My New Favorite Lens

Jeremy Ordan

Jeremy Ordan

Major Contributor
As some of you know I have been doing a lot of house cleaning and streamlining of my lenses to get down to just what I consider to be an essential kit rather than a whole clusterf*ck of glass like I once had.

My original goal was inspired by Barry_S and to replace all of my primes with high speed good quality zooms. I got rid of most of my primes (20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 30mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm). From that point I unloaded all my slower zooms, especially redundant ones. My Nikon 18-200mm VR which I wasn't a huge fan of also helped.

My kit was completely steamlined down to:
Sigma 10-20mm
Nikon 17-55mm
Nikon 70-200mm VR

(plus: 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 105mm Macro f/2.8, & 18-70mm [walkaround lens])

I have been really happy with this kit, simple, not really light weight, but ideal range with only one major gap.

So through the rental place here in town I was able to check out a 200-400mm VR F/4.

I will get some examples posted hopefully later on today or tomorrow, but this is by far the sharpest telephoto with the most razor thing focal plane I have ever shot. Never before have birds or anything like that apealed to me to shoot, but for these three days that has been all I have wanted to do. This bad boy is going back tonight, but I am completely in love with this and just wish I had the chance to throw a 2x TC behind it or go shoot some sports.

Barry_S had it right... zooms are where it is at!

-------------------------------------------------------------

Just FYI I will not be purchasing ne of these... new they are $5k and the cheapest used copy I have seen is $3k, so unless I get a job shooting the Carolina Panthers from the side line this wont be in the budget... um... ever.

It is a fun piece of glass though.
 
I think I'm behind the curve. :(

When I got my Nikon D50 I bought 3 primes, because I had heard/read they were the way to go and could do double duty with my HVX and a 35mm adapter.

Maybe, it would have been smarter to just get a couple of nice zooms.

Chris
 
I've been considering the 50mm 1.4 or the 85mm 1.8... but recently, the two lenses I've been drooling over are the 24-70 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8L. Since I mostly shoot portraits, I'd probably go with the 24-70 first (good walk-around range, too). For now, I'm pretty happy with my cheap 50mm 1.8. But if I ever upgrade to the 30D (or whatever replaces it), I'll be itching for one of those L lenses.

Chad
 
i agree with being streamlined...i have 3 lenses that i use all the time on my 5D. 16-35, 50, 70-200.

these three lenses get me all that i need....very happy with them.
 
Rich,

We are in completely the same boat. I had gotten so into the lens lust thing and buying more glass that I completely overlooked what was practical for me. My primes I am not using much and I could unload them without feeling guilty, but still... sometimes it's hard to let go.

My 17-55 is on my camera 60% of the time. The 70-200 VR is on there 30% and the Sigma 8%. The primes are the other 2% (a couple of shots a week maybe). That 17-55 amazes me all the time. It is so sharp but it's heavy as hell, still I love it and am getting bigger arms.

Regarding the 18-200 VR, it is the best amatuer non professional lazy man's lens you can buy. Amatuer - it is not that sharp if you are going to making large (11x17) prints. Non professional - even with the VR it's slow. Your subjects don't slow down, VR is good for shake. Plus: It distorts. More importantly, the 18-200 is a do it all lens that defeats having an SLR, to change lenses. It's good for travel because you can go light (er... lighter than carrying a bag of glass) but it still it isn't the greatest lens as far as performance. Don't get me wrong, it's great for travel and going on the light, but it isn't a performer. Furthermore, I would take the 35mm f/2 any day over the 18-200 (it's sharper).

Still, just one of those things. I'm not bashing that lens, just saying...

Back to the real issue, I want that 200-400mm. I keep looking online and the simple fact that it costs the same amount as a car is insane. I want one but renting is going to have to work for me for a while.

Chris... I'm going to see if Barry_S can defend the faster zoom concept, because he sold me on it and I'm much happier :)
 
A good thing about primes, however, is that it offers pro results at consumer prices. For example, I'm in high school and I don't make money from photography so I can't afford (or justify) spending thousands of dollars on all these zooms. But I can afford the 35 f/2, which is about the same quality as the 17-55, and I can afford the 85 f/1.8, and the 50 f/1.8. So I can see how zooms are good for people who are already established photographers, but I still think that for the learning amateur who aspires to be a established photographer, primes are a nice asset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top