Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: patjoja on October 26, 2017, 04:16:54 pm
-
According to one prominent internet reviewer, 'Pros' do not use medium range zooms such as the Nikon AF-S 24-70 f/2.8 ED VR. Only hobbyist use them.
What do you guys think?
Patrick
-
IMO a “pro” lens is any lens used by one or more pros, as opposed to a marketing buzzword.
-Dave-
-
Interesting. Probably 99.99% of the professional photographers I know (and that's probably several hundred people) would consider the 24-70/2.8 their bread-and-butter lens. But I guess they are all wrong.
-
Hi,
That is complete nonsense. Any good photographer would use the appropriate tool for the task at hand. Moden zoom lenses are very capable, but they are still a compromise.
Just as an example, if you need short DoF and great bokeh, an Otus 85/1.4 or Sigma 85/1.4 Art may be the optimal choice. But if you need a 45 mm lens, an Otus 55/1.4 may be pretty useless. Zooms are flexible and can be very good, especially stopped down.
Best regards
Erik
According to one prominent internet reviewer, 'Pros' do not use medium range zooms such as the Nikon AF-S 24-70 f/2.8 ED VR. Only hobbyist use them.
What do you guys think?
Patrick
-
Look in almost any event or wedding photographer's kit and you'll find the answer there.
If you can't get the shot because you don't have the right focal length available (both in the kit, and on the camera body at the time it is needed), it doesn't matter how sharp your lens is. And missed shots mean no bookings, which means no income.
-
Interesting. Probably 99.99% of the professional photographers I know (and that's probably several hundred people) would consider the 24-70/2.8 their bread-and-butter lens. But I guess they are all wrong.
100% agree Ken. 24-70 2.8 is the #1 go to lens for almost any job. Sure they may use primes but the 24-70 is the workhorse. That is probably the first lens you buy when you move to a new system. Anyone to make a statement like that has to be looking for clicks.
Now the 24-105 f4 kit lenses are another story....
-
Depends on what the pro shooting. A 24 to 70 is useless for product photography, too short for portraits and not really wide enough for most architecture. Pretty good for PR and wedding.
-
Yeah, right: the first - and last - zoom I bought was the 24-70 Nikkor G and it was a lemon. Never again. But then weddings were never my bag. Photography for me was always done with those focal length problems solved via primes. In other words, I avoided situations where I had little control.
Actually, now it's all my decision, I leave home with only the lens fitted to the body; that focuses the mind beautifully, but of course, pro life was seldom like that!
-
With so many gullible people on the Internet, anyone can become an Internet “authority”.
-
Whose definition of "pro" is everyone using??? ::)
-
Shall we give Patrick the benefit of the doubt and not call him a troll? Who cares about the opinion of "one prominent internet reviewer?" Those of us who consider ourselves basically competent and reasonably intelligent can figure out which tool to use for our own style of imaging. I'm not trying to make anyone else happy with my photography and am fortunately not trying to earn a living, I'd starve.
-
Shall we give Patrick the benefit of the doubt and not call him a troll? Who cares about the opinion of "one prominent internet reviewer?" Those of us who consider ourselves basically competent and reasonably intelligent can figure out which tool to use for our own style of imaging. I'm not trying to make anyone else happy with my photography and am fortunately not trying to earn a living, I'd starve.
No, I really wasn't trolling, really... ;-)
I was reading Ken Rockwell's comments on midsize zooms, and when he made that comment I just sat there for a few seconds dumbfounded. I'm not sure what "Pro" he has in mind because there are a lot of pros out there doing a lot of different types of work using lots of different tools.
In general, I appreciate Ken Rockwell's gear analysis, but sometimes he's over the top. :-) Oh well...
Sorry...
Patrick
-
The epitome of the self-appointed Internet authority.
-
A lot of people claiming to be pros and if the definition of pro includes making a living pontificating on the net then I guess they are pros. If your definition of pro is someone who is paid to take photos then not so many of them endlessly jabbering away on blogs and websites.
-
On a personal note I've always used primes. That said I've known many professional photographers who use zooms.
-
I was reading Ken Rockwell's comments ...
Probably best to just stop there
-
I guessed it was Ken Rockwell...
Although I would have thought the 70-200mm would be very slightly more universal than the 24-70mm.
-
According to one prominent internet reviewer,
I was reading Ken Rockwell's comments on midsize zooms,
Since when is Ken Rockwell a prominent internet reviewer?
-
Hi,
There were two expressions: "Medium Range" and "Zooms". It is quite possible that the most engaging photos are not shot with medium range lenses. It could be that more great images are created using wide angles, weather zooms or primes, than with medium range lenses. Same could apply to telephoto.
This may point in that direction: https://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/5e-vKNRtugB2PmN37dPZDxnhdudpX7TtPdQwQTjTCP5s1a2N-WvLbLAEnRl37RBKPuoqnUtHLUJfYLuR44Jj8aOEfM-bNUkQl8VtE8zS_zo3veI-0iHiZRCKqBVXmW4zlg)
I was shooting at Iceland this summer with my friend. We had very different statistics. Pierre was shooting with two cameras, the 16-35 on one and the 70-200 on the other. I was essentially shooting with one camera that I carried without a lens mounted, so my shooting was a bit more distributed. My friend also has a 24-105/4 lens, but for me the 24-105 was kind of default and for him it was more the exception.
The unknown lenses in my case are probably the two Zeiss/Contax zooms I carry for Scheimpflug photography.
Best regards
Erik
-
I don't think anyone said anything about 'good photos'.
Most professionally-taken photos aren't taken to be good, at least from an aesthetic sense. They're technically competent, but taken for purpose of documentation rather than pure aesthetics.
-
It's important to distinguish between even photographers (sports, meetings, weddings, etc.) and landscape/outdoor photographers. Even photographers have constantly shifting things going on around them that they need to document. If one is indoors (weddings, meetings) it's a different piece of cake than if it's a sporting event. Even with sporting events things may be different in terms of distance from the action (basketball vs football). The lens choice is likely to be different in all of the above cases and certainly in my observation, 'most' event photographers don't use anything over a mid range zoom. Sports are different and a longer distance lens is needed. If we take the point of view that a pro photographer is someone who earns their principal income through photography then the mid-range zoom is clearly a pro lens.
As an aside. in the late 2000s I hired a couple of women in entry level positions doing pharmaceutical regulatory work. They directly reported to me and we were talking one day about photography (a number of my images were and still are hanging in the departmental office area. I encouraged them to pursue photography and gave them lessons in LR, lens selection and even sold my old Nikon to one of them. They started doing free event photography for friends to gain experience and then moved in to charging; both are now successful event photographers in major eastern cities and one has shot at NY Fashion Week several times. I take no credit in their evolution as they turned out to be far better photographer than I am and it's nice to see them succeed. they use mid-range zooms for weddings.
-
It's important to distinguish between even photographers (sports, meetings, weddings, etc.) and landscape/outdoor photographers. Even photographers have constantly shifting things going on around them that they need to document. If one is indoors (weddings, meetings) it's a different piece of cake than if it's a sporting event. Even with sporting events things may be different in terms of distance from the action (basketball vs football). The lens choice is likely to be different in all of the above cases and certainly in my observation, 'most' event photographers don't use anything over a mid range zoom. Sports are different and a longer distance lens is needed. If we take the point of view that a pro photographer is someone who earns their principal income through photography then the mid-range zoom is clearly a pro lens.
As an aside. in the late 2000s I hired a couple of women in entry level positions doing pharmaceutical regulatory work. They directly reported to me and we were talking one day about photography (a number of my images were and still are hanging in the departmental office area. I encouraged them to pursue photography and gave them lessons in LR, lens selection and even sold my old Nikon to one of them. They started doing free event photography for friends to gain experience and then moved in to charging; both are now successful event photographers in major eastern cities and one has shot at NY Fashion Week several times. I take no credit in their evolution as they turned out to be far better photographer than I am and it's nice to see them succeed. they use mid-range zooms for weddings.
Funny thing: in my era as a pro, weddings etc. didn't rate much as pro... Pro meant advertising, architecture, fashion, sport, news. High street (aka weddings, babies, portraits and dogs) was something else if only because many wedding "studios" depended on weekend warriors doing something different for a living to come forward and do the work. Not much more needed to be said - or thought.
Art, as in art photographer, didn't exist in the UK lexicon, though it probably did quite early on in the US of A one. I didn't hear about St Ansel until I was already gainfully employed; I can't think of anyone before the advent of the Photographer's Gallery (London) who thought about art as a way of the camera keeping one fed. In fact, as I remember it, even that place had a left political agenda with emphasis on Brit versions of the huddled masses... The first full-on photo-art gallery I knew about was Hamilton's, also London. I mean, even my hero Saul had to work in fashion to make his pictures support him. And that wasn't easy, if he's to be believed. So yeah, art photography existed insofar as some photographers were also artists...
Rob