Christopher Hartman wrote:

I disagree.  Since lenses, regardless of quality, do not really require a learning curve, everyone is ready for a pro lens.  Nothing is hurt by having one other than the pocketbook.

Mac Intosh wrote:

Instead of telling you that it doesn't matter about this or that, or you'll know or not know when your a professional this or that or get a good rugby or soccer team... I'll answer your question directly...

These are the Nikon lenses that you want to consider…

70~200 2.8G

24~70 2.8G

14~24 2.8G

Portraits by Ray wrote:

Sorry first time posting and didn't mean to mess up and have so many boxes and mess with other peoples post. I apologize.

Ray

Henry The Artist wrote:
Allow me to offer my thoughts on the matter. I apologise if people feel I have wandered off topic.

The Zen people say - a novice looking at a mountain sees nothing more than a mountain and when looking at water he sees only water. With experience he learns that the mountain isn't really a mountain and water is not actually water. Much later if, and when, enlightenment eventually turns up he realises the mountain really is a mountain and water is just water - but this time he knows what the score is.

Photographers go through a similar process.

Whatever you smoking... I want some!

That's deep dude!!

Henry The Artist wrote:
Allow me to offer my thoughts on the matter. I apologise if people feel I have wandered off topic.

The Zen people say - a novice looking at a mountain sees nothing more than a mountain and when looking at water he sees only water. With experience he learns that the mountain isn't really a mountain and water is not actually water. Much later if, and when, enlightenment eventually turns up he realises the mountain really is a mountain and water is just water - but this time he knows what the score is.

Photographers go through a similar process.

That's brilliant! No idea what you're talking about but... brilliant.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I'm going to disagree with the analogy in part.

if we were talking about camera bodies, I agree.  But when it comes to lenses, nothing is lost, other than money, by having a high quality lenses.  Lenses do not have difficult to learn functions (except maybe, a tilt-shift lens).  They are exactly like the lower quality lenses...but better.

So what if they are not good at taking photos.  Whatever they ARE taking WILL look better than if they had used the cheaper lenses.

Not knowing how light works is a huge problem for lenses and how the lens captures it. Not knowing how to use your camera also affects the lens. They are a team. If you are clueless about one thing then you are clueless about everything. And having a better lens wont help you become any less clueless.

The OP isn't even specific on what he is shooting..... He just says "pro" I mean pros use lenses that are 100bucks to thousands of dollars. They use lenses for product work, editorial, advertising etc. What is he looking to use a "pro" lens for.... WTF is a pro lens anyways?

-JAY- wrote:

Is a 24-70/2.8 better than the kit lens at f/11 under many situations? We dont know what situations the OP plans on using them in.

I'm going to say...probably.  But not relevant.

A small aperture doesn't suddenly make glass better.  Quality is quality.

JonPhoto wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. A well executed shot with a crap lens will look better than crap taken with a great lens.

Really? wow...I had never considered that.

This is truly a piece of amazing information.

JonPhoto wrote:

How so? The OP wants lenses to look like a pro. To look like a pro you have to know how to shoot and study composition, lighting, exposure and how to use a camera. The least factor in all of this is the lens.

Learn how to shoot and then the OP will be able to answer the question himself.

no, he asked what lenses are good for professional photo shoots.  Not what will make him look like a pro.

however, if you have high end equipment, you will likely look more like a pro than those without.  Your work may not look professional, but that is all together another subject and not one the OP asked about.

AJScalzitti wrote:
There was a time a few years back when everybody wanted a zoom lens on consumer cameras, so the makers starte to put them in basic kits.  The problem is a good zoom is harder to make then a good fixed prime lens, and the lower quality (sharpness, color, contrast) shows.

Before that kits most often had 50mm 2.8 or 1.8 prime lens and I feel it's a better choice to start.  I can "zoom" with my feat but I can't make a cheap zoom sharper, better in low light or have a shallower depth of field.  For more creative control and learning comes from this as a starting point IMHO.

Keep in mind your camera has a smaller sensor then 35mm film, so a 50mm on it will have a smaller fild of view.  The 50mm closely matched the natural human field of view on film (and full sized sensor) cameras.  So it will be a little tighter, you could also consider something in the 35mm range as wel but they will be a little more expensive; about $500US vs $150

When I gave my niece my Nikon D200, I could have bought a cheap zoom for her.  However, I saw a good creative future for her.  So I gave her, also, my Nikon 50mm f/1.8D so that she could produce "professional" quality results.

I still believe that lens is every bit as good as my all of my $1,400+ lenses I have bought.

Erlinda wrote:

Not knowing how light works is a huge problem for lenses and how the lens captures it. Not knowing how to use your camera also affects the lens. They are a team. If you are clueless about one thing then you are clueless about everything. And having a better lens wont help you become any less clueless.

The OP isn't even specific on what he is shooting..... He just says "pro" I mean pros use lenses that are 100bucks to thousands of dollars. They use lenses for product work, editorial, advertising etc. What is he looking to use a "pro" lens for.... WTF is a pro lens anyways?

But the "rules" for working with light is the same for all equivalent lenses.

If proper exposure is 1/500 @ f/8, it doesn't matter if you have a fantastic lens for a cheap lens, it's still 1/500 @ f/8.

Look, years ago, I had soft images whenever I shot wider than 24mm on a Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5.  I blamed, seemingly, everything except the lens.  It didn't occur to me that a "cheap" lens may not be all that great in quality throughout the entire zoom range.

What do I do if I want quality results at wider than 24mm?  Turns out, I needed a better quality lens.  And at that time, the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8g was the perfect answer.

So why potentially handicap a new photographer by suggesting they get by with cheaper equipment?

When money is not an issue, I will always push for glass.  if you have $3,000 to spend.  Buy a cheaper body and get a better lens...versus buy a better body and a cheaper lens.  if you do the former, your results will likely be BETTER.

We do not know what the OPs needs are.  We only have his question and his portfolio to look at and make assumptions.

I stand firmly by my answer that if he seeks any current Nikon f/2.8 or larger lens, we'll be well on his way to improving his work.

You can learn and improve your lighting skills.  But education will never make your lens do better than its design allows for.

Erlinda wrote:
Not knowing how light works is a huge problem for lenses and how the lens captures it. Not knowing how to use your camera also affects the lens. They are a team. If you are clueless about one thing then you are clueless about everything. And having a better lens wont help you become any less clueless.

The OP isn't even specific on what he is shooting..... He just says "pro" I mean pros use lenses that are 100bucks to thousands of dollars. They use lenses for product work, editorial, advertising etc. What is he looking to use a "pro" lens for.... WTF is a pro lens anyways?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I almost got the 14-24 and then I would have that very kit...but I decided to go Macro and bought the 105mm.  The 14-24 will, I believe, be my next lens...but I think I'll be upgrading my body first...starting to really crave the D800.

oh yeah...since the OP is on a Nikon cropped body...if you need the widest angle possible on a standard zoom, then instead of the 24-70, you can consider the 17-55 f/2.8.  Personally VERY experienced with it and it's VERY good.  I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars. If you think some day you'll want to go FULL FRAME (FX body), then you can future proof yourself with the 24-70 f/2.8.  You'll get more reach while losing out on the wide angle.

I didn't realize that Nikon made this 17~55 2.8G DX lens. Great info for people using cropped sensor cameras.

LA StarShooter wrote:

Try a fixed lens, although, I am not familiar with your camera's menu in terms of settings. For my Nikon d7000 I bought a 50mm 1.8f D and the 85mm 1.8f. As I'm not sure what lens your camera takes-mine takes a lot of different lenses--it is good to check your lens compatibility list and performance.

The 85mm 1.8 f D I really like for fashion and swimsuit. The 50mm 1.8 has worked well for me in an 10 x 12 room and also at the house of blues and in a studio.

I would like to point out that since the OP has a D3200, he will need the newer "G" versions of these two lenses to retain autofocus.

Michael Zahra wrote:
What is hurt is the cycle of learning.  He has it backwards.

This

Learning what makes a good image is more important than the lens.

Imagination is more important than knowledge -Albert Einstein.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

But the "rules" for working with light is the same for all equivalent lenses.

If proper exposure is 1/500 @ f/8, it doesn't matter if you have a fantastic lens for a cheap lens, it's still 1/500 @ f/8.

Look, years ago, I had soft images whenever I shot wider than 24mm on a Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5.  I blamed, seemingly, everything except the lens.  It didn't occur to me that a "cheap" lens may not be all that great in quality throughout the entire zoom range.

What do I do if I want quality results at wider than 24mm?  Turns out, I needed a better quality lens.  And at that time, the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8g was the perfect answer.

So why potentially handicap a new photographer by suggesting they get by with cheaper equipment?

When money is not an issue, I will always push for glass.  if you have $3,000 to spend.  Buy a cheaper body and get a better lens...versus buy a better body and a cheaper lens.  if you do the former, your results will likely be BETTER.

We do not know what the OPs needs are.  We only have his question and his portfolio to look at and make assumptions.

I stand firmly by my answer that if he seeks any current Nikon f/2.8 or larger lens, we'll be well on his way to improving his work.

You can learn and improve your lighting skills.  But education will never make your lens do better than its design allows for.

The way you stand firmly about your answer is the same way I stand firmly about mine...

It's a waste of money to buy an expensive lens when you know dick all about photography. Use that money for classes or books.

The OP is looking for pro lens to better his pictures, I am saying a "pro" lens wont do shit without knowing how to light.

Mac Intosh wrote:

Light can hit a lens glass differently then another lens glass.... That's one of the reasons why lenses are different from other lenses. IMO

Erlinda wrote:

The way you stand firmly about your answer is the same way I stand firmly about mine...

It's a waste of money to buy an expensive lens when you know dick all about photography. Use that money for classes or books.

The OP is looking for pro lens to better his pictures, I am saying a "pro" lens wont do shit without knowing how to light.

I agree.

But I chose to answer the OPs question rather than judge his presented work and what he may or may not really need.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

I agree.

But I chose to answer the OPs question rather than judge his presented work and what he may or may not really need.

I guess I'm a judgmental bitch AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Christopher Hartman wrote:
I agree.

But I chose to answer the OPs question rather than judge his presented work and what he may or may not really need.

This^^^  anything beyond it is material/info for a separate thread discussion.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
300mm f2.8

Definitely a "pro" lens....

LOL

Would that be this 300 2.8...

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens

or this one...

Nikon Nikkor AI-S 300mm F2.8 ED IF Lens 300/2.8 

Erlinda wrote:

I guess I'm a judgmental bitch AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

We all are.   And those that say they aren't, are liars.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
no, he asked what lenses are good for professional photo shoots.  Not what will make him look like a pro.

however, if you have high end equipment, you will likely look more like a pro than those without.  Your work may not look professional, but that is all together another subject and not one the OP asked about.

The OP asked what lenses to use to take pictures that look like a pro would take. A lens isn't going to do that. Studying composition, lighting, exposure will.

Again, look at all the different choices the OP has to sift through. Each one is in response to how that photographer shoots. And some of them are very expensive. Learn to shoot, and then buy gear you are going to need.

JonPhoto wrote:
The OP asked what lenses to use to take pictures that look like a pro would take. A lens isn't getting isn't going to do that. Studying composition, lighting, exposure will.

Again, look at all the different choices the OP has to sift through. Each one is in response to how that photographer shoots. And some of them are very expensive. Learn to shoot, and then buy gear you are going to need.

This is what he asked.

Desmond Lin wrote:
hi everyone, just taken this hobby recently and am wondering which nikon lens is good for prof photoshoot. there are just so many types of lens and am really interested to find out which is the best lens with prof shoots. im using D3200. guys help advise. many thanks )

He then responded with:

Desmond Lin wrote:
seen many beautiful pic of the photoshoot, so how could i improve my shoots to theirs? does that means changing of lens? so long as the shoots is like prof i dun mind forking out more $$$ )

For that question, photography practice/study/education on lighting and composition will benefit him greatly.

Does he need to learn that first?  No.  He can buy and then learn.  I'd recommend learning on the best equipment you can get rather than purposefully handicap yourself and possibly become frustrated and give up.

When I see work that I enjoy/respect and know I have the same gear, then I know that whatever issues I have is with me and not the gear.  Why frustrate yourself with the risk in thinking that the problem is technique when it turns out later that your gear was holding you back.

My Nikon D70 was poor at rendering black fabrics as black.  They often came out brown to purple.  Mostly depending on white balance if I recall correctly.  I thought *I* was doing something wrong with camera settings or technique.  I eventually just gave up and did other things to get them to appear as black as possible without ruining everything else.

Two years later I upgraded to the Nikon D200...problem solved.

Classes, books, education...none of that would have helped me...other than to perhaps learn earlier that the problem was the camera and not me.

I also, as I described earlier in this thread, and issue with the quality of a lens when shooting wider than 24mm.  An issue resolved by buying a higher quality lens.

It's ok to suggest to the OP he should get instruction on lighting, etc, blah blah blah...but we can do that while still answering his question rather than to ignore his question as if it was unimportant.  Is it LESS important than lighting and composition? for many, the answer is probably yes.

ETA:had to repost, MM is acting flakey...

Christopher Hartman wrote:

This is what he asked.

And he followed it up later about how he sees all the good looking pictures from pros and wants to shoot like that. To take a picture like a pro, studying and practice will do that over a new lens.

"seen many beautiful pic of the photoshoot, so how could i improve my shoots to theirs? does that means changing of lens? so long as the shoots is like prof i dun mind forking out more $$$ smile)"

Christopher Hartman wrote:
It's ok to suggest to the OP he should get instruction on lighting, etc, blah blah blah...but we can do that while still answering his question rather than to ignore his question as if it was unimportant.  Is it LESS important than lighting and composition? for many, the answer is probably yes.

ETA:had to repost, MM is acting flakey...

Which is what I have done. I couldn't add anything to the list of lens recommendations so I was giving a different perspective. I am amazed this causes such controversy, suggesting someone study and practice before making that decision. String me up.

Since the answer to the question is really factored on how each respondent uses THEIR lenses, the recommendations have been all over the place. It has ended up being a catalog list of the Nikon pro lineup. I stand by my recommendation. Learn photography and you will be able to answer what lens you need.

JonPhoto wrote:
Which is what I have done. I couldn't add anything to the list of lens recommendations so I was giving a different perspective. I am amazed this causes such controversy, suggesting someone study and practice before making that decision. String me up.

Since the answer to the question is really factored on how each respondent uses THEIR lenses, the recommendations have been all over the place. It has ended up being a catalog list of the Nikon pro lineup. I stand by my recommendation. Learn photography and you will be able to answer what lens you need.

Different perspective?

I'm going to say if you have to ask, you are not ready to get a pro grade lens just yet.

That's what you wrote.  It was dismissive and condescending.  And I disagreed with it.

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Different perspective?


That's what you wrote.  It was dismissive and condescending.

Wow, Happy New Year to you

JonPhoto wrote:
... Learn to shoot, and then buy gear you are going to need.

Photography is one of those expensive hobbies that keeps on giving (and taking).

I agree with JonPhoto's suggestions.

Practice, practice, practice, and when you suddenly feel the urge to spend on some expensive glass, practice some more.

You will soon realize that making photos "look professional" has more to do with your abilities as a photographer, than the price tag of the glass attached to your camera.

As you grow in your abilities, so too will grow your collection of lenses.

JonPhoto wrote:

Wow, Happy New Year to you

That's a lot friendlier.

Desmond Lin wrote:
hi everyone, just taken this hobby recently and am wondering which nikon lens is good for prof photoshoot. there are just so many types of lens and am really interested to find out which is the best lens with prof shoots. im using D3200. guys help advise. many thanks )

"Prof" is an abbreviated expression used to mean "professor". It was generally used in the 1950's. In 2014, we do not use 'prof' to mean 'professional'. It is not cool, it is mildly annoying. Like 'tog', and 'port', etcetera.

To respond to your query, I must answer that your query itself is far too vague to garner a realistic response. Go buy a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 AF-S zoom. They usually go for about $450 new, $500 taxes-in here in overtaxed-Canada. For a CS camera, it is an amazing lens. I had one years ago, when I had a D90 and a D3000 behind it

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site)
Dan Saul Knight Imagery (Model Mayhem Page)
DBImagery Toronto (Website)

“It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.”
~Oscar Wilde

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work – which may/may not be supportive.