Comment on Lenses Digital Use Invited

[billybudd]

For the Nikon D-70, I use the following lenses in the manner indicated. Your ideas and comments are warmly invited.

12-24 mm 4.0 (Nikon): Architecture, landscape and scenery where context and majesty are important. In photojournalist's context, the lens often disappoints by portraying too much for the viewer to take in. But when it works, it's magnificant.

35 mm 2.0 (Nikon). Low light, people and groups.

50 mm 1.8 (Nikon). Low light, people.

35-70 mm 2.8 (Nikon). This lens is panned by some reviewers as not long enough nor short enough to serve any useful purpose. I like the super sharp lens for street scenes, people, sports (if I can get close enough) and the 105 mm digital equivalent (70mm) is great for portraits and--with enough distance--becomes a wide angle lens.

28-200 D (Nikon). I know the value of this lens on film cameras. Use with digital gets mixed reviews. Is this a great travel camera or is the 42mm short side too long?

80-200 D 2.8 (Nikon). Splendid. Sports, people, wildlife, action, low light. A classic lens.

Aspirations:

The 17-55 mm 2.8 Nikon impresses me as the best all around lens for photojournalists, travel, low light, street scenes. What do you think?

Thanks for commenting.
DV

[Photo-John]

No answers yet? C'mon guys! This is a great post and a great subject for discussion.

I've got two digital SLRs which I use differently, a Canon EOS 10D and an EOS 1D. I bought the 1D first, for shooting mountain bike racing. It replaced an EOS 3 film camera. The 10D was purchased about a year later, as a backup for the 1D. I use the 1D mostly for racing or anything where timing, speed, and AF accuracy are my top requirements. The 10D goes on shoots where I have to ride, and gets used whenever image quality and resolution are the top priority.

I have a bunch of lenses - 300 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L, 20mm f/2.8, 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS, and the Canon 1.4x teleconverter, as well as the Canon Lifesize Converter.

Lately I've been using the 28-135mm IS and 15mm Fisheye the most. I can carry both, with the 10D and a flash, in my hydation pack, on long mountain bike rides. If I need good bike photos, and I need a bike to get there, this is what I take. After I started shooting digital, I abandoned the 28-125 for about a year. But then I tried it with the 10D and found I love it. The optics are great, with the 1.6x digital conversion the reach is incredible, and it's relatively small ad light. Along with the Fisheye, I've got a pretty complete camera kit that's fairly light and compact.

When I'm at a race or other even, I've most likely got the 70-200 f/2.8L mounted on the 1D. For pure speed and precision, it just doesn't get any better. The AF combo of the 70-200 and 1D is so ridiculously fast and accurate, it makes my head spin. It also messes me up when I shoot with the 10D because the 10D is sad in comparison. The 70-200 f/2.8L (or the Nikon 70-200 AF-S) is probably one of the most versatile lenses ever made. It's a landscape lens, a wildlife lens, a sports lens, and a portrait lens. Anyone who's serious about their photography should have one. Or the f/4 version. The 70-200 f/4 L is the only lens my dad owns.

I shoot a lot with the 70-200 f/2.8L and the 1.4x converter, too. On digital SLR with a smaller than full-frame sensor, you have the reach of a 300mm lens, on a zoom, with a fairly fast aperture of f/4.0. It's great when I want more range or need to set up for a longer shot.

The 300mm f/4L doesn't get used as much is it used to. I bought it for motorcycle roadracing, which I don't shoot anymore. A 300mm lens is pretty much the minimum for roadracing. You can't get very close so long lenses are an absolute necessity. The optics on the 300mm f/4L are awesome. But the AF is a little pokey.

I haven't been shooting as much with the wide lenses, lately. I like the 20mm prime a lot, though. If I could only have one lens for the 1D, it would be the 20mm. Optics are good, it's always fun, and the angle-of-view makes a good normal lens on the 1D - for me. The 2.8 aperture makes it a good lens in low-light, too. I'd like something even faster. But after this, the prices go way, way up.

Of the 50mm lenses, I use the f/2.5 Macro the most. That's because I do a lot of product photos for camera reviews and it's a great lens for close-up work. Sometimes I wonder if should sell the 50mm f/1.4. But it's really in a class by itself. I don't use it that much, but I can't part with it either. It makes a wonderful, wonderful portrait lens on the 10D.

That's what I've got. Hoep that is enlightenting in some way. I'll go through your post again in a bit and see if there's anything specific in your list to respond to. But I thought it would be nice to just list what I've got and how I use it. I'll also see if I can get some of the folks hanging out on ViewFinder to join in on this discussion.

[another view]

Interesting timing, I'm going thru my equipment and kind of re-evaluating what I've got and what I'm doing with it all. I have a Nikon F5 and F100, and a Fuji S2 as my main cameras. I have a trip in August that I'll probably take the F5 on, but between now and then I'll probably sell both of the film bodies and some of the lenses. That's a long story - but I'm going digital. There, I said it! Some of the lenses work better with the 1.5 crop factor then others (they all work - it just comes down to what your preferences are and what you're used to). I keep thinking a D2H and the Fuji would make a great combination, but I don't really need it at the moment.

I have a Nikon 20-35 f2.8 which is a pretty good lens, but no where near as good as the 20 f2.8 prime was. The 20 prime was great on film, and you could point it right into the sun without much flare. The 20-35 will probably go too - it's not a wide angle lens at 1.5. I've used the 12-24 and it's a great lens; I'll finally pick one of these up. 20-35 isn't a bad range on digital for social events - but 17-55 would be about perfect. Most of the time you'd probably be in the 20-35 range anyway and it's worked pretty well.

I've got Nikon's 28-105 which is a very good all-around lens. That's the one that I chipped the front element on, so I replaced it with Tokina's 28-80 f2.8 PRO which is a lens I've read mixed reviews about. A friend had one and was very happy with it, so when he wanted to sell it I bought it. It's really sharp. Maybe I've just got a good one. This focal length range is just a little long for events, but great for general shooting (with DSLR). The long end just didn't seem like quite enough on 35mm, but now it's much better.

50mm lenses get a lot of bashing for being a boring focal length, but people have estimated that over 90% of Henri Cartier Bresson's photographs were taken with that focal length. I'm no HCB ;) and the narrower angle of view on the DSLR makes this lens more "interesting". I've heard that the 50 is Jay Maisel's "walk-around" lens, and he's got some great images with it. The 85 f1.4 is also just as useable (again, speaking of practical purposes based on how I work) on a DSLR, and it's an excellent lens. Great combination with the F5, but maybe used a little less often on the DSLR. I'll keep this one, though - I like low light shooting and this pair is great. If I could get about a 20 or 24 f1.4, that would be very cool (and probably really expensive!). F2.8 zooms are a little much when you get into low light shooting - depending, of course, on what you're doing with it.

I'll second you on the 80-200 f2.8 but at some point would like to get the VR version. I've also got a Tokina 80-400 which is really good in the 250-300 or less range. I've made some big prints with this lens at lower focal lengths and I think you'd have a hard time telling which lens they were shot with. A little soft over 300, though. Not sure of this lens's future with me...

Great thread!

[ken1953]

Besides PJ...I'll help get this discussion started....
My thoughts....WHAT??????...Darn...now I know why I use a point and shoot and why I've hesitated buying a D70 or other DSLR. I think I'm going to stay with the easy versions...all this talk about lenses and this, that and the other thing has me totally confused!!!
Sorry Billy Budd that I couldn't give you any help...but I think you helped me make my final decision. DSLR's are fantastic...but a bit too much for this old man...at this stage in life...
Ken

[Photo-John]

Good reply, Ken. One of my absolute favorite cameras was my Yashica T4 Super 35mm point-and-shoot. It had a flash control, spot meter, no zoom, and a kick-ass lens. It was simple and it made you shoot simply. But it was also fast and always ready.

[Liz]

When I switched to all digital about 2-3 years ago, I recycled my lenses. I had 5 or 6 lenses at the time and had to sell some to help with the cost of the Rebel 300D. I eventually recycled the whole bunch. ;) Among those I sold were Tamron 90mm/f2.8 macro, Tokina 19-35, Canon 28-135 IS and 75-300 IS. I also sold the Canon 200mm/f2.8L lens which I have regretted. I sold it because I didn't use it a lot. However, I really miss the length.

Present equipment:
Camera - Rebel XT and
Canon 50mm/f1.4 - mostly used for street photography and portrait. I love this lens - it's sharp with excellent color rendition and contrast - and great bokeh. It's also a good low-light lens. I also like it because it's small and use it quite a bit, especially when I go to NYC.

Canon 85mm/f1.8 - I don't use this lens as much as the 50mm. However, it's a good portrait and low light lens.

Canon 17-40mm/f4L - this is my favorite lens - above any lens I've ever had. My first "L" lens and I'm spoiled. It has the greatest quality, color and contrast of all my lenses. Sometimes I find the results breathtaking. It's on my camera more than any other lens. I use it for just about everything - I've even had great results with portraits.

Presently I am missing a long lens. I hate to admit this but I'm considering getting another Canon 200mm/f2.8. I've been doing a lot of research and was considering the Canon 17-85 IS. However, it's no longer than the 85mm I already have, so it doesn't help the "long" lens yearning. I would love a long zoom, but they are too heavy for me to carry for any length of time. The 200mm/f2.8 is a much lighter weight lens.

I have a slight camera shake problem and a back problem (yep, getting old). This is one of the reasons I sold some of my slower lenses. With the above lenses, I get good results with no noticeable camera shake effect.

Thanks for posting such an interesting thread. Great discussion - I love to read about other photographers' equipment and how they use it.

Liz

[SmartWombat]

Canon 20D here.
I haven't taken the plunge and bought primes yet.

Canon EF-S 10-22 USM - gets very little use.
Until I got close to the action for my rally shots !
Absolutely essential when I'm on the apex and the car's just feet away.

Canon 24-70 2.8 L USM - default lens
Most versatile lens, as long as I get close enough to the action.
If I'm in the pit lane this is the lens to use.


Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS USM - motorsport
Fast AF, IS for hand holding, good image quality.
When I can get close enough to the action (rarely) this is the #1 motorsport lens.
Driver's head shots from outside the garage, the 100-4000 should just get the eyes.

... until I dropped it
When it's been repaired by Canon it'll be back on the camera.


Canon 2x estender II
Mistake, the image quality suffers terribly on the 70-200 when panning.
Just acceptable at 200mm with the extender on a static shot.


Canon 100-400 L 4.5-5.6 IS USM
This will, I hope replace the Sigma this weekend.


Sigma 80-400 EX
OK, I made a mistake with this one.
Vignetting wide open at 5.6 at 400mm, goes away at F11
Terrible flare from point light sources - like car headlights
Slow autofocus, adequate for rally (not tarmac), not for track
Noisy AF, like a little elctric motor - now I appreciate how good the Canon USM is !
Panning I can see the IS jerking even in mode 2
IS also drifts at 400mm on a stationary subject

Sharp though, and got some good portraits with it at 80mm
Just not good enough for motorsport
Possibly for wildlife they'll hear that whiny motor?

[Photo-John]

Liz-
Have you tried the 70-200 f/4L? It's a deal for a long L lens. And it's pretty light for a fast zoom. I think that would be a great addition to what you have now.

[Photo-John]

Interesting comments on the Sigma 80-400mm OS lens. I just posted a reply in anothwer thread and suggested someone take a look at it. Have you posted a review for it? I think there are 6 so far. The average rating is pretty high. Maybe you should knock it down a bit?

[Photo-John]

billybudd-
I sort of hijacked your thread and took it in a different direction. But I didn't forget why you posted. And I do have a couple of comments. Keep in mind that I don't own any Nikon equipment and my thoughts will be more general and not about Nikon lenses.

Regarding the 12-24mm f/4.0 - I was jealous of this lens when Nikon first introduced it. It took Canon a couple of years to come out with a real wide-angle for digital SLRs. That's why I own a fisheye. Anyway, you say you use it for architecture. I'm wondering about distortion. Does it bother you? If not, no big deal. But if you have problems with architectural images, you might consider adding a super-wide prime lens. Canon has a corrected 14mm f/2.8 that I covet. I checked and didn't see anything that looked equivalent for Nikon. But that might be a nice addition to what you have.

The 28-200 D - This lens is sort of like my Canon 28-135mm IS. The Cano was introduced well before digital SLRs became the norm. The 28-135mm IS was considered an excellent all-purpose lens, but it's popularity has declined since people started switching to digital. Besides the focal length issues caused by smaller digital sensors, I've also seen more complaints about image quality. Either Canon quality control has declined, or more likely, the digital SLR sensors are more demanding and show up problems in the lens that weren't as apparent with 35mm film. Regardless, I love it on my EOS 10D. When I combine it with the 15mm, I have a very powerful and flexible setup. And even if the image quality isn't tops, I can get that kit to places where I'd have a really, really hard time getting the 70-200 f/2.8L and another wide zoom. And the image quality really is very, very good. Good enough to sell photos...

The right tool for the job - that's the key - right? Image quality isn't always the top priority. Getting the photo is.

[Liz]

John,

Thanks for the suggestion. I had looked into it when I purchased the 200mm a couple of years ago. I think I tried one out somewhere along the way, but at the time, I wanted the f2.8. I'll give it more thought. The zoom is tempting.

Liz

Liz-
Have you tried the 70-200 f/4L? It's a deal for a long L lens. And it's pretty light for a fast zoom. I think that would be a great addition to what you have now.

[Photo-John]

For what it's worth, that's the only lens Photo Dad has for his EOS 3. Seems strange to me. But he's happy.

[Liz]

Wow! That's interesting. And it's actually a wonderful idea - if you have the discipline to do it. ;) BTW, I miss him being around here.

Liz

For what it's worth, that's the only lens Photo Dad has for his EOS 3. Seems strange to me. But he's happy.

[Peter_AUS]

Liz, Welcome back hope the trip was good. What about looking at the new Canon DO lenses, they are shorter ligher but have very good quality images from what I have seen. The ones with the Green or Gold line around them, much like the L has the Red line around them.

[Franglais]

For the Nikon D-70, I use the following lenses in the manner indicated. Your ideas and comments are warmly invited.

12-24 mm 4.0 (Nikon): Architecture, landscape and scenery where context and majesty are important. In photojournalist's context, the lens often disappoints by portraying too much for the viewer to take in. But when it works, it's magnificant.

35 mm 2.0 (Nikon). Low light, people and groups.

50 mm 1.8 (Nikon). Low light, people.

35-70 mm 2.8 (Nikon). This lens is panned by some reviewers as not long enough nor short enough to serve any useful purpose. I like the super sharp lens for street scenes, people, sports (if I can get close enough) and the 105 mm digital equivalent (70mm) is great for portraits and--with enough distance--becomes a wide angle lens.

28-200 D (Nikon). I know the value of this lens on film cameras. Use with digital gets mixed reviews. Is this a great travel camera or is the 42mm short side too long?

80-200 D 2.8 (Nikon). Splendid. Sports, people, wildlife, action, low light. A classic lens.

Aspirations:

The 17-55 mm 2.8 Nikon impresses me as the best all around lens for photojournalists, travel, low light, street scenes. What do you think?

Thanks for commenting.
DV

You don't have the 18-70 DX kit lens that comes with the D70?? This is an excellent lens, and very versatile. I find that for most situations in good light there's no need to put anything else on the camera. In particular for travel I find the 18mm setting essential and no way would I use the 28-200 that you mention.

In more extreme conditions - or when I want to distinguish myself from the crowds of D70 users - I fit the 17-35 f2.8, 28-70 f2.8 or 80-200 f2.8. The 17-55 is magnificent but I figure I don't really need it.

I've discovered that the 28-70 is particularly useful for flash fill-in photography in crowds. As its widest setting is fairly long (=42mm) it forces me further from the subject and gives me better balance between the subject and the background, avoids burn-out.


Charles

[Liz]

Thanks Peter - great trip. I'll post pics when I get a chance to do some pp.

I can't afford the DO lenses. The 200mm/f2.8L & the 70-200mm/f4L are relatively inexpensive (about 1/2 the price). But thanks for the suggestion.

Liz

Liz, Welcome back hope the trip was good. What about looking at the new Canon DO lenses, they are shorter ligher but have very good quality images from what I have seen. The ones with the Green or Gold line around them, much like the L has the Red line around them.

[another view]

Canon has a corrected 14mm f/2.8 that I covet. I checked and didn't see anything that looked equivalent for Nikon.

Nikon has had one of these out for awhile, actually. The instructor on a workshop I went to in 2001 had one, and I looked thru it on a 35mm body. It was so wide it was just crazy, but very cool if it's used right. I was trying to decide on this or the 12-24, but since I think I'll sell both ot the 35's I'll probably go for the zoom.

[billybudd]

Thanks for the superb input. The transition from film to digital requires new lens strategies becasue of the 1.5/6 magnication factor and the ability to jack-up ISO equivalents to 800 without unacceptable quality deterioration.
.
I do not have the 18-70mm because I bought the D-70 before the standard lens was offered. The 12-24 is right on the cusp of distortion at 12mm (18 mm film equivalent). Distortion is easy to avoid.

No one mentioned a macro lens. I'm making do with the 35mm-70mm that has a macro-like feature. I'm considering the 60mm f2.8 Nikon for its macro but I haven't decided.

Point and shoot: I have fabulous images from my Nikon CoolPix ( which I used for a year before moving into digital SLR). The wide array of lenses helps the photographer cover special situations outside the reach of the point and shoot: sports, poor or difficult light,
speed, panorama and distance.

Thanks to everyone for input.
BillyBudd

DV

[Photo-John]

No one mentioned a macro lens. I'm making do with the 35mm-70mm that has a macro-like feature. I'm considering the 60mm f2.8 Nikon for its macro but I haven't decided.

Billy-
I did mention a macro lens. I have the Canon 50mm f/2.5, which I believe is the Canon equivalent to the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro. It's not 1:1 but it does great closeups and actually has better depth of field than the equivalent would have on a 35mm camera. That's because the digital conversion factor enlarges without changing the depth-of-field characteristics of a lens. This is a big benefit with macro photography, where it can be hard to have enough depth-of-field. I use my 50mm for lots of product shots in the pro reviews here, as well as other electronics and bicycle component photos. I also have the Canon Lifesize Macro Converter which does make 1:1 photography possible. I'm sure Nikon has a similar converter.

Here's a link to a sample photo taken with the Canon 50mm macro: http://gallery.photographyreview.com...cat=all&page=1

[another view]

the Canon 50mm f/2.5, which I believe is the Canon equivalent to the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Micro. It's not 1:1

The Nikon 60 f2.8 is 1:1 right out of the box. I haven't used that one but have shot with a friend's 105 which is also 1:1. A lot of people bought the 105 with 35mm cameras because of longer working distance and less background due to the focal length, but the 1.5x crop factor helps enough with that by itself. Extra working distance is nice so that the camera itself doesn't block the light on the subject.

I have a Coolpix too (5000) that I bought before the DSLR. The same friend told me that I should really buy it, but it always felt like a toy compared to the F100 I was used to. Strange thing is that now - three years later - I'm using it more than ever. This one does amazing things with macro, but I think that's true of most of them.

It's just a different experience than shooting with an SLR, and it took me awhile to realize that (if you're lucky enough to have both) it's better for some situations - and the SLR is better for others.