02 – lenses « Neil vN

02 – lenses

March 13, 2008

.
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 …

36 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