean it fo FX format I suppose. What about this lens on DX body? I know, it’s heavy and big but what about it’s focal length? It is 21-36 mm on DX, how often would you use such range of focal length on weddings? Maybe it is useless and too often is nacessary to change it. 24-70 mm is next length avaliable in Nikon family. Would it be right choice for weddings? I also saw fast 24mm 1,4 which starts warming pfotographers lately. Maybe this is lens for weddings because of it’s 1,4 aperture for nice separation of subjects and propably nice bokeh too. What to do with this 24mm lenghth on wedding, is it usable? Maybe I should goal on 24mm 1,4 and be ready to take photos during whole wedding. As I said I’m little lost and mainly usable focal length interests me most, what length on DX format is most usable for you? Let me know your opinion.

Tangents are cool and I’m impressed. Very good job, not many peple is able to share it. Proffesional job!!

Regards, Tad

Comment by Tad Gawin — February 17, 2010 @ 5:35 pm
Tad,

For weddings, the primary lens you will use is a standard zoom lens. Therefore, you should definitely use the 24-70/2.8. I would estimate than more than half of the pictures will be taken using this lens. As a second lens, you can use the 70-200/2.8 VR or 80-200/2.8, however you will use this lens mostly for portraiture or candid shots. If cost is an issue, or you want a nicer portraiture lens, you can use the 85/1.4 or 85/1.8. The standard zoom should be sufficiently wide unless you don’t have a lot of working distance or very large group shots. In this case, I would recommend the 16-85/3.5-5.6 DX VR. This serves as nice wide angle lens and a slow backup standard lens. The new 16-35/4 if available, may be a nice wide angle lens.

If you don’t have one already, you will also need a flash. At a minimum you should have a SB-600, but if your budget allows, the SB-900 would be much nicer. Bring lots of batteries as the flash goes through them pretty quickly.

Keep in mind that for weddings you really want to have extra batteries and memory cards along with backup equipment in case the camera or lens malfunctions. You don’t want to be in a situation that you have to borrow a guest camera because you’re missing a critical piece of equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Comment by Jose — February 19, 2010 @ 2:11 am
Tad .. I do believe you need a good wide-angle zoom before you need the 24mm f1.4
It’s certainly an enticing lens, but it is spendy for what it does.

I would definitely recommend the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 if you don’t have one, over the Nikon 24mm f1.4

A far as wide-angles go .. what about a used copy of the 17-35mm f2.8 AF-S ?
It’s a great lens, and you could get one for a decent price on the used market … and the range is perhaps more practical than the 14-24mm f2.8

What is a concern with the 14-24mm f2.8 is that the front element is really huge, and unprotected except for the flanges.

To figure out the equivalent focal length, multiply by 1.5x … therefore the 17-35 becomes a useful 26-52mm lens.
Wide-to-normal.

The lens that Jose recommends, the 16-35mm f4 looks like a great optic. There are other slower zooms out as well.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — February 19, 2010 @ 4:06 am
Hi neil, love your work. I only have budget to get one fast lens. I am debating between nikon 85mm 1.4 or the 70-200mm. I am using nikon d300s. I would appreciate your opinion on this. thanks

Comment by Adi — February 19, 2010 @ 11:55 am
Adi, in my opinion, the 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR lens is much more versatile than the 85mm f1.4

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — February 19, 2010 @ 8:14 pm
Neil,

I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding lens filters? (ie. UV, polarizer, etc.)
I’m hesitant not to have one on all of my lenses for ‘protection’, but lately I’m falling into the crowd that feels that filters degrade image quality.
Your thoughts?

Jory, Omaha, NE

Comment by Jory S — February 27, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
Jory .. I go either way on the use of filters. It depends.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — February 27, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
I’m about to buy 24-70mm f2.8 or 17-35mm f2.8 but my budget let me choice only one. Which one is more necessary for weddings on start? I know I’ll need both soon in future.
My thinking way is to buy glasses for FX cause it’s more than sure that I’ll need full frame body soon and my D300 will be second body covering different focal length on the same lenses. It’s more practical I hope or maybe I’m wrong.
Are these lenses sharp enough at open aperture? What is your opinion in this matter? It is necessary to open in low light conditions or have nice unsharp background when is needed.

Tad

Comment by TadGawin — March 1, 2010 @ 5:47 am
I’d suggest getting full-frame lenses, because at some point in the future, you *will* own a D700 (or its successor). There’s a logical progression here. ; )

This way you aren’t stuck with DX lenses two or three years down the line.

Is the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 sharp enough? I can see the crispness of the image improving when I go from f2.8 to f4 … but f2.8 on this lens is as sharp as you will get a normal-range zoom to be. It really is an excellent lens, and for me, an indispensable lens in my work.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — March 1, 2010 @ 10:22 am
Hi Neil, on my post #28 you commented that the 70-200mm is more versatile than 85mm 1.4. My question is for photographing children, do you find that it is very hard to move around following children with such a big and long lens?

Comment by Adi — March 3, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
The 70-200mm snaps into focus much faster than the (screw-driven) 85mm lens. You will have a greater success rate with it. Also, you can go wider (and of course much tighter) than 85mm.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — March 3, 2010 @ 9:41 pm
Hi Neil. I am just a starting hobbyist and I plan to go into event photography. I presently have a D90 with a 50mm and a 17-55 2.8. I’m eyeing the 70-200mm f2.8 vr. My question is will there be a big difference if I upgrade my D90? If so, what do you recommend? I know that at the end, it depends on the one taking the shots. Also, I’ve come accross a lot of videographers using the Canon 7D lately and the video looks quite good. Is there a Nikon camera that can match up with this video capability? Thanks.

Comment by Henry O. — March 9, 2010 @ 7:13 am
Henry … the camera you’re looking for then is the Nikon D300s … it also features video capability, and has a lot of extra features.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — March 12, 2010 @ 1:57 am
Hi Neil, have you try canon 28mm f1.8 usm ? I want buy that lens for my 5D MK II, do you recommend that lens? Thanks Neil

Comment by Ivan — March 30, 2010 @ 2:18 am
Ivan, I don’t have any direct experience with it, but by all accounts it is an excellent optic too.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — March 30, 2010 @ 7:05 am
Hi Neil, I am plan to go into event photography.I presently have a D700 with 14-24/f2.8 ; 50mm/f1.4 and 135mm/f2DC.
Are these lenses are enough to start until can afford to bye 24-70 and 70-200?
Your opinion is greatly appreciated!
Thank You
George

Comment by George — April 11, 2010 @ 3:11 am
George .. the 70-200 is such a versatile workhorse, I would seriously consider selling the 135mm f DC lens to offset the purchase of the zoom.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — April 11, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
Hi Neil,

I love your site and have been inspired by your articles to finally order myself a speedlight so I can try to put some of the techniques you describe into practice.

I’ve been asked to be one of the photographers at my brother’s wedding however my lens collection is missing the all important fast zooms. I have a Sony A100 (APS-C 1.5x crop factor, focal lengths in brackets are full frame equivalents) with 18-250mm (27-375 mm) f3.5-6.3, 30mm (45mm) f2.8 macro, 50mm (75mm) f1.8, 500mm (750mm) f/8 and 18-70mm (27-105) f3.5-5.6 lenses.

My budget will probably only run to one new lens and so my question is, given that constraint, what should my top priority be? It seems that I should be going for an APS-C standard zoom such as the Tamron 17-50mm (25.5-75mm) f2.8, but… perhaps I’ve just been using my superzoom too much but I can’t help being concerned that the 50mm long end might be just a bit too short at times. The other option would be to get a full frame standard zoom such as a 28-70 mm (42-112.5 mm) f2.8 which on my APS-C camera body would give a focal length range from just short of normal through the sort of moderate telephoto focal lengths generally associated with portrait photography. Am I wrong to worry about my fast glass being limited to 50mm and shorter focal lengths? How much am I likely to miss the wide angle coverage if did go for the 28-75instead?

Comment by Anthony — April 12, 2010 @ 7:26 am
Hi Neil,

Love your site, addicted to it now. I bought your book as well but your site keep growing with new information & tips. Will all these be incorporated in your next book?

The second question is,
I am thinking of buying D700, 70-200 VRII, 24-70/f2.8 and

14-24/f2.8 OR 24/f1.4(recently released)

Can you please advise which one should I go for? I take potraits and landscapes as well.

Cheers.

Rag

Comment by Rag — April 15, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
Hi Neil,
I understand that most of your Prime Lens are 85mm, I seen some reviews commenting that 50mm f1.4 is more suitable for EOS 500D, while 85mm f1.8/1.4 are more suitable for FF like EOS 1D.

I would love to go for 70-200mm but due to budget constraint, what would you recommend if I would like to take photos for kids or maybe some events.

Your kind advise is greatly appreciated.

Comment by Brandon — April 20, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
Brandon .. for a not-too-tight portrait, the 50mm lens works well on the 1.6x crop sensor. But if your budget is tight, also look at the Canon 85mm f1.8 lens. Great optical quality for an affordable price. This then would give you a lens that can give you a nice tight portrait.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — April 20, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
Hi Neil,
Many thanks for your kind advise. Currently the price between these 2 prime lens, 85mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 are not too far off, hence I shall go for 85mm right? Cheers.

Comment by Brandon — April 20, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
Personally, I’d go for the 85mm f1.8 rather than the 50mm f1.4 although valid arguments could be made for either purchase. But I think the 85mm will give you a specific look to your photos that will be quite new and exciting. More so than the 50mm.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — April 21, 2010 @ 12:51 am
Neil,
i have a 50mm 1.4 and dont use it much….i also have the 70-200 2.8 is but am thinking about buying the 85mm 1.8……everyone who has it seems to love it, do you think its a waste to buy it since i have the 70-200??? ty

Comment by mike — April 26, 2010 @ 7:11 am
Mike .. unless you specifically need a compact short telephoto – as opposed to wielding the much larger lens in people’s face – then I’d still say the zoom is a more versatile lens. I wouldn’t call it a waste of money, but I wonder if you’d use it as often as the zoom.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — April 27, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Hi Neil,
Seen thru most of your comments, and seem that it is more worthwhile investing in Canon L Lenses. For wedding and kids photography, it would be good to invest in EF 24-70mm f2.8 in long run or having a 85mm f1.8 is good enough? If in the case, there is no concern on budget.. : )

Comment by Brandon — May 4, 2010 @ 5:13 am
I’m a big advocate of quality zooms. :)

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — May 5, 2010 @ 10:00 pm
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your kind advise. I forget to mention that currently I only have the kit len 18-200mm f3.5-5.6. So far the quality taken is quite good and range wise is quite versatile. Hence in your opinion, shall I still get the 24-70mm lens? Or a 17-55mm f2.8 lens or 85mm f1.8 lens will be perfect? Thanks.

Comment by Brandon — May 6, 2010 @ 2:57 am
Brandon, what lens do you NEED?
Personally, I would always go for the full-frame fast zoom.
24-70mm f2.8
It will be superior to the do-all wide-range zoom.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — May 10, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Hi Neil
I am regular reader and a big fan of your work and articles and also love your book.
I am an aspiring amateur but this year my photography has started earning me a little bit of money – mainly weddings and I need to up my game if I am going to start (near) serious money for my work.

Presently I have 2 bodies: Canon 50D and 20D and the following lenses: Sigma: 8mm, 10-20, 18-50 f/2.8 macro and Canon 85mm f/1.8 and 70-300IS. I also own a 430EX flash with Gary Fong Lightshere.

I have about $1300 to spend and the obvious choice was 70-200 f/2.8L in place of my 70-300 but cannot afford that lens in either MkI or MkII form so was looking at the f4/IS which I can afford. Alternatively I can sell the 8mm which I don’t use a lot and blow my ENTIRE budget in the MkI – do you think its worth it or shall I stick with the f/4IS. The above budget needs to cover some of my flash needs as well but that’s for another thread.

I was also looking at the Sigma 500-150 f/2.8 but getting really varied reports regarding quality and consistency.

Your advice would be hugely appreciated.
Alexis

Comment by Alexis Hadjisoteriou — May 10, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
alexis,
you can get a good used 70-200 2.8 with IS on ebay for around $1500, but another lens you should look at is the canon 24-70 2.8, that will be used for more than half of your shots, combine that with your 85mm 1.8 and you could get most of your shots at any wedding, mike

Comment by mike — May 11, 2010 @ 6:42 am
Hi Mike,
Thanx for the feedback – there are 3 reasons that I would not consider the 24-70 2.8:
a) I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 which I am very happy with its optical quality, build and price
b) 28mm as a minimum would be restrictive on a crop camera such as my 50D and 20D
c) Reports of back-focusing have put me off this particular lens.

I totally agree with you that the 85mm is an invaluable tool in ANY wedding – the question that I am asking is whether I should buy a new 70-210 f4IS or (as you suggest) a used MkI 70-200 IS f2.8. Your views would be most welcome.

regards and thanx again
Alexis

Comment by Alexis Hadjisoteriou — May 11, 2010 @ 11:43 am
alexis,
I am NO expert but I think the extra stop you will get will be a big help since you are using a 50d where you are limited as to how high you can go iso wise…i bought a used 70-200 2.8 is and its a great lens(although) can be very heavy after a day of shooting….I am sure Neil has more info from his years of experience, Mike

Comment by mike — May 12, 2010 @ 9:45 am
Thanx Mike – I was hoping that Neil was going to comment on this but alas he has not been tempted!

Comment by Alexis Hadjisoteriou — May 13, 2010 @ 8:23 am
Get the faster lens, with stabilization. :)

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — May 13, 2010 @ 8:35 am
Hi Neil,

I have a Canon EOS 40D with 70-200 2.8 IS, 50mm 1.8 and 17-85 IS.
Would a 17-40 F4 be a worthwhile upgrade from the 17-85 IS? I can get a second hand one at a reasonable price.

Comment by Tom — May 16, 2010 @ 2:06 am
Tom .. I don’t think the 17-40mm f4 will offer you much more than your 17-85mm does. It would be an obvious upgrade or change if you changed to a full-frame camera, since the 17-40mm is a full-frame lens.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — May 17, 2010 @ 2:07 am
Hi Neil, have you had any experience of the EFS 17-55 2.8?

Comment by Tom — June 6, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
nice lens for a crop camera

Comment by mike — June 14, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Hi there Tom … I don’t have direct experience of the Canon 17-55 f2.8 but by all accounts it is an excellent optic.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — June 15, 2010 @ 10:25 am
Hi Neil,

I am planning on buying the Nikon 24-70 2.8mm lens. Is that lens sharper or better than the Nikon 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 lens, which I already own. The reason I was purchasing the 2.8 was the ability to chose my aperture, unlike the 18-200mm. I can hold off and save some more money if the picture quality is the same.

Comment by Trina Cheney — July 15, 2010 @ 9:11 am
Trina .. I don’t know the 18-200 at all, but I would be hugely surprised if the 24-70mm f2.8 lens isn’t superior in every aspect.

As a related story – the first time I used a pro-level zoom, was the old Nikon 35-70mm f2.8D AF lens. It just blew my socks off with how sharp it was, and made me realize that the f4-f5.6 zooms I had been using at the time, just don’t compare.

The f2.8 also gives you the advantage of being able to isolate something against the background with a wider aperture. Alternately, the wider aperture also allows higher shutter speeds.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — July 15, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
Hi Neil,

I am planning to buy Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (Non IS Version). My question is :

1) Do you have experience with this lens?
2) How important is image stabilization in a lens?
3) Can you suggest me,how minimum speed when focal length 200mm without is (image stabilization)on APS-C (canon 550d) camera to get sharp image?

Thanx Neil

Comment by Ivan — July 26, 2010 @ 8:03 am
I only have experience with the two IS lenses. I wasn’t ever really impressed with the first version of the IS lens when used wide open. It only got some snap to the image from f3.5 onwards. The new lens is magnificent though.

Depending on your needs and style of shooting, I’d say the IS lens is essential. I certainly get photos with the stabilized lenses that I’d never be able to get with the non-IS / non-VR lenses.

re the minimum handholdable speed .. that’s impossible to give a specific numerical value to. It depends on how stable YOU are, and how stable you can hold a lens. One thing to keep in mind, that there is no magical cut off shutter speed, eg … everything over 1/125 will be sharp, and everything under 1/125 will have some degree of blur. That kind of absolute definition of how one shutter speed might or might not be handholdable, is unrealistic. It’s a sliding scale. Shades of grey.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — July 26, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
Hi Neil,
I have gotten advice from you earlier on my next purchase and would like to try my luck again getting advice from you on my next purchase. (Btw, I am just a hobbist usually taking portraits of my kids )
I currently own a
- Nikon D90
- SB600 (suggest by you, elevated my photography to next level)

- 50 mm f1.8 – not so good but was cheap, when I wanted to take photo in the hospital during delivery of our second child.

- 18-200 mm I am pretty impressed with it when I used it in the mid zoom range stopped down from f6.0 – f13.0, it is quite sharp in this range imho, but have to use flash a lot to make up for the lost light in smaller aperture.

- Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 – Purchased it as I got bored of shooting thousands and thousands of tight portraits of my kids. But still struggling to learn to use it. I have to admit that gettign a good composition here with kids in the foreground is very challenging.

- Now What Next?
I would like to take portraits with
- nice soft buttery bokeh (18-200 gives that sometime but not always so not sure what really affects the bokeh! is it the rounded 9 baldes? or the coatings? or quality of light)
- at times only with avaialble light
- and need a lens quite fast in nailing down the focus, as with my 18-200 sometimes miss the shots of my kids running, part to blame my be my D90 and myself :)

I restricted my choices down to (not in any particular order)
- 105 mm f2.8 micro nikkor (can also use for macro / cheapest of the bunch / bokeh quality not sure / focus I have heard not so fast)
- 85 mm f1.4 (really wide/ cost mid of the three / bokeh according to your article best of the bunch / focus not sure)
- 70-200 mm f2.8 (flexible zoom range, bokeh quality good / cost most expensive of the three / heavy not sure if i can run around with my kids / focusing – you had mentioned it is blazing fast on a D3 so should be ok on a D90 ?)

Again I am not a pro and I cant recoup any of these investments other than the statisfaction I get taking good pics of my kids.

Thanks
Arun

Comment by Arun (tokyo) — July 27, 2010 @ 11:33 pm
Arun, it is difficult not to recommend the amazing Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR II zoom. I do think it will be a more flexible optic for you than the two fixed focal length lenses. It might be a bit bulky for photographing children indoors though.

But it does focus faster than the 85mm f1.4

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — July 31, 2010 @ 3:26 am
Hi Neil,

I need your suggest, Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS USM or Canon 135mm f2.0 L USM?

Thanks Neil

Comment by Ivan — August 3, 2010 @ 11:38 pm
Ivan, you don’t say whether you have the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II lens? If so, then the Canon 100mm f2.8 IS lens would be a better complement to the zoom than the 135mm f2 lens.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — August 4, 2010 @ 3:24 am
re: Canon 24-70mm

It seems like the consensus for this lens is a mixed bag. Unfortunately, as a 5Dmkii owner my options are limited to either the Canon or its much-cheaper Sigma counterpart. Putting aside the back-focus and softness at infinity issues mentioned earlier on, what’s your take on its overall IQ? Thanks

Comment by Clifford — August 13, 2010 @ 9:47 pm
Clifford, if you can work with a max aperture of f4 then the Canon 24-105mm f4 (B&H) is, in my opinion, a more reliable lens. The range is certainly great.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — August 14, 2010 @ 1:27 am
@Arun: I coupled a Tamron 28-75 2.8 to my D300 for shooting kids indoors… much to my delight! Razor sharp (after some tweaking), great blur, very light weight (350g), small and cheap (I paid mine €200 second hand).

Excellent bang for the bucks.

Roel

Comment by Roel — August 16, 2010 @ 4:41 am
Hi, really interesting.

I use a D700 and 85 1.8 for portraits. My partner shoots with a 5Dmk2 and 85 1.2L. I love the bokeh on the Canon lens but have been torn between the cheaper option of buying the Nikon 85 1.4 on my 12MP D700 camera, or getting a 5DMk2 and 85 1.2 as a one trick pony for portraits, and a wider angle 35m F2 so I can use it for large group shots.

What do you think?

Comment by Jonas — August 18, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
Jonas .. as wonderful as the Canon 85mm f1.2 might be (and it really looks great on the 5D), if you have a D700, I would recommend the Nikon 85mm f1.4 to you.

In practical terms, I don’t believe there is very little (if anything) to discern between the images from either lens. Check my comment #6 in that post.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — August 21, 2010 @ 2:06 am
I currently own a Canon 5dII and 24-70L.

I am starting to get more portraiture gigs this fall, so I am looking for a great portraiture lens that will make my work stand out against the ever growing crowd. Ideally I’d buy both the 85 1.4L and the 70-200 2.8 IS II, but considering their pricetags, I’ll have to make due with only one for a while.

My two main criteria are stellar bokeh (both quality and quantity for great subject isolation) and something to fill the gap in my longer focal range. I’d say that right now, the bokeh is more important to me than the longer end afforded by the 200vs85.

I’d imagine that the 85L’s fixed focal length wouldn’t be too much of a problem when shooting portraits (seniors, families, etc) because I’m pretty much in control of the situation and can pose, etc. That’d be less the case for weddings next summer, so the 70-200 would better for that.

That said, I don’t currently have any weddings lined up for next summer (here’s to hoping!), but I’d imagine the versatility for the 70-200 would be much better for weddings, so I’d like to be prepared for that. Though, having the 85L could really make my work stand out and catch people’s eye and get me some more gigs (wedding or not) which would speed up saving for the other.

What are your thoughts?

Comment by Steve — August 28, 2010 @ 10:59 am
As great as the 85mm f1.2 II is, the new Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II is such a versatile lens and sharp (and has stabilization), that it has to be the first choice.

Neil vN

Comment by Neil vN — August 28, 2010 @ 12:16 pm