login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > New lenses for my new d4 Search   Reply
12last
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21,320
Seattle, Washington, US


Okay, so I have my 50mm f/1.4 which is my favorite glamour lens. And I have a couple zooms, a standard 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-300, both of which cover just about anything I need to shoot generally. That's what's in my every-day bag.

What do I want to get with my new d4? The 24-70 should cover me for the indoor dance shooting I'm doing a lot of. Between the d4's great low-light response and the f/2.8, I'm set with that one lens.

What about for the model work? When I'm not doing the 50mm thing to get the f/1.4 shallow depth that I do so love, should I get more primes? an 80mm? A 105mm? Or... am I overlooking some secret weapons?

I have a "present to myself" budget that I'm working through after my recent business deal payoff, so now's the time I get to bypass the wife permission gating function and buy whatever I want. What do I want?
Feb 22 13 09:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Rudy Joggerst
Posts: 389
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


I use 50 and 85 mm primes on a full frame body. it's all i need.
Feb 22 13 09:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ELiffmann
Posts: 1,394
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US


Sophistocles wrote:
Okay, so I have my 50mm f/1.4 which is my favorite glamour lens. And I have a couple zooms, a standard 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-300, both of which cover just about anything I need to shoot generally. That's what's in my every-day bag.

What do I want to get with my new d4? The 24-70 should cover me for the indoor dance shooting I'm doing a lot of. Between the d4's great low-light response and the f/2.8, I'm set with that one lens.

What about for the model work? When I'm not doing the 50mm thing to get the f/1.4 shallow depth that I do so love, should I get more primes? an 80mm? A 105mm? Or... am I overlooking some secret weapons?

I have a "present to myself" budget that I'm working through after my recent business deal payoff, so now's the time I get to bypass the wife permission gating function and buy whatever I want. What do I want?

85 1.4  mmmm. I'm sure you'd use a 70-200 but its a beast

Feb 22 13 09:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ELiffmann
Posts: 1,394
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US


How bout a 1.2?  I recently got one and love the look. I'm not sure anyone else does. The live view makes it pretty easy to get eyes in focus.
Feb 22 13 09:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Awesome Headshots
Posts: 2,364
San Ramon, California, US


85 1.4 and you're gold.
Feb 22 13 09:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photos by Lorrin
Posts: 6,920
Eugene, Oregon, US


24-120 f4 for shooting outside under cloudy Northwest skys and inside with lights.
Feb 23 13 03:10 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,810
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


In my opinion - 70-200mm f2.8 VRII, 300mm f2.8, 105mm DC
Feb 23 13 03:56 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
-fpc-
Posts: 571
Port Chester, New York, US


85/1.4

135/2 DC

100/2 Zeiss

200/2 VR--optimus prime

all beautiful for that shallow DOF that you love ( as do I)
just depends on that " present to yourself" budget
Feb 23 13 04:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
sultanphotography
Posts: 818
Chicago, Illinois, US


my favorite lens is the 85mm 1.4. That stays on my D800E nonstop. On my D4 I usually just do 24-70 or 70-200 since I only use it for natural light shots, sports, indoor dance stuff, travel
Feb 23 13 06:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mark Anthony Photo
Posts: 199
Pottstown, Pennsylvania, US


Since you seem to have some of the good focal lengths covered.  A prime may be the way to go.  Consider also an ultra wide angle (11-14?) for different effect.  Might be worthwhile.
Feb 23 13 08:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21,320
Seattle, Washington, US


So the 85mm f/1.4 seems to have a lot of consensus.

On the zoom, everyone suggests the VR. Can I ask why? My hands don't shake, I don't shoot out of helicopters... does the VR add that much more value?
Feb 23 13 11:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Albertex Photography
Posts: 14,806
Mansfield, Texas, US


We love our 85 1.4 and 105 2.8 on our FF Nikons.
Feb 23 13 11:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 37,635
Portland, Oregon, US


Sophistocles wrote:
So the 85mm f/1.4 seems to have a lot of consensus.

On the zoom, everyone suggests the VR. Can I ask why? My hands don't shake, I don't shoot out of helicopters... does the VR add that much more value?

At least for me, I specify the VR because they are the newer design of lenses, which typically have better AF-S and better sharpness, because I do not use the VR.

The VR2 model is also supposed to have an option to provide more of lock-out on the manual focus over-ride, because many of nikons lenses make it super easy to mess up the focus by accidentally hitting the focus ring while zooming.

Personally, I'd only get an 85 f/1.8, I can't justify the added cost of the f/1.4

Feb 23 13 11:12 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,524
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Sophistocles wrote:
So the 85mm f/1.4 seems to have a lot of consensus.

On the zoom, everyone suggests the VR. Can I ask why? My hands don't shake, I don't shoot out of helicopters... does the VR add that much more value?

it usually adds a stop or two.  in your weather thats nice to have.
I'd suggest the 70-200 2.8 again because your weather doesnt specialize in sunny days and you sometimes might wanna be zooming in closer on the stage.  since it's not my money and since I don't shoot Nikon I feel happy in recommending the VR II smile

Feb 23 13 11:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21,320
Seattle, Washington, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
... since it's not my money ...

Spoken like a true attorney. Well played wink

Feb 23 13 11:15 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,524
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Sophistocles wrote:

Spoken like a true attorney. Well played wink

spoken like someone who cannot afford D4-class pricing and VRII glass wink

in the interest of full disclosure, I'm currently single so my wife is not logging into MM to see what I'm contemplating purchasing

Feb 23 13 11:18 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21,320
Seattle, Washington, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

spoken like someone who cannot afford D4-class pricing and VRII glass wink

in the interest of full disclosure, I'm currently single so my wife is not logging into MM to see what I'm contemplating purchasing

My wife retired from Microsoft in January and is now spending her time taking dance classes and considering what she wants to do next. She's not going to hassle me over purchases at this point wink

Feb 23 13 11:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ELiffmann
Posts: 1,394
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US


I've gotten a sharp photo with a 70-200vrii w/ 1.4 tc on a d7000(400mm give or take) at 1/8 of a second, handheld. On the matter of turning off the VR, I don't think there is any advantage sharpness-wise to turn it off.  I did some informal testing if anyone is interested.  200mm f2 Ftw!
Feb 23 13 12:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David M Russell
Posts: 1,085
New York, New York, US


The entire set of f1.4 primes.
Feb 23 13 12:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21,320
Seattle, Washington, US


David M Russell wrote:
The entire set of f1.4 primes.

That would be 50, 85 and 105? Are there more?

Feb 23 13 12:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ELiffmann
Posts: 1,394
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US


24 and 35 I think.... Not sure about the 105. Eta: 28 too
Feb 23 13 12:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
-fpc-
Posts: 571
Port Chester, New York, US


IMO

if you are shooting stationary targets, get primes
wedding, event the 2.8 zooms rule

there is no 105/1.4

depending what you shoot also, many think the older 85/1.4 and DC lenses have a nicer "rendering " for skin ( I happen to agree)

the only AFS/VR lens I own is the 200/2
for that there is no equal
Feb 23 13 01:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21,320
Seattle, Washington, US


Look at my portfolio wink

These days I shoot about 50% glamour nudes, 40% low light no flash dance (hence the D4) and 10% live music.
Feb 23 13 01:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
-fpc-
Posts: 571
Port Chester, New York, US


the 24-70 and 50mm are good for indoor work

outside I like a little farther back

if it were me, and its not

I get a used 85/1.4D, cheaper than the new AFs model ( and "better" IMO)

maybe you can then wonkle 2 lenses out of your cash

the 100/2 Zeiss is superb, but manual focus, which should be easy on the D4
is a macro, so can get in close

http://mood.zenfolio.com/img/s4/v68/p1146697392-4.jpg


the 135DC is also sweet

but nothing can isolate and blow out the background like the 200/2

http://mood.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v51/p150586103-4.jpg
Feb 23 13 01:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David M Russell
Posts: 1,085
New York, New York, US


-fpc- wrote:
I get a used 85/1.4D, cheaper than the new AFs model ( and "better" IMO)

In what way would you say the 85 f1.4 D is better than the 85 f1.4 G? I recently played with both at B&H. I'd take the G version because of the ultrasonic "S" focusing.

(The 135 f2 DC is also on my list of lenses to buy soon, but I keep putting it off hoping there will be an "S" version at some point.)

-D

Feb 23 13 02:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David M Russell
Posts: 1,085
New York, New York, US


Sophistocles wrote:

That would be 50, 85 and 105? Are there more?

24, 28, 35, 50, 85.

There is nothing longer at f1.4 as far as I know. But there are a few choice primes in longer lengths that at f2: 105, 135 and 200.

(They used to make a 300 f2!)

Feb 23 13 02:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
-fpc-
Posts: 571
Port Chester, New York, US


as stated , in my opinion
the 85/1.4 D renders a nicer skin tone
the G is too warm/ saturated/contrasty in comparision

I don't need the focusing speed of the AFS either, if I shot moving objects perhaps

the only 28/1.4 is an af-d version, highly sought after, and expensive
love the colors from this one as well

the current AFS 1.4 lenses are

24mm
35mm
50mm
85mm
Feb 23 13 03:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
-fpc-
Posts: 571
Port Chester, New York, US


there well may be one day
but I doubt it will have the character of the DC

sorry to go off topic , OP




David M Russell wrote:

-fpc- wrote:
(The 135 f2 DC is also on my list of lenses to buy soon, but I keep putting it off hoping there will be an "S" version at some point.)

-D

Feb 23 13 03:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


300mm f4

Extends your range for live music...and a great price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/2 … 300mm.html
Feb 23 13 03:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 4,616
Antioch, California, US


-fpc- wrote:
[...]
the only 28/1.4 is an af-d version, highly sought after, and expensive
love the colors from this one as well

the current AFS 1.4 lenses are

24mm
35mm
50mm
85mm

The ~new 28 is an f/1.8, and is getting decent reviews, particularly at it's price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8 … _1_8G.html

Feb 23 13 03:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David M Russell
Posts: 1,085
New York, New York, US


Michael Pandolfo wrote:
300mm f4

Extends your range for live music...and a great price.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/2 … 300mm.html

Back in my newspaper days, I carried a 300 f4. Great piece of glass, and so compact that I carried around all day without even noticing. (Try that with a 300 f2.8!)

Feb 23 13 03:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotografica Gregor
Posts: 4,067
Alexandria, Virginia, US


The only reason to have a D4 vis a vis a D800 for example is for speed -  so it makes sense to have lenses optimized for speed to go with -

35f1.4G
50f1.4G
85f1.4G
70-200f2.8 VRII
200f2
300f2.8
Feb 23 13 03:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,113
Tampa, Florida, US


David M Russell wrote:

Back in my newspaper days, I carried a 300 f4. Great piece of glass, and so compact that I carried around all day without even noticing. (Try that with a 300 f2.8!)

yep...$4000 less and 3+ lbs lighter.

Feb 23 13 03:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Michael Walker
Posts: 11,961
Costa Mesa, California, US


Sophistocles wrote:
Okay, so I have my 50mm f/1.4 which is my favorite glamour lens. And I have a couple zooms, a standard 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-300, both of which cover just about anything I need to shoot generally. That's what's in my every-day bag.

What do I want to get with my new d4? The 24-70 should cover me for the indoor dance shooting I'm doing a lot of. Between the d4's great low-light response and the f/2.8, I'm set with that one lens.

What about for the model work? When I'm not doing the 50mm thing to get the f/1.4 shallow depth that I do so love, should I get more primes? an 80mm? A 105mm? Or... am I overlooking some secret weapons?

I have a "present to myself" budget that I'm working through after my recent business deal payoff, so now's the time I get to bypass the wife permission gating function and buy whatever I want. What do I want?

On my D800 the 85mm F/1.8 is super sharp. The F1.4 tested a bit softer till F/4 so I decided that wasn't worth the $$. However, my 70-300 SUCKED on the D800. Way soft. I replaced ii with the F/4 70200 Nikkor and it is razor sharp. If you need F/2.8 the older 70-200 F/2.8 VR2 is also very sharp  but at $1000 more than the F/4 with the newer VR. I also shoot the wonderful Nikkor 16-35 /4. I looked the 24-120 F/2.8 and while it was very sharp I needed more than 24mm so I passed it up and gave up a stop of light in the process. I don't shoot events or cherish super shallow depth of field so for me it was the right choice. You likely need the F/2.8 more than the wider view.

Feb 23 13 04:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
sultanphotography
Posts: 818
Chicago, Illinois, US


Sophistocles wrote:

That would be 50, 85 and 105? Are there more?

24, 35, 50, 85

like i said earlier, get the 85 first, then either one of those wide angles. I actually have the 24 1.4G, I never use it. I should, its nice. but I usually shoot people and I thought I would use it for group shots more. Problem is that I usually have the 24-70 and while at the 24mm it has more distortion, it is better than switching lenses all the time. Probably will put it up for sale since it is Mint (if interested let me know).

But get the 85mm, then I would get either the 105 or 135 (I have both and I struggle with which ones to use all the time... i get into a 105 groove for a month, then on a 135... probably should sell one too.)

Feb 24 13 06:27 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
sultanphotography
Posts: 818
Chicago, Illinois, US


Sophistocles wrote:
Look at my portfolio wink

These days I shoot about 50% glamour nudes, 40% low light no flash dance (hence the D4) and 10% live music.

for the nudes i would recommend either the 85 (if you have the location space as you probably need to be about 20 feet away to get full body), or the 24-70. I do dance photography too. its pretty much the 70-200 (again if you have the space) or the 24-70 if you are closer to the stage). I have all the primes, but the problem is that sometimes i want to capture a solo dancer, and sometimes I want to capture a wider scene. Primes just dont work, and switching cameras (I tried the 2 camera thing) just wont work with fast pace dance). Live Music, I would go with a prime. Cause there is less movement, you can probably predict were you need to be and shoot at F1.4. a 50mm is probably your friend there... light weight as when I do live music I am moving around. when I do dance i am in one place for the whole performance.

Feb 24 13 06:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
sultanphotography
Posts: 818
Chicago, Illinois, US


Fotografica Gregor wrote:
The only reason to have a D4 vis a vis a D800 for example is for speed -  so it makes sense to have lenses optimized for speed to go with -

35f1.4G
50f1.4G
85f1.4G
70-200f2.8 VRII
200f2
300f2.8

the problem is that half his stuff is dance related and primes just arent suited. Trust me. I have all those lenses. You cant move around. You have to have a zoom. then again for the nudes, I never use zooms, i want fixed.

Feb 24 13 06:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21,320
Seattle, Washington, US


sultanphotography wrote:

the problem is that half his stuff is dance related and primes just arent suited. Trust me. I have all those lenses. You cant move around. You have to have a zoom. then again for the nudes, I never use zooms, i want fixed.

Agreed - as much as I like the look I can get from my 50mm 1.2, I have to wait for the dancers to get into proper range to use it, so I'm getting very few usable shots.

Pity, that wink

Feb 24 13 01:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Barry Kidd Photography
Posts: 2,378
Red Lion, Pennsylvania, US


I'm a big fan of the 105 mm f/2.8 but mine is the old version and was manufactured in 1984. Even so I  hear great thing about the new lens.  I just don't have it.

The 85mm 1.4 is also a great lens and well worth having but just as above I haven't used it a great deal.  I have rented it on occasion over the years however and have always gotten good results with it.

If you'd like to consider something classy and think out of the box however consider the 200mm f/4.0 micro.  That lens is something else entirely!  It's not what I'd call a low light lens but in terms of quality it ROCKS!
Feb 25 13 11:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4,670
Houston, Texas, US


I love the 85 1.4.   The 105 has always been a great lens for portraits but I use the 70-200 more.   The 135 f2 for a prime is a very sweet albeit heavy lens smile

You can buy older lenses. You still get great quality but not spend all that new found cash.
Feb 25 13 11:25 am  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers