Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: sid51 on August 14, 2014, 10:55:46 pm
-
Hello everyone,
I am an "semi-pro" photographer trying to get into the professional scene. I've been photographing mostly skateboard events and trips, and the only reason that i don't do that as much as i want to do is because of the lack of equipement. I currently own a Canon T3i with a 18-135 kit lens and a Manfrotto 055xprob tripod.
What most annoys me with that gear is:
1- The slow focus from both the camera and this lens.
2- Few focus point (9).
3- Ultra high noise in iso above 800. I barely move the iso from 100, except when its absolutely needed.
4- 18mm is not enough wide wise for me (in a crop sensor).
5- 135mm is not enough range for me in some cases.
6- The lack of an external flash for some shots.
The reason i chose Nikon over Canon is simple: My dad has a d7000 and some lenses (70-300, 17-35/2.8, 18-200) and i want to share the new lenses with him, and also use his camera as a backup camera when i need (and let him use mine when he needs).
So, lets get to the point.
I am gonna need:
- A full frame camera.
- A good ultra wide lens
- A good long range lens
- A decent all around lens
- A good flash
- A good macro lens (thats for my dad, he is paying for that, so don't count it in my budget)
- A good Bag to carry all this lol
I have something around 9k dollars to spend in USA with that, so iam thinking to visit B&H store in NY while i am in there (i am from Brazil, i will be travelling to USA in october, will stay around 10 days there).
I did some research within the last few months, and, at least for now, what i've decided is that:
Camera:
D810 ($3,300)
- Low noise with ultra high iso; 51 AF points; 36mp (not that important, but sometimes i need to crop my frames a lot); Good and fast AF system; 14.8 EV Dynamic Range (i really liked that); and the 64 native ISO (i am a big fan of low iso). A little expensivem but still within my budget.
Lenses:
AFS 14-24mm 2.8G ED AF ($2,000)
- I believe this is the ultra wide lens with the most incredible positive reviews i've read. Incredible image quality, ultra sharp, very few distortion. The only issue is the lack of filters and some people say that you will get flares if you let the sun hit the glass. I think there is no other competitors for this lens.
AFS 70-200mm F/4G ED VR ($1400)
- My dad has a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, but i dont believe it will match the performance of the 70-200 f/4 in terms of focus speed, image quality and bokeh. What do you guys think? Should i save here and use his lens when i need or buy this one? Honestly, i would like to buy the f/2.8 version, but my budget wont allow me, since it cost the double of this one.
AFS 24-120mm F/4G ED VR ($1300)
-I need a good all around lens for skateboards events such as championships, downhill events, etc. Basically for every kind of event that i can't control the distance or the path of the rider.
AFS 50mm f/1.4G ($430)
- I would love to have a nifty fifty in my bag, but i dont think i will be able to fit that into my budget right now. I can buy one here later.
AFS VR Micro 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED ($899)
- I dont know too much about macros, but i read only good things about this one. (Remember this one wont be into my budget, since my dad is going to pay for it)
Flash:
SB 910 Essential Portrait Kit ($556)
- I need a durable one, and it must have TTL function. I think that's all. I dont know other flash brands very well, so i dont know if they are really reliable. What do i need to use this as an off-camera flash?
Flash batteries:
Watson 8-bay rapid charger kit with 8 AA 2300mAh ($42)
- I dont know anything about batteries, can someone recomend this brand? Or any other?
Camera Battery:
Nikon EN-EL15 1900mAh ($45)
- Any recommendations on other brands?
Bag:I dont know yet, need to decided what gear i will buy first, but something around $200 will be fine i guess. I would like something that has a waterproof cape or something like that.
All prices were based on B&H store.
I am open to suggestions. Sorry for the really long post.
-
I would a few weeks to see what Nikon announces at Photokina.
They are rumored to announce a new action FF DSLR that may be a good compromise btwn the D4s and the D810.
This being said, the D810 is already amazingly good.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would a few weeks to see what Nikon announces at Photokina.
They are rumored to announce a new action FF DSLR that may be a good compromise btwn the D4s and the D810.
This being said, the D810 is already amazingly good.
Cheers,
Bernard
I am only going to USA in october, so i think i will see this nikon release first hehe
Thanks!
-
Very nice kit you have selected! Just a few thoughts:
-D610 instead of D810. 24MP instead of 36, but you would save some $1400 and with other savings you might be able to afford 2 bodies - handy to avoid lens changes in fast-shooting situations or in case of malfunctions.
- Sigma 24-105 in place of the 24-120. Save $400. It's an excellent lens, and is on my D600 80% of the time.
-
Very nice kit you have selected! Just a few thoughts:
-D610 instead of D810. 24MP instead of 36, but you would save some $1400 and with other savings you might be able to afford 2 bodies - handy to avoid lens changes in fast-shooting situations or in case of malfunctions.
- Sigma 24-105 in place of the 24-120. Save $400. It's an excellent lens, and is on my D600 80% of the time.
I kinda felt in love with the d810 and the 14-24mm, i dont think i will give up on those two haha
Also, i will use my dad's camera as a backup when needed for now. Later on i will buy a secondary camera.
But i will definitely look for this sigma 24-105 to replace the nikon!
Thanks for the advice.
-
That's a lot of expensive gear at one time. If you need to spread it out, you could make strategic economizing choices. Wide angle: yep, you picked the best one, 14-24 - However, if you are not doing a huge amount of wide angle work and don't mind a gap between 14 and 24mm, you could try the manual-focus Samyang 14mm f/2.8, which is an excellent lens for $300.00. With ultrawides, you can pre-focus at the approximate place the contestant will pass, shoot at f/5.6-f/8, and everything is likely to be in focus, due to extreme depth of field. The Samyang doesn't take traditional filters, but Cokin has released a custom filter holder that is affordable and a 3 stop ND and 2 stop ND graduated filter. That's an enviable lens list there!
Make sure you have a decent circular polarizer that fits the largest diameter lens you will have, and get a few stepdown rings.
Make sure you get extra camera batteries when you are shopping at a bricks and mortar reputable store - less chance of getting counterfeits that way. Don't cheap out on "just like Nikon" batteries, get the real thing. Ditto for memory cards.
I don't know much about Nikon-land flash, but you might want to think about off-camera flash options: hot-shoe extension cord, a flash bracket suited to your events (although that may be easy to get at home), maybe a radio remote control if you want to remote trigger the flash placed further than cord length away, maybe an extra flash compatible with the controlling flash or radio controller. ( I am not too keyed into Nikon-land, I am a Canonista). FLash modifiers: you may have them already, but if you need a softbox or diffuser/reflector, set aside a bit of money for it. I assume that you may want to do post-competition portraits as well, hence the think-flash message.
-
Something to consider is the New York City sales tax, which is 8.875%. This would be almost $800 on a $9000 purchase. If you buy in the store and take the gear with you, you have to pay the tax. If you mail order and have the gear shipped to another state, no tax. I am not sure what is feasible for you, but $800 can buy a pretty good lens!
-
Thanks for all opnions, guys.
For now, what i've decided is:
D810 ($3300)
Tamron 70-200 2.8 ($1500)
Nikon 16-35 f/4 ($1260)
Sigma art 50 1.4 ($950)
SB-910 ($560)
1x Nikon EN-EL15 extra battery ($50)
Watson 8x 2300 battery kit ($50)
HPRC 2600WDK waterproof Hard case (think tank roller) ($240)
Total: $7910 if i buy everything new. Whatever i can find used, i will take it (except for flash and camera body).
That leaves me extra money for taxes (if needed, but i will try to mail it to washington), or to spend with whatever i find necessary there (extra batteries, reflectors, maybe a second camera).
Need to think about a good filter now hehe
-
I would switch the flash out to the newer Phottix Mitro+ unit instead of the Nikon SB-910.
The Mitro+ (Newer than older Mitros - or the non + unit) also has a RF wireless built-in as well as the Nikon cloned CLS and IR light system which sucks outdoors in bright sunlight. My Nikon flash units will will not sync at in bright sunlight (Won't even fire as the IR sensor is blinded.). Since I see you do skateboard stuff, you may end up in the same boat if you begin do do off-camera flash with that crummy Nikon CLS system.
The Odin wireless radio transmitter and the Mitros+ would be an ideal setup and B&H has the whole system for less than the Nikon SB-910 alone here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1030781-REG/phottix_ph80378_mitros_ttl_flash_and.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1030781-REG/phottix_ph80378_mitros_ttl_flash_and.html)
Plus, Phottix has a two-year warranty verses Nikon's one-year.
SG
-
I would switch the flash out to the newer Phottix Mitro+ unit instead of the Nikon SB-910.
The Mitro+ (Newer than older Mitros - or the non + unit) also has a RF wireless built-in as well as the Nikon cloned CLS and IR light system which sucks outdoors in bright sunlight. My Nikon flash units will will not sync at in bright sunlight (Won't even fire as the IR sensor is blinded.). Since I see you do skateboard stuff, you may end up in the same boat if you begin do do off-camera flash with that crummy Nikon CLS system.
The Odin wireless radio transmitter and the Mitros+ would be an ideal setup and B&H has the whole system for less than the Nikon SB-910 alone here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1030781-REG/phottix_ph80378_mitros_ttl_flash_and.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1030781-REG/phottix_ph80378_mitros_ttl_flash_and.html)
Plus, Phottix has a two-year warranty verses Nikon's one-year.
SG
i am gonna read some reviews about this flash, thanks for the info! Will definitely consider this option!
-
Thanks for all opnions, guys.
For now, what i've decided is:
D810 ($3300)
Tamron 70-200 2.8 ($1500)
Nikon 16-35 f/4 ($1260)
Sigma art 50 1.4 ($950)
SB-910 ($560)
1x Nikon EN-EL15 extra battery ($50)
Watson 8x 2300 battery kit ($50)
HPRC 2600WDK waterproof Hard case (think tank roller) ($240)
Total: $7910 if i buy everything new. Whatever i can find used, i will take it (except for flash and camera body).
That leaves me extra money for taxes (if needed, but i will try to mail it to washington), or to spend with whatever i find necessary there (extra batteries, reflectors, maybe a second camera).
Need to think about a good filter now hehe
Buy only Nikon lenses. I thought you said you were a pro.
-
Buy only Nikon lenses. I thought you said you were a pro.
Semi-pro haha
Anyway, you really think its better take the 70-200 f/4 nikon instead of the tamron's f/2.8?
The newer lenses from sigma (specially this 50mm art version) and tamron are getting pretty good reviews.
-
Semi-pro haha
Anyway, you really think its better take the 70-200 f/4 nikon instead of the tamron's f/2.8?
The newer lenses from sigma (specially this 50mm art version) and tamron are getting pretty good reviews.
Use only camera-maker's products. They are almost always the best. This should not even be a question.
-
That's a massive jump and will take time and hands-on to fully get to speed. I'd take a smaller step and buy less, master it in a smaller dose then take another step. Perhaps rent and if it fulfills your need, then buy and don't hesitate to get good used and perhaps one generation behind equipment.
Right now, I have all you lust for and more. On my last journey to Europe and east, I took my essentials--2-D800 bodies, two fisheye lenses, 8mm and 15mm (my client has specific needs for circular images of his work), 17-35 (my 14-24 is just too big and heavy, 24-120, and 70-300.
However, as a back-up, I brought a Panasonic GX7 and two lenses--7-14 and 14-140. Guess what I shot the most with and what saved the day?
Sure, it's great to have an arsenal of the best gear on earth, but once the image hits the web or ink dries on the paper, it's the vision and craft that counts, not the tools used to get it.
Just another point of view to consider.
-
Anyway, you really think its better take the 70-200 f/4 nikon instead of the tamron's f/2.8?
I think so, yes. That's certainly true for the Canon 70-200/4 versus the other brand 70-200 lenses that I have tried. The Nikon is, if anything, better than the Canon in the f/4 versions of these lenses.
Another thing to consider is size and weight. The f/4 zooms are about half the weight of the f/2.8 zooms. This becomes an issue when carrying three of them, and also when shooting for long periods of time. Over the long term, carrying that much weight can cause all sorts of back and neck problems, just ask any gray-bearded photographer. :) These days you aren't giving up much when choosing the f/4 zooms -- there's not much observable difference in depth of field control between f/2.8 and f/4, and a one-stop boost in ISO isn't that much of a big deal either.
-
Use only camera-maker's products. They are almost always the best. This should not even be a question.
That is not always so. Some of the independent lenses are superb. I have Zeiss lenses for my Canon's and would love the new Sigma 'Art' lenses too. I have a Voightlander for my Panasonic. A professional will choose the best lens for the job balanced with other things like cost, weight, durability etc. True this often means the camera-makers lens, but do not discount others. I use mostly prime lenses and almost any quality 50mm or 85mm lens will be fine for exacting professional work.
Jim
-
That is not always so. Some of the independent lenses are superb. I have Zeiss lenses for my Canon's and would love the new Sigma 'Art' lenses too. I have a Voightlander for my Panasonic. A professional will choose the best lens for the job balanced with other things like cost, weight, durability etc. True this often means the camera-makers lens, but do not discount others. I use mostly prime lenses and almost any quality 50mm or 85mm lens will be fine for exacting professional work.
Jim
The Zeiss lenses are good, but the range of focal lengths offered is limited. They are not equipped with auto-focus either. The main advantage of "independent" lenses is lower price, but obviously some sacrifices are inevitable to accomplish this.
-
I think so, yes. That's certainly true for the Canon 70-200/4 versus the other brand 70-200 lenses that I have tried. The Nikon is, if anything, better than the Canon in the f/4 versions of these lenses.
Another thing to consider is size and weight. The f/4 zooms are about half the weight of the f/2.8 zooms. This becomes an issue when carrying three of them, and also when shooting for long periods of time. Over the long term, carrying that much weight can cause all sorts of back and neck problems, just ask any gray-bearded photographer. :) These days you aren't giving up much when choosing the f/4 zooms -- there's not much observable difference in depth of field control between f/2.8 and f/4, and a one-stop boost in ISO isn't that much of a big deal either.
Agreed. I now own 8 lenses and I cannot carry them all at once. I did not choose the fastest long lenses, as there is little advantage to doing so for me. A 180mm Elmarit-R (f/2.8 ) weighs 810g (1.75 lb). The 180mm Summicron-R (f/2) weighs 2,500g (5.5 lb)!
-
The Zeiss lenses are good, but the range of focal lengths offered is limited. They are not equipped with auto-focus either. The main advantage of "independent" lenses is lower price, but obviously some sacrifices are inevitable to accomplish this.
Yes but the OP did mention the new Sigma 50mm, which may be the best 50 at any price or make. Zeiss are limited I agree but my point was not to stick to any one manufacturer but buy each lens based on need and the best for the job. So (for Canon) their 70-200 2.8 is superb, but their 50mm lenses more limited so a Sigma might be better.
Jim
-
Yes but the OP did mention the new Sigma 50mm, which may be the best 50 at any price or make. Zeiss are limited I agree but my point was not to stick to any one manufacturer but buy each lens based on need and the best for the job. So (for Canon) their 70-200 2.8 is superb, but their 50mm lenses more limited so a Sigma might be better.
Jim
It may be very good, but I am sure it is not the best. But why bother?
The Leica M Typ 240 takes Leica M lenses and R lenses, and many others:
http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-M-Type-240-aka-Leica-M10-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-30.html (http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-M-Type-240-aka-Leica-M10-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-30.html)
-
Use only camera-maker's products. They are almost always the best. This should not even be a question.
No no no no no! That's a mistaken impression that may date from the "bad old days" when the independent lens makers were focused on making inexpensive lenses for people with limited budgets. Things are different today, with some really excellent lenses from the independents, lenses that equal or surpass the camera brands. You probably cannot go too far wrong buying a Canon, Nikon, etc. lens, but with some careful research a Sigma (or whatever) might be just as good or better with a significant $$$ saving.
-
Hi,
Sigma seems to make some very nice lenses nowdays and Zeiss are usually not second rate.
Best regards
Erik
No no no no no! That's a mistaken impression that may date from the "bad old days" when the independent lens makers were focused on making inexpensive lenses for people with limited budgets. Things are different today, with some really excellent lenses from the independents, lenses that equal or surpass the camera brands. You probably cannot go too far wrong buying a Canon, Nikon, etc. lens, but with some careful research a Sigma (or whatever) might be just as good or better with a significant $$$ saving.
-
Hi,
Sigma seems to make some very nice lenses nowdays and Zeiss are usually not second rate.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, but the Zeiss lenses are not auto-focus. They are quite a different animal, and I am not talking about them.
-
It may be very good, but I am sure it is not the best. But why bother?
The Leica M Typ 240 takes Leica M lenses and R lenses, and many others:
http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-M-Type-240-aka-Leica-M10-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-30.html (http://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-M-Type-240-aka-Leica-M10-digital-rangefinder-camera-page-30.html)
I'm not sure where the Leica fits in with this discussion - but I think you will find that the new Sigma in fact is possibly the best 50mm lens around - for Nikon or Canon anyway. And your original point about using non camera manufacturer lenses seemed very broad - rather than just aimed at the OP. Which is why I mentioned that other makes, like Zeiss and Sigma may be just as good if not better. I also appreciate that the Zeiss lenses are not autofocus - but of course for many types of photography that is not an issue.
Your inference was that a pro would should never use independent maker lenses - that is all I am challenging. The OP is an aspiring pro and of course as any pro knows you do need good equipment, but the gear is probably the least important bit of making a living.
Jim
-
I'm not sure where the Leica fits in with this discussion - but I think you will find that the new Sigma in fact is possibly the best 50mm lens around - for Nikon or Canon anyway. And your original point about using non camera manufacturer lenses seemed very broad - rather than just aimed at the OP. Which is why I mentioned that other makes, like Zeiss and Sigma may be just as good if not better. I also appreciate that the Zeiss lenses are not autofocus - but of course for many types of photography that is not an issue.
Your inference was that a pro would should never use independent maker lenses - that is all I am challenging. The OP is an aspiring pro and of course as any pro knows you do need good equipment, but the gear is probably the least important bit of making a living.
Jim
The main thing that distinguishes camera-makers lenses is durability. The "L" lenses are not always superior optically, but they are generally faster and more durable, by far, than independent lenses. For a pro, equipment cost is only a small fraction of the overall cost of doing business.
The best 50mm lens around is almost certainly the new 50mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lenses/a_new_benchmark_in_optical_performance_design_and_mechanical_excellence.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lenses/a_new_benchmark_in_optical_performance_design_and_mechanical_excellence.shtml)
-
That's a massive jump and will take time and hands-on to fully get to speed. I'd take a smaller step and buy less, master it in a smaller dose then take another step. Perhaps rent and if it fulfills your need, then buy and don't hesitate to get good used and perhaps one generation behind equipment.
Right now, I have all you lust for and more. On my last journey to Europe and east, I took my essentials--2-D800 bodies, two fisheye lenses, 8mm and 15mm (my client has specific needs for circular images of his work), 17-35 (my 14-24 is just too big and heavy, 24-120, and 70-300.
However, as a back-up, I brought a Panasonic GX7 and two lenses--7-14 and 14-140. Guess what I shot the most with and what saved the day?
Sure, it's great to have an arsenal of the best gear on earth, but once the image hits the web or ink dries on the paper, it's the vision and craft that counts, not the tools used to get it.
Just another point of view to consider.
I understand your point, but we dont have cheap places to rent this stuff here in Brazil, and the cost of new gear like this here is almost 50% more than if i buy it in the USA. So, even if i dont like the gear i get, i can easily sell it here, with a profit. Thats the reason i wanna buy all i can with the money i have.
I think so, yes. That's certainly true for the Canon 70-200/4 versus the other brand 70-200 lenses that I have tried. The Nikon is, if anything, better than the Canon in the f/4 versions of these lenses.
Another thing to consider is size and weight. The f/4 zooms are about half the weight of the f/2.8 zooms. This becomes an issue when carrying three of them, and also when shooting for long periods of time. Over the long term, carrying that much weight can cause all sorts of back and neck problems, just ask any gray-bearded photographer. :) These days you aren't giving up much when choosing the f/4 zooms -- there's not much observable difference in depth of field control between f/2.8 and f/4, and a one-stop boost in ISO isn't that much of a big deal either.
I am gonna test them both when i get there, see if sharpness is equivalent, and decide if the weight will make that big difference in hands.
-
Hi,
This is just an assumption. I am pretty sure that the Zeiss Otus outperforms the APO-Summicron-M ASPH, and the best lens may be the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO MACRO.
Just to mention, each digital sensor has some optical package in front of it. A lens need to be optimised for the sensor. Leica keeps that package very thin, which is a compromise, but they need to do it to use older lenses.
The Otus 55/1.4 is a Distagon type design, with a large negative front group making for small ray angle and low vignetting, the Sigma Art 55/1.4 has also a quite similar design.
My take is that the APO-Summicron-M ASPH was developed specially for the Leica M Monochrome that has a very wide spectral response, needing correction in both UV and IR, this would not be relevant to other cameras having "Bayer CFA" and sharp cut IR-filters.
Best regards
Erik
The main thing that distinguishes camera-makers lenses is durability. The "L" lenses are not always superior optically, but they are generally faster and more durable, by far, than independent lenses. For a pro, equipment cost is only a small fraction of the overall cost of doing business.
The best 50mm lens around is almost certainly the new 50mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lenses/a_new_benchmark_in_optical_performance_design_and_mechanical_excellence.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lenses/a_new_benchmark_in_optical_performance_design_and_mechanical_excellence.shtml)
-
Hi,
This is just an assumption. I am pretty sure that the Zeiss Otus outperforms the APO-Summicron-M ASPH.
Best regards
Erik
I am pretty sure it does not.
-
I am pretty sure it does…
Best regards
Erik
I am pretty sure it does not.
-
I am pretty sure it does…
Best regards
Erik
Nope.
The lens is an f/1.4 and a retro-focus design. The APO-Summicron-M ASPH is an f/2 and non-retro-focus design.
That does not mean it is not an outstanding lens, but the APO-Summicron-M ASPH is the best at the moment.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lenses/a_new_benchmark_in_optical_performance_design_and_mechanical_excellence.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/lenses/a_new_benchmark_in_optical_performance_design_and_mechanical_excellence.shtml)
-
Hi,
Retro-focus designs have less vignetting.
Best regards
Erik
What are you talking about? ALL reflex lenses under 60mm or so are retro-focus designs; they have to be, to clear the mirror. The 50mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH is a rangefinder lens, and thus does not need a retro-focus design. There is no mirror to clear.
Retro-focus designs are almost always inferior to non-retrofocus designs, all things being equal.
and what are those photos?
This is the first 21mm Super-Angulon-R offered by Leica (1965-1968), the f/3.4 version:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leicaflex-lens-1-3-4-21-mm-Super-Angulon-R-incl-finder-boxed-11803-/371110266591?nma=true&si=fuFwhnKb9efXyIFgiNC7ohtBaI4%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leicaflex-lens-1-3-4-21-mm-Super-Angulon-R-incl-finder-boxed-11803-/371110266591?nma=true&si=fuFwhnKb9efXyIFgiNC7ohtBaI4%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557)
It did not allow reflex viewing.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leicaflex-with-Rare-3-4-21-mm-Super-Angulon-R-incl-finder/371125507802?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D24643%26meid%3D75d1d5b65e04497ab8bd56b195215a87%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D10413%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D10%26sd%3D371110266591 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Leicaflex-with-Rare-3-4-21-mm-Super-Angulon-R-incl-finder/371125507802?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D24643%26meid%3D75d1d5b65e04497ab8bd56b195215a87%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D10413%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D10%26sd%3D371110266591)
The second one was an f/4 (1968-1994), and is a retro-focus lens:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/371110266591?lpid=82 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/371110266591?lpid=82)
the older one was "better", but was withdrawn and replaced with a retro-focus design for obvious reasons.
-
I am pretty sure it does not.
I am pretty sure it does…
The short answer is " it depends on which camera it's mounted "
-
Erik,
You're being a naughty boy !
Those screenshots (actually extreme crops) come from a test of the Otus v the Leica 50mm 1.4 Summilux (NOT the 50 APO-Cron) and the Zeiss 55 FE/1.8 all on the Sony A7r.
M
-
Hi,
All designs have advantages and disadvantages. Rangefinder lenses can be symmetrical, while more modern lenses generally are telecentric. One of the reasons behind this is the need to keep the ray angle low. Digital sensors don't work well with large ray angles. Leica keeps the optical package in front of the sensor thin, and needs to compensate for lens cast in software.
Most "normal" lenses, that is around 50 mm used to be "double Gauss" designs. Modern normal lenses have adopted a more complex design, more demanding and much larger but achieving a superior quality.
As a side note, if you don't need an f/1.4 lens, don't buy an f/1.4 lens. Keeping aperture down demands a less complex design which in all probability will be better.
Regarding the images I posted, the test is here: http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151:adorable-50s-otus-noctilux-summilux-hyperprime-sonnar&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
I would just add that the best measure of lens quality is MTF and not price tag… MTF may not be perfect but way better than price tag…
Best regards
Erik
What are you talking about? ALL reflex lenses under 60mm or so are retro-focus designs; they have to be, to clear the mirror. The 50mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH is a rangefinder lens, and thus does not need a retro-focus design. There is no mirror to clear.
and what are those photos?
-
Hi,
All designs have advantages and disadvantages. Rangefinder lenses can be symmetrical, while more modern lenses generally are telecentric. One of the reasons behind this is the need to keep the ray angle low. Digital sensors don't work well with large ray angles. Leica keeps the optical package in front of the sensor thin, and needs to compensate for lens cast in software.
Most "normal" lenses, that is around 50 mm used to be "double Gauss" designs. Modern normal lenses have adopted a more complex design, more demanding and much larger but achieving a superior quality.
As a side note, if you don't need an f/1.4 lens, don't buy an f/1.4 lens. Keeping aperture down demands a less complex design which in all probability will be better.
Regarding the images I posted, the test is here: http://3d-kraft.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151:adorable-50s-otus-noctilux-summilux-hyperprime-sonnar&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
I would just add that the best measure of lens quality is MTF and not price tag… MTF may not be perfect but way better than price tag…
Best regards
Erik
That is not the lens I am referring to.
-
You sure?
Best regards
Erik
This is the lens:
http://blog.uniquephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/summicron-50.png (http://blog.uniquephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/summicron-50.png)
Here is the "standard" Summicron:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=86059&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9AVZ8Lvgvo1nsC60OeQdEOV3wCvKnRC5AjV69WH2_rUaAjT98P8HAQ&Q=&is=USA&A=details (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=86059&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9AVZ8Lvgvo1nsC60OeQdEOV3wCvKnRC5AjV69WH2_rUaAjT98P8HAQ&Q=&is=USA&A=details)
Here is the new APO-Summicron-M ASPH:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=860529&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9PGbfDdan4fcMETCSudGOaqWXSomeO2Q2-86rYiFdjUaAqrN8P8HAQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=860529&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9PGbfDdan4fcMETCSudGOaqWXSomeO2Q2-86rYiFdjUaAqrN8P8HAQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details)
See the discussion here:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130629_5-Leica-50mm-bad-boys.html (http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130629_5-Leica-50mm-bad-boys.html)
-
One important thing to consider is whether or not your existing computer and software can handle the larger files from a D810. You may need to budget for upgrading either or both of those. Also, how are you going to store and archive the large files--do you have enough storage space? When I went from 10mp to 24mp I was shocked at how much more hard drive space I went through.
Another thought: TTL flash is great, but for really interesting work off camera lighting is often better. You could compromise with something like a Quantum Q-Flash that can work in TTL and is also versatile off camera. Or, get a lower model Nikon flash for TTL and a decent monolight. I'd rather have competent strobe equipment available than every lens in Nikon's catalog.
Also, ignore the side argument about the best 50. After a point, "better" just doesn't matter in the real world. The best 50 (or best of any lens) almost certainly won't make you any more money (which is paramount if you want to be and stay a pro) than one infinitesimally less good.
-
One important thing to consider is whether or not your existing computer and software can handle the larger files from a D810. You may need to budget for upgrading either or both of those. Also, how are you going to store and archive the large files--do you have enough storage space? When I went from 10mp to 24mp I was shocked at how much more hard drive space I went through.
Another thought: TTL flash is great, but for really interesting work off camera lighting is often better. You could compromise with something like a Quantum Q-Flash that can work in TTL and is also versatile off camera. Or, get a lower model Nikon flash for TTL and a decent monolight. I'd rather have competent strobe equipment available than every lens in Nikon's catalog.
Also, ignore the side argument about the best 50. After a point, "better" just doesn't matter in the real world. The best 50 (or best of any lens) almost certainly won't make you any more money (which is paramount if you want to be and stay a pro) than one infinitesimally less good.
Yes, but the better lenses are also more durable, and that is important for pro work. The "ruggedness" of "cheap" independent lenses is where the differences show up.
-
Hi,
Little evidence of that…
As a matter of fact, Diglloyd found that many of the Leica lenses had issues, something like 75% of the lenses having issues. Hard to find a direct reference, but it is pretty clear he had quite a few issues.
The only way to find out is really is the use the stuff.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, but the better lenses are also more durable, and that is important for pro work.
-
One important thing to consider is whether or not your existing computer and software can handle the larger files from a D810. You may need to budget for upgrading either or both of those. Also, how are you going to store and archive the large files--do you have enough storage space? When I went from 10mp to 24mp I was shocked at how much more hard drive space I went through.
Another thought: TTL flash is great, but for really interesting work off camera lighting is often better. You could compromise with something like a Quantum Q-Flash that can work in TTL and is also versatile off camera. Or, get a lower model Nikon flash for TTL and a decent monolight. I'd rather have competent strobe equipment available than every lens in Nikon's catalog.
Also, ignore the side argument about the best 50. After a point, "better" just doesn't matter in the real world. The best 50 (or best of any lens) almost certainly won't make you any more money (which is paramount if you want to be and stay a pro) than one infinitesimally less good.
I have a pretty nice computer (i am a heavy user/gamer, so i always had decent components) with a huge storage space. This is not a problem for me.
About the lightning gear, i am thinking about buy a decent/durable on-camera flash now, and save some money to buy the off-camera gear i will need later on. I can't afford all right now, and i really dont want to buy cheap/breakable stuff. Also, 90% of the events i shoot happens on outside under very intense sun light.
-
I would a few weeks to see what Nikon announces at Photokina.
They are rumored to announce a new action FF DSLR that may be a good compromise btwn the D4s and the D810.
This being said, the D810 is already amazingly good.
Cheers,
Bernard
and I would like it to be a professional FF with the design-elements of the V3 ... that will be just in time! and I want to have one!
-
Hi. I'm a bit late to this conversation and wanted to take it a bit of a different way instead of arguing about whose 50mm lens is the best and so forth :)
First off, let's talk a bit about what being a "pro" is. A pro does NOT necessarily take better images than anyone else. Instead, a pro, at least one by my definition, always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation, and does so time after time after time without fail.
Let's take a look at the last part of that sentence: "always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation". This snippet holds the answers to some gear decisions. As a pro, you have to get the shot, and the shot has to be at a certain level of quality. It doesn't have to be the best technical shot with the best MTF graph resolution, but it does have to be sharp enough. The important part of that snippet is the front part - "always delivers", and the last part, "no matter what the situation". That means a pro has to be a shooter who knows his gear inside and out and sidewise, plus the gear itself has to perform in any situation under any stress and not get in the way of the "always deliver" part, and the pro has to be a problem solver when things go sour on a gig, as they often do.
Right there, in my mind, unless you are working in a scenario where the absolute ultimate in image quality is needed - say, a landscape artist who sells big prints and has to compete with medium format and large format film guys - the most important thing is that the gear never gets in the way of you getting the shot on a consistent time in, time out basis. And here is why I don't advocate running to the Tamron lenses or even the 24-120 Nikon, and even perhaps the Sigma, even though the Sigma glass is bloody excellent. (This is NOT to say that third party glass isn't good - it certainly is. I own Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss, but my needs are different than yours as I shoot static subjects with high quality as an objective; I don't shoot birds or athletes)
Getting the shot means the lens/body combination has to have the synergy to get the highest hit rate in terms of AF, particularly if you'll be shooting things that move as opposed to things that are static. Given what you've told us, my thoughts are that the consistency and reliability of "getting the shot" has to take precedence above all else.
So skip the third party AF glass for now. As you evolve as a pro, and need a lens for image quality reasons alone (say, you need something special because you're suddenly asked to do some studio portraits), then you can look into things like the Sigma 35 and 50 arts, the Zeiss manual focus glass, and so forth. I know the suggestion of skipping the third party glass is going to anger some people, and to make sure I'm being clear - there are excellent third party lenses. In static use cases (studio or landscape), they at times are even better, although incrementally so, than the manufacturers equivalent. But with things that move, where AF is involved, it's about getting the shot, and that category is different than having the best ultimate image quality potential. And let's think about this: If you're shooting, say, an event or race, the odds are that most of your competition will be shooting their Nikon/Canon 70-200/2.8's. If you show up with your Tamron or your F/4 lens, well, it will "do", but over time, over the long haul, on a consistent basis, my money is going to be on the other guys getting the shot more than you. You don't see McNally shooting with a Tamron or Sigma zoom when he's on a deadline. I know several high end pros including one world famous corporate shooter who is extensively published, several NFL (American Football) shooters, a high end music industry photograper, and a few guys making their living doing weddings and a few doing theater and dance. None of them - zero - shoot anything but manufacturer glass at their core focal lengths with the zooms. And most of these guys pay for their own gear. So you have to ask yourself why that is and if it's really worth going cheap and skimping on a lens that none of the serious pros would ever consider skimping on. Again - if you had told me you are shooting landscape to be printed 30x40" on a regular basis or that you shot fashion in NYC, I would not be telling you to avoid third party glass - so I'm basing this recommendation on what you've indicated you will be doing.
This also means my suggested starter pro kit is going to blow your budget a bit, but I also believe you should try, as best as possible, to buy gear once, even if it means a bit less of it, as opposed to having to buy twice because you went second rate the first time.
I don't shoot what you do, but I imagine you'll want to do a lot of close ultra wide stuff like I've seen Joe McNally do, and the best lens for that is easily and obviously the 14-24 Nikkor. It's best at the wide end of it's range (where it is better than the 16-35 for sure) and still quite good at 24mm. The 16-35 is strong in the middle, but nothing special at 16 and certainly weakest at 35mm. So if wide angle is in your mind, the 14-24 is the must.
No pro I know goes without the other two - the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 - these are key, core focal lengths, and in Nikons case they are both excellent. The 24-70 is best from 28-70mm and the 70-200 is good pretty much anywhere, and is particularly excellent in the middle focal lengths in the moderate subject distances. I would take the 70-200 over the 105/2.8G VR Micro at 105mm for general purpose work each and every day.
So yes, that blows the budget, but it's the base kit. The next question is that if you have to "cut" something for the short term, you have to take a look at the subject matter and focal lengths you need the most. If you think you can live without a wide for now, then you get the other two. If you feel you won't live between 28 and 70mm much, then you perhaps get the cheap 50/1.8G Nikkor (skip the 50/1.4G honestly) to hold you over as it's only a couple hundred bucks. I'm betting the 70-200 will be a core, key lens and as we've discussed, this is somewhere I would NOT want to skimp.
Everything else you look at down the road once you've earned some cash and have a better idea of what you're going to do and what focal lengths you really need to deliver the goods reliably, day in and day out.
Now, once you've got a core kit of lenses, you need a second body even though initially you can use your fathers as a backup, and I absolutely second the other poster who talked about lighting. Lighting makes a huge difference if you plan to get serious. While I am beyond lucky to have a very nice lens collection of the best from Zeiss, Sigma and Nikon in the focal lengths I primarily shoot, I am not a venture capitalist with an unlimited budget either, and recently I have been allocating most of the available equipment funds towards lighting and modifiers. At some point you need to think out your strategy and choice of a professional strobe system as well if you find you need such a thing. That won't be cheap either, but light makes the shot and investments in better lighting generally pay far greater dividends than having the coolest or latest gear-of-the-month.
Good luck with your decisions and I wish you well.
-mike
-
Hi. I'm a bit late to this conversation and wanted to take it a bit of a different way instead of arguing about whose 50mm lens is the best and so forth :)
First off, let's talk a bit about what being a "pro" is. A pro does NOT necessarily take better images than anyone else. Instead, a pro, at least one by my definition, always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation, and does so time after time after time without fail.
Let's take a look at the last part of that sentence: "always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation". This snippet holds the answers to some gear decisions. As a pro, you have to get the shot, and the shot has to be at a certain level of quality. It doesn't have to be the best technical shot with the best MTF graph resolution, but it does have to be sharp enough. The important part of that snippet is the front part - "always delivers", and the last part, "no matter what the situation". That means a pro has to be a shooter who knows his gear inside and out and sidewise, plus the gear itself has to perform in any situation under any stress and not get in the way of the "always deliver" part, and the pro has to be a problem solver when things go sour on a gig, as they often do.
Right there, in my mind, unless you are working in a scenario where the absolute ultimate in image quality is needed - say, a landscape artist who sells big prints and has to compete with medium format and large format film guys - the most important thing is that the gear never gets in the way of you getting the shot on a consistent time in, time out basis. And here is why I don't advocate running to the Tamron lenses or even the 24-120 Nikon, and even perhaps the Sigma, even though the Sigma glass is bloody excellent. (This is NOT to say that third party glass isn't good - it certainly is. I own Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss, but my needs are different than yours as I shoot static subjects with high quality as an objective; I don't shoot birds or athletes)
Getting the shot means the lens/body combination has to have the synergy to get the highest hit rate in terms of AF, particularly if you'll be shooting things that move as opposed to things that are static. Given what you've told us, my thoughts are that the consistency and reliability of "getting the shot" has to take precedence above all else.
So skip the third party AF glass for now. As you evolve as a pro, and need a lens for image quality reasons alone (say, you need something special because you're suddenly asked to do some studio portraits), then you can look into things like the Sigma 35 and 50 arts, the Zeiss manual focus glass, and so forth. I know the suggestion of skipping the third party glass is going to anger some people, and to make sure I'm being clear - there are excellent third party lenses. In static use cases (studio or landscape), they at times are even better, although incrementally so, than the manufacturers equivalent. But with things that move, where AF is involved, it's about getting the shot, and that category is different than having the best ultimate image quality potential. And let's think about this: If you're shooting, say, an event or race, the odds are that most of your competition will be shooting their Nikon/Canon 70-200/2.8's. If you show up with your Tamron or your F/4 lens, well, it will "do", but over time, over the long haul, on a consistent basis, my money is going to be on the other guys getting the shot more than you. You don't see McNally shooting with a Tamron or Sigma zoom when he's on a deadline. I know several high end pros including one world famous corporate shooter who is extensively published, several NFL (American Football) shooters, a high end music industry photograper, and a few guys making their living doing weddings and a few doing theater and dance. None of them - zero - shoot anything but manufacturer glass at their core focal lengths with the zooms. And most of these guys pay for their own gear. So you have to ask yourself why that is and if it's really worth going cheap and skimping on a lens that none of the serious pros would ever consider skimping on. Again - if you had told me you are shooting landscape to be printed 30x40" on a regular basis or that you shot fashion in NYC, I would not be telling you to avoid third party glass - so I'm basing this recommendation on what you've indicated you will be doing.
This also means my suggested starter pro kit is going to blow your budget a bit, but I also believe you should try, as best as possible, to buy gear once, even if it means a bit less of it, as opposed to having to buy twice because you went second rate the first time.
I don't shoot what you do, but I imagine you'll want to do a lot of close ultra wide stuff like I've seen Joe McNally do, and the best lens for that is easily and obviously the 14-24 Nikkor. It's best at the wide end of it's range (where it is better than the 16-35 for sure) and still quite good at 24mm. The 16-35 is strong in the middle, but nothing special at 16 and certainly weakest at 35mm. So if wide angle is in your mind, the 14-24 is the must.
No pro I know goes without the other two - the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8 - these are key, core focal lengths, and in Nikons case they are both excellent. The 24-70 is best from 28-70mm and the 70-200 is good pretty much anywhere, and is particularly excellent in the middle focal lengths in the moderate subject distances. I would take the 70-200 over the 105/2.8G VR Micro at 105mm for general purpose work each and every day.
So yes, that blows the budget, but it's the base kit. The next question is that if you have to "cut" something for the short term, you have to take a look at the subject matter and focal lengths you need the most. If you think you can live without a wide for now, then you get the other two. If you feel you won't live between 28 and 70mm much, then you perhaps get the cheap 50/1.8G Nikkor (skip the 50/1.4G honestly) to hold you over as it's only a couple hundred bucks. I'm betting the 70-200 will be a core, key lens and as we've discussed, this is somewhere I would NOT want to skimp.
Everything else you look at down the road once you've earned some cash and have a better idea of what you're going to do and what focal lengths you really need to deliver the goods reliably, day in and day out.
Now, once you've got a core kit of lenses, you need a second body even though initially you can use your fathers as a backup, and I absolutely second the other poster who talked about lighting. Lighting makes a huge difference if you plan to get serious. While I am beyond lucky to have a very nice lens collection of the best from Zeiss, Sigma and Nikon in the focal lengths I primarily shoot, I am not a venture capitalist with an unlimited budget either, and recently I have been allocating most of the available equipment funds towards lighting and modifiers. At some point you need to think out your strategy and choice of a professional strobe system as well if you find you need such a thing. That won't be cheap either, but light makes the shot and investments in better lighting generally pay far greater dividends than having the coolest or latest gear-of-the-month.
Good luck with your decisions and I wish you well.
-mike
Thank you so much for your reply, that's what i was hoping to hear. I will probably take the D810 + Nikon 14-24 + Nikon 70-200 2.8 + Sb-910 initially, and will buy the other stuff later.
Also, lets see what photokina will show to us, maybe i change my mind once more lol
-
Hi,
Sorry for mixing up the lenses.
Just to say, when Diglloyd discusses the Summicron 50 in the article mentioned it is in context of Leica M-mount lenses, and he doesn't include the Otus in the comparison. Diglloyd has a notice on that lens in his blog: http://diglloyd.com/blog/2014/20140725_0830-Leica50f2APO-price-increase.html
"DIGLLOYD: My Guide to Leica has an in-depth review of the 50/2 APO, including the severe flare issues with the original production lenses, now resolved with the latest model.
As with my original copy, my replacement copy is *also* skewed left/right (focus is closer on the right side quite significantly). For this pricing I expect perfection not flaws. But my experience with Leica M is that quality control is not at all good (at least half of brand-new lenses have had an issue).
The Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon is no less good a lens (better IMO), twice the speed, and half the price with tighter quality control, albeit 4X the size and 3.5X the weight."
Regarding Sigma A vs. Otus, the lenses seem to be pretty close in performance, with the Otus having better performance in longitudinal chromatic aberration compared to the 55/1.4 A. On the other hand, Sigma has AF and something like 1/4-th of the price.
Regarding durability, I have something like 30 lenses at home, some from 1970. I had only two repairs of any lens, bayonet was replaced on my Minolta 80-200/2.8 a couple of years ago (repair cost around 200$) and aperture failure on a Hasselblad Zeiss Distagon 120/4 CF Macro, repair was around 130$ on that lens but I upgraded to the 120/4 CFi instead. None of my 5 Pentax 67 lenses failed.
Sigma presents some reliability data here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013 , the enclosed screen dump shows the worst offenders, measured in rental weeks/failure.
The Summicron 50 is an M-mount lens, and it is not possible to mount it on a Nikon D810, which seems to be the OP:s choice.
On the other hand, Lensrentals also compared Leica and other lenses here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7.
The Lensrentals article finds that the Summicron M is the best performing lens, based on MTF measurements, but the Sigma Art is pretty close when stopped down to f/2.0.
Finally, we also need to look at system performance. Leica cannot match Nikon having a 36MP sensor, so resolutions-wise the Nikon combined with a good lens will always win.
Best regards
Erik
This is the lens:
http://blog.uniquephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/summicron-50.png (http://blog.uniquephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/summicron-50.png)
Here is the "standard" Summicron:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=86059&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9AVZ8Lvgvo1nsC60OeQdEOV3wCvKnRC5AjV69WH2_rUaAjT98P8HAQ&Q=&is=USA&A=details (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=86059&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9AVZ8Lvgvo1nsC60OeQdEOV3wCvKnRC5AjV69WH2_rUaAjT98P8HAQ&Q=&is=USA&A=details)
Here is the new APO-Summicron-M ASPH:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=860529&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9PGbfDdan4fcMETCSudGOaqWXSomeO2Q2-86rYiFdjUaAqrN8P8HAQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=860529&gclid=Cj0KEQjwyMafBRCU7OCRyc2vitsBEiQAKV4H9PGbfDdan4fcMETCSudGOaqWXSomeO2Q2-86rYiFdjUaAqrN8P8HAQ&Q=&is=REG&A=details)
See the discussion here:
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130629_5-Leica-50mm-bad-boys.html (http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130629_5-Leica-50mm-bad-boys.html)
-
Hi. I'm a bit late to this conversation and wanted to take it a bit of a different way instead of arguing about whose 50mm lens is the best and so forth :)
First off, let's talk a bit about what being a "pro" is. A pro does NOT necessarily take better images than anyone else. Instead, a pro, at least one by my definition, always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation, and does so time after time after time without fail.
Good luck with your decisions and I wish you well.
-mike
Mike - I did not quote all of your post but all points well made and very sensible too!
Jim
-
Sorry,
I mixed up. Tried to find good examples using "Google". Definitively not my intention to share bad information. I removed the responses.
Anyway, first you choose a system than find the most appropriate lenses. What is most appropriate depends on your needs, and can differ a lot.
Best regards
Erik
The short answer is " it depends on which camera it's mounted "
-
Erik,
You're being a naughty boy !
Those screenshots (actually extreme crops) come from a test of the Otus v the Leica 50mm 1.4 Summilux (NOT the 50 APO-Cron) and the Zeiss 55 FE/1.8 all on the Sony A7r.
M
-
Erik,
No need to apologise - was just trying to defuse a suspected case of rising blood pressure !
All best
Manoli
-
If you show up with your Tamron or your F/4 lens, well, it will "do", but over time, over the long haul, on a consistent basis, my money is going to be on the other guys getting the shot more than you. You don't see McNally shooting with a Tamron or Sigma zoom when he's on a deadline. I know several high end pros including one world famous corporate shooter who is extensively published, several NFL (American Football) shooters, a high end music industry photograper, and a few guys making their living doing weddings and a few doing theater and dance. None of them - zero - shoot anything but manufacturer glass at their core focal lengths with the zooms. And most of these guys pay for their own gear. So you have to ask yourself why that is and if it's really worth going cheap and skimping on a lens that none of the serious pros would ever consider skimping on. Again - if you had told me you are shooting landscape to be printed 30x40" on a regular basis or that you shot fashion in NYC, I would not be telling you to avoid third party glass - so I'm basing this recommendation on what you've indicated you will be doing.
-mike
That's what I have been saying!
-
Nikon d750 ‘sports full frame’ already leaked.
-
Thanks a lot anyway.
It seems that the OP got plenty of good advice, and hopefully he will be glad with his choice of equipment.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
No need to apologise - was just trying to defuse a suspected case of rising blood pressure !
All best
Manoli
-
Thanks a lot anyway.
It seems that the OP got plenty of good advice, and hopefully he will be glad with his choice of equipment.
Best regards
Erik
Most pros are specialists to some extent. They choose their equipment based on their specific needs and preferences. Portrait photographers are (usually) helpless at sports events. Sports photographers are (generally) clueless at weddings. There may be pros who are Jacks of all trades, but I doubt they are good at everything.
-
Amen to that....
Jim
-
Most pros are specialists to some extent. They choose their equipment based on their specific needs and preferences.
This is absolutely true, and I try to explain this to my colleagues who want me to shoot their baby photos. Sigh. Not something I can do with any competence.
-
I know many pros with amazingly limited equipment. They get by with so little because they are specialists who know how to deliver certain shots with certain minimal gear (and often older gear). NashvilleMike said a pro "always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation, and does so time after time after time without fail." This is true, but I want to add the caveat of "within your speciality". You don't need all this equipment to get into professional photography. What you need is experience with a limited set of professional gear and paying customers. Don't blow $9K on equipment until you are certain you have paying customers. If you have been shooting for free, you may find that your customer base drops significantly when you start asking for money.
-
I know many pros with amazingly limited equipment. They get by with so little because they are specialists who know how to deliver certain shots with certain minimal gear (and often older gear). NashvilleMike said a pro "always delivers professional quality images, no matter what the situation, and does so time after time after time without fail." This is true, but I want to add the caveat of "within your speciality". You don't need all this equipment to get into professional photography. What you need is experience with a limited set of professional gear and paying customers. Don't blow $9K on equipment until you are certain you have paying customers. If you have been shooting for free, you may find that your customer base drops significantly when you start asking for money.
Be sure to get paid in gold. Don't take checks!
-
Melchiorpavone, I know you were joking about the gold, but seriously, paying customers are the most important part of a business. Pro photographers are business people first and photographers a distant second. It’s very easy to get wrapped up in perfecting one’s photography skills (and gear), but finding paying customers is a far more important skill. To the OP, read this:
http://rising.blackstar.com/photographers-excuses.html
-
Use only camera-maker's products. They are almost always the best. This should not even be a question.
Utter rubbish - what a ridiculous thing to say.
I shoot shoulder-to-shoulder with a photographer who uses a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk II (as opposed to my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS) and there is no practical difference whatsoever in the respective capabilities of the two lenses.
-
Utter rubbish - what a ridiculous thing to say.
I shoot shoulder-to-shoulder with a photographer who uses a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk II (as opposed to my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS) and there is no practical difference whatsoever in the respective capabilities of the two lenses.
No it's not ridiculous. It's the truth. Don't contradict me!
See the post above from NashvilleMike.
-
Melchiorpavone, I know you were joking about the gold, but seriously, paying customers are the most important part of a business. Pro photographers are business people first and photographers a distant second. It’s very easy to get wrapped up in perfecting one’s photography skills (and gear), but finding paying customers is a far more important skill. To the OP, read this:
http://rising.blackstar.com/photographers-excuses.html
Which is why I am not a pro, even though I have better skills than many, if not most, pros: I have no interest in dealing with clients. All the pros I have ever known complain ceaselessly about dealing with clients. I knew early on that this was not what I wanted to deal with.
-
Which is why I am not a pro, even though I have better skills than many, if not most, pros: I have no interest in dealing with clients. All the pros I have ever known complain ceaselessly about dealing with clients. I knew early on that this was not what I wanted to deal with.
Pros deliver that quality they deliver under the pressure of time and with critical profitability constraints. The work they publish is not a measure of their skills, it is a measure of the quality they can deliver while generating a profit.
I am not sure how you can claim that you have better skills.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just read this post.
. If you are to do events where things move fast, you need a body with fast AF and a fast burst rate. D800/810 lack on both counts, think of some thing like D4S instead. It is better to have a body with lower MP but fast response than a lot of MP and slow response.
. I would choose one professional zoom - 70-200 F2.8 VR-II, which can cover most outdoor events comfortably, in case I am short on resources. Next would be the 24-70 F2.8G.
. An ultrawide like 14-28 is not only heavy but requires specialized rig for filters. If you do not need it immediately, postpone it.
. For Macro, I would advise getting the Zeiss 135mm F2 APO. In general macro requires manual adjustments so AF is not all that essential. Secondly the Zeiss lense can be pushed beyond F11 with lower diffraction effect.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79734.0
. To avoid tax incurred while buying instore, arrange an accommodating address out of state well in time. That will save you a lot of money
So here are the list prices
D4S - $6.4k
70-200 - $2.4K
24-70 - $1.9K
135 F2 - $2.2K
-
Pros deliver that quality they deliver under the pressure of time and with critical profitability constraints. The work they publish is not a measure of their skills, it is a measure of the quality they can deliver while generating a profit.
I am not sure how you can claim that you have better skills.
Cheers,
Bernard
Surely you jest.
-
Surely you jest.
Sorry, I didn't get the meaning of what you wrote.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sorry, I didn't get the meaning of what you wrote.
Cheers,
Bernard
It means that skill and being a pro are not related. It is not difficult to produce professional-caliber work, or even to exceed it, depending on the kind of photography in question. That does not make you a "pro", however. As I said, I do not wish to deal with clients. Not nobody, not no how.
http://youtu.be/TufvnJfmHuU (http://youtu.be/TufvnJfmHuU)
Nor would being able to call myself a "pro" give me any greater satisfaction or feeling of self-worth. I know exactly what I can do and cannot do with a camera. A lot of "pro" work has nothing to do with compositional skills or timing, which is where I excel.
-
A lot of "pro" work has nothing to do with compositional skills or timing, where my personal skills excel.
Helped no doubt by an abundance of self-effacing modesty.
I get the distinct impression that you believe your recent arrival on LuLa is akin to The Second Coming. Far be it for me to doubt you, but given the difficulties you've encountered in such a short space of time, could you kindly elaborate and indicate exactly how and where such skills may be evidenced ?
-
Helped no doubt by an abundance of self-effacing modesty.
I get the distinct impression that you believe your recent arrival on LuLa is akin to The Second Coming. Far be it for me to doubt you, but given the difficulties you've encountered in such a short space of time, could you kindly elaborate and indicate exactly how and where such skills may be evidenced ?
I was merely pointing out that I lack the most important skill for a pro: the ability to get and keep clients. I want nothing to do with professional photography. I have no interest in serving clients or marketing myself. About 25 years ago, I did briefly work in commercial/industrial photography (for a company that served a major appliance mfr), and it was not enjoyable. I had to move heavy appliances and lighting equipment (though I did have some help). It was not for me!
On one occasion I was almost killed by the light stand. There was a very large light box and flash-head attached to a boom with a counter-weight. Like this, only bigger:
http://www.coutant.org/micbooms/628.jpg (http://www.coutant.org/micbooms/628.jpg)
The head tended to slip off, so I applied some paper tape to make the collar fit tighter to the arm. Well, the owner, without my knowledge, removed the tape and while I was working the light box and head slipped off and of course the counter-weight caused the stand to become unbalanced, and the boom came crashing down, the lead counterweight narrowly missing me. The counter-weight did damage the appliance; I was very lucky. I was furious, of course, and did not work there much longer. The owner and his family were idiots. The owner's son was a real gem. The facility was a big warehouse, and during the summer it would get very hot. The owner's son placed an air conditioner near the middle of the room. I swear this happened!
I know several professional photographers who could not wait to retire and get away from dealing with clients.
See Post 201 in this thread:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=58856.200
That was taken with a manual-focus 560mm lens. I am pretty good with that lens; I have owned it for 35 years....
-
Banging your head on a boom weight is a right of passage, strobex (old fashioned English flash system) used hexagonal metal weights that went round the boom I cut my forehand when walking into one and resulting in a 3 pointed star that bled profusely.
Managed to avoid dropping a stage weight on my toes though ;D
-
Banging your head on a boom weight is a right of passage, strobex (old fashioned English flash system) used hexagonal metal weights that went round the boom I cut my forehand when walking into one and resulting in a 3 pointed star that bled profusely.
Managed to avoid dropping a stage weight on my toes though ;D
No, it was not that I was "banging my head", it toppled over and fell! Those people were idiots!
-
Helped no doubt by an abundance of self-effacing modesty.
I get the distinct impression that you believe your recent arrival on LuLa is akin to The Second Coming. Far be it for me to doubt you, but given the difficulties you've encountered in such a short space of time, could you kindly elaborate and indicate exactly how and where such skills may be evidenced ?
Tell me what you think of this photographer (not me, of course):
http://www.lambertphotographs.com/ (http://www.lambertphotographs.com/)
-
Which is why I am not a pro, even though I have better skills than many, if not most, pros: I have no interest in dealing with clients. All the pros I have ever known complain ceaselessly about dealing with clients. I knew early on that this was not what I wanted to deal with.
Well I did take you to task earlier in this thread because of your blanket statement about pro's and what gear they "should" use. I had assumed you were speaking from a position of experience - but I now see I was mistaken. I can see that you have all the knowledge and an excess of the skill required to be a professional, and yet you chose not to be one - that is your choice and I respect it. You probably had a career that actually paid good money. But please don't tell others who have the actual experience that they are wrong and you are right.
By all means give your advice to other photographers but not to aspiring professionals. I will not even get into the ridiculous arguments about amateur/professional/quality of work etc, etc.
But to the OP in this thread I would say ONLY take advice about professional photography from other professional photographers.
And on the subject of complaining ceaselessly about clients - I suggest you pick some new pro friends - sounds like yours are way past their peak. Complaining about clients can be fun but it's about as constructive as any business complaining about it's customers. Without the client the photographer is not a professional.
Jim
-
Well I did take you to task earlier in this thread because of your blanket statement about pro's and what gear they "should" use. I had assumed you were speaking from a position of experience - but I now see I was mistaken. I can see that you have all the knowledge and an excess of the skill required to be a professional, and yet you chose not to be one - that is your choice and I respect it. You probably had a career that actually paid good money. But please don't tell others who have the actual experience that they are wrong and you are right.
By all means give your advice to other photographers but not to aspiring professionals. I will not even get into the ridiculous arguments about amateur/professional/quality of work etc, etc.
But to the OP in this thread I would say ONLY take advice about professional photography from other professional photographers.
And on the subject of complaining ceaselessly about clients - I suggest you pick some new pro friends - sounds like yours are way past their peak. Complaining about clients can be fun but it's about as constructive as any business complaining about it's customers. Without the client the photographer is not a professional.
Jim
I really don't have that many photographer friends these days (photographers tend to be loners and independent). But just about every one I ever knew complained about dealing with clients. I used to work in photo retailing too.
To clarify: I have worked professionally, with several organizations and in several capacities, but never independently. I usually had better equipment than the "pros". LOL.
Most pros have a "limited" practice and have only the equipment they need for their specialties.
I currently have two Leicaflex SL2 bodies and eight lenses from 21mm to 560mm. I have been doing photography for 50 years.
-
You know,
There are few companies that make great stuff, like Canon, Nikon and Sigma. Sony makes sensors to match...
Best regards
Erik
I really don't have that many photographer friends these days (photographers tend to be loners and independent). But just about every one I ever knew complained about dealing with clients. I used to work in photo retailing too.
To clarify: I have worked professionally, with several organizations and in several capacities, but never independently. I usually had better equipment than the "pros". LOL.
Most pros have a "limited" practice and have only the equipment they need for their specialties.
I currently have two Leicaflex SL2 bodies and eight lenses from 21mm to 560mm. I have been doing photography for 50 years.
-
You know,
There are few companies that make great stuff, like Canon, Nikon and Sigma. Sony makes sensors to match...
Best regards
Erik
Sorry, I don't understand your post. What has that to do with my last post?
-
Sorry, I don't understand your post. What has that to do with my last post?
I own a Stradivarius, doesn't mean I play violin to a professional standard.
-
I own a Stradivarius, doesn't mean I play violin to a professional standard.
Again, I don't understand. I said I was better than most pros in doing certain kinds of photography. That is not a remarkable claim. Most pros are merely adequate, but are good at getting clients. I am not, and have no interest in working with clients.
Clients know they have the upper hand and play one photographer against the other to get the lowest prices. This is because everybody and his brother wants to be a "pro", even though for the last 45 years there has been less than enough work available to keep pros employed. It's all because of Blow Up by Antonioni.
http://youtu.be/2Xz1utzILj4 (http://youtu.be/2Xz1utzILj4)
What do you think of this guy's work? (Picked at random)
http://www.columbusohiophotographer.com/ (http://www.columbusohiophotographer.com/)
-
Sorry, I don't understand your post. What has that to do with my last post?
Hi,
I refer to this:
To clarify: I have worked professionally, with several organizations and in several capacities, but never independently. I usually had better equipment than the "pros". LOL.
Most pros have a "limited" practice and have only the equipment they need for their specialties.
I currently have two Leicaflex SL2 bodies and eight lenses from 21mm to 560mm. I have been doing photography for 50 years.
Most 'pros' today use either Canon or Nikon. Both of those make some very fine lenses. Saying that you have better equipment is a bit of blanket statement, even if most Leica R lenses are very good.
With a digital camera it is about lens and sensor. It could be argued that Nikon has better sensors in some areas than Canon. Or you could say that Nikon has capabilities than Canon lacks.
If you shoot film, there will be an additional step, namely scanning, or if you work in a wet process enlarging, which adds enlarging optics and positive/negative paper, both of which have an MTF.
Sigma makes a few lenses that are absolutely great, like the 35/1.4, 55/1.4A and the 120-300/2.8.
It is possible that your equipment and workflow is superior to what 'pros' use, but proving that needs some work.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
I refer to this:
Most 'pros' today use either Canon or Nikon. Both of those make some very fine lenses. Saying that you have better equipment is a bit of blanket statement, even if most Leica R lenses are very good.
With a digital camera it is about lens and sensor. It could be argued that Nikon has better sensors in some areas than Canon. Or you could say that Nikon has capabilities than Canon lacks.
If you shoot film, there will be an additional step, namely scanning, or if you work in a wet process enlarging, which adds enlarging optics and positive/negative paper, both of which have an MTF.
Sigma makes a few lenses that are absolutely great, like the 35/1.4, 55/1.4A and the 120-300/2.8.
It is possible that your equipment and workflow is superior to what 'pros' use, but proving that needs some work.
Best regards
Erik
When I was working in commercial studios (this was in the 1980s), they had Nikons for 35mm work (I also used a 4x5 view camera). If you have ever used a Nikon of that vintage (F2 or F3) and a Leicaflex SL2, you would know what I mean. Also, Nikon (stupidly) showed 100% of the image in the viewfinder, even though slide mounts cut into the image a little. This is the stupidest thing I ever heard of. (Leicaflex shows 93% or so of the negative area, which is the usable part of the image in printing and projection). I got yelled at because I framed the shots too tight (shots of refrigerators). These people were idiots, both Nikon and the studio I worked for. (They could have at least warned me to frame looser, to allow for the idiot Nikon viewfinder framing.) Also, the handling of the Nikons was inferior to the Leicaflex. Not even close.
-
Dont underestimate the draw of Canon and nikons professional services for pro's
The other companies often do not have anywhere near as good a service in this area, fewer centres etc.
If you are a CPS member you can usually get things fixed in days , loan gear, and technical help almost anywhere in the world.
This leads to back to the gear question, there is usually a base entry qualification on gear which you need to match. It may be that Sigma or Zeiss lens is great (the client wont notice) but if it stops you from working due to 6 week turn around on repairs etc...
-
Dont underestimate the draw of Canon and nikons professional services for pro's
The other companies often do not have anywhere near as good a service in this area, fewer centres etc.
If you are a CPS member you can usually get things fixed in days , loan gear, and technical help almost anywhere in the world.
This leads to back to the gear question, there is usually a base entry qualification on gear which you need to match. It may be that Sigma or Zeiss lens is great (the client wont notice) but if it stops you from working due to 6 week turn around on repairs etc...
That is a good point, but surely any pro worth his salt will have a number of bodies and lenses, enough to qualify. I'm not a pro, but have 2 bodies and 8 lenses.
Dentists and cardiologists have the wherewithal to own all the gear they want.
-
Any pro should have enough gear to qualify, but not if they buy off brand lenses all day...
it may be the D610 doesnt qualify, or whatever. Just worth considering.
-
Any pro should have enough gear to qualify, but not if they buy off brand lenses all day...
it may be the D610 doesnt qualify, or whatever. Just worth considering.
Yep. I don't get it at all. Those lenses are high-markup items. Dealers like them because they can actually make money selling them. Major name brand gear (Canon, Nikon, etc.) is sold at cost or a very small mark-up. Dealer cost on Sigma, Tamron, etc. is much less than retail.
-
Here is an interesting discussion about the need (or lack thereof) for "pro gear" to earn money as a pro.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1306129
-
Here is an interesting discussion about the need (or lack thereof) for "pro gear" to earn money as a pro.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1306129
Not sure what purpose posting that here serves.
Pros generally use their gear much harder than amateurs, and replace lenses and bodies on a regular basis as they become obsolescent. It's a cost of doing business. (This is definitely a change from the old days, when Speed Graphics and Leica M3s were used by newspaper photographers for decades, and only a small selection of lenses was needed. My parent's wedding was shot on a Speed Graphic. The photos look great, by the way!)
But the Canon or Nikon "pro" lenses are going to be more reliable and less fragile than Tamron or Sigma lenses, and this is what justifies the prices. Again, pros are not the best photographers or the ones with the best equipment (cardiologists and dentists usually have the best stuff).
But if you make the decision to become a "pro", however foolish that decision may be (yes, you too can be homeless, you too can stand by the side of the road with a sign that reads "Will take photographs for food") don't hinder yourself by using off-brand equipment. He didn't:
(http://cinephiliamedia.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/apocalypsenow.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Photojournalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Photojournalist)
http://youtu.be/1kqFwVuQ-Hg (http://youtu.be/1kqFwVuQ-Hg)
This is also worth reading:
http://improvephotography.com/1521/20-tips-for-starting-a-portrait-photography-business/ (http://improvephotography.com/1521/20-tips-for-starting-a-portrait-photography-business/)
and this:
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/05/26/sobering-truths-about-making-a-career-out-of-photography/ (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/05/26/sobering-truths-about-making-a-career-out-of-photography/)
http://www.smashandpeas.com/10-attributes-professional-photographers-need-to-succeed/ (http://www.smashandpeas.com/10-attributes-professional-photographers-need-to-succeed/)
Be prepared to make announcements like this (from a photographer I know who lives in my area, a very good one!):
"I regret to inform you that due to financial reasons, we've had to put the studio up for sale.
It's a wonderful space in the xxx area- large and completely remodeled with a connected living area and studio space. Please talk to xxx for more information or if you'd like to get a hold of his realtor."
and this (from same photographer!):
"I've fallen and I can't get up!!!" Okay, it's not that bad but I did fall from a 10ft ladder while working on my new studio and fractured my pelvis in three places"
-
It strikes me that the major difference between an average pro kit and amateur kit is the amount and quality of lighting apparatus. Most amateurs, including myself, are not too sophisticated about using flash and flash modifiers. Amateurs accept the light at the location, pros lug the extra gear on location shoots to add some fill here and highlight there.
-
It strikes me that the major difference between an average pro kit and amateur kit is the amount and quality of lighting apparatus. Most amateurs, including myself, are not too sophisticated about using flash and flash modifiers. Amateurs accept the light at the location, pros lug the extra gear on location shoots to add some fill here and highlight there.
Very true. Good on camera flashes can manage quite a few situations, but many amateurs don't do this with real strobes because they either don't understand the value/need or they just don't have an easy mean to manage the associated logistics.
I feel that the Profoto B1 is truly revolutionary because it has the potential to change all that... to a certain extent. I have just added one to my 3 D1s and it seems to be a great piece of kit!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It strikes me that the major difference between an average pro kit and amateur kit is the amount and quality of lighting apparatus. Most amateurs, including myself, are not too sophisticated about using flash and flash modifiers. Amateurs accept the light at the location, pros lug the extra gear on location shoots to add some fill here and highlight there.
Yes, that is quite true! The lighting is not always very interesting, though.
-
It strikes me that the major difference between an average pro kit and amateur kit is the amount and quality of lighting apparatus. Most amateurs, including myself, are not too sophisticated about using flash and flash modifiers. Amateurs accept the light at the location, pros lug the extra gear on location shoots to add some fill here and highlight there.
I totally agree, except in the case of editorial portraits in magazines such as Business Week. Really harsh lighting seems to be all the rage. It seems like pro photography has gotten so boring and consistent (for a lack of better words), that technically sh!tty photography has become the edgy alternative. The only magazine I get is Business Week, so I don't know if this a industry pervasive theme. Maybe Business Week is just really cheap when contracting photographers.
-
I totally agree, except in the case of editorial portraits in magazines such as Business Week. Really harsh lighting seems to be all the rage. It seems like pro photography has gotten so boring and consistent (for a lack of better words), that technically sh!tty photography has become the edgy alternative. The only magazine I get is Business Week, so I don't know if this a industry pervasive theme. Maybe Business Week is just really cheap when contracting photographers.
I see a lot of very flat lighting.
-
Hello everyone,
I am an "semi-pro" photographer trying to get into the professional scene. I am open to suggestions.
Don't forget:
1. Scruffy clothes for begging on the street-corner
2. Lawyer fees for when your wife wants a divorce and wants to take the kids, because you are working day and night for clients, then waiting months to get paid.
On the other hand, it will give you a good chance to get a lot of those bridge pictures you never got around to, since you will be living under one.
(http://remnantreport.com/imart/567_2t.jpg)