Prime Lenses

  • If you already have the Nikon 70-200 VR mk1, should you buy the Nikon 70-200 VR mk2? Why or why not?

      Here’s another very common question- If you already own the mk1 version of a 70-200mm f/2.8, should you bother buying the mk2 version?

      My Ramblings:

    Having tested every Nikon f/2.8 zoom since the old push-pull 80-200mm to the newest 70-200 f/4 VR, I have got to say that there isn’t much sharpness to be gained by going to the mk2. In fact the f/4 VR is the sharpest of them all, if you care about sharpness most. To be honest, after thorough testing I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 mk1 for wedding photojournalism.

    Why? Not just because it’s “more than sharp enough”, but also admittedly because I hate the weight and I try not to use my 70-200 whenever possible. If I really, really need the extra resolution; say for example I get a D800 some day instead of my current beloved setup of dual-D700′s, …well then I would much rather turn to an 85 or 135 prime for “the ultimate sharpness”, than to a 70-200.

    So, that’s just me. I love what 70-200mm affords me while shooting church ceremonies and reception toasts, but other than that I try to minimize its use and grab my primes instead…

    Therefore, I suppose if someone were absolutely fine with dragging around a 70-200 all day, to both weddings and portrait sessions, then the mk2 would be a good buy. More important than any sharpness upgrade, it has a little bit FASTER FOCUSING, and the VR is a little bit better too. Those are honestly the much bigger differences. Compared to these advantages, I barely noticed a difference in sharpness..

    CANON SHOOTER DISCLAIMER: The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 situation is a little different. Their older f/2.8 L lenses (both IS and non IS) were never really amazingly sharp, they were mostly just “usable”. Yes, innumerable pros loved these lenses and used them daily to make tons of money. However that doesn’t make them the best lenses ever, they were simply the only option and they got the job done.

    Oppositely, Nikon has been turning out ridiculously sharp f/2.8 zooms since the 80-200mm f/2.8 with SWM. (silent wave motor, the new type of AF)

    So if you are a Canon user I do highly recommend considering the upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS mk2. The mk1 is really only “awesome” if you plan to stick with it as a photojournalist lens that you shoot mostly in mRAW (the 10-12 megapixel range) and certainly not with whatever 40+ megapixel behemoth is just around the corner. At that point, the older 70-200 2.8′s are going to start showing their resolving limits. Of course the same goes with Nikon- If you have the Nikon D800 instead of my D700′s, you could see a bigger difference between the mk1 and mk2 f/2.8 VR zooms.

    Although again personally, Canon or Nikon it doesn’t matter: I’d still rather have an 85 and 135 prime for those situations when I really really need the most resolution. For me personally the 70-200mm is purely a candid / documentary photojournalist tool, not an all-day multipurpose type thing. I know that many probably don’t feel the same way as me, but shoot enough triple-headers and you just might… ;-)

    Take care, and feel free to let me know if you have any other questions!
    =Matt=

  • What Should I Buy – Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G vs 50mm f/1.4 G

      Found on a Facebook group – what should I buy, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G or the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G?

      My Ramblings:

    Photographers always seem to break into two camps – 50mm lovers, and the 85+35 or 85+28 lovers.

    Honestly? In my opinion 50mm just gets boring after a while. I like having two primes, a wide and a long. 85mm is incredibly more useful than 50mm during things like ceremonies and toasts, while 28mm or 35mm is just gorgeous for close-quarters type candid stuff.

    Yes, I do own a 50mm, but I barely use it compared to the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G and 85mm f/1.8 G. Those two babies are just nuts-sharp, and the perfect combo for general photojournalism and portraiture.

    Even if you shoot a lot of medium sized family group photos or something, where 50mm is a great focal length, I don’t really even recommend the f/1.4 G because the new f/1.8 G is so flippin’ awesome! It is just as incredibly sharp as the 28 and the 85, in fact I like the flatness of the focal plane for large group photos more on the 50 f/1.8 G than the f/1.4 G. Bottom line, the new 1.8 G is not your grandpa’s “plastic fantasitc” disposable 50mm f/1.8 lens it even has a weather gasket around the mount, and overall solid construction.

    You have to be absolutely obsessed with 50mm in order to go for the f/1.4, and even then in my opinion anyone who is obsessed with only 50mm simply hasn’t “seen the light” yet.

    So there you have it. Start with the 85mm, if you shoot portraits on a full-frame camera. (Of course the whole discussion goes out the window, if you shoot on a crop sensor camera and you plan ot do so for a while to come. In this case, buy the 50mm f/1.4 G and be thrilled with its approximate similarity to the 85mm f/1.8 on full-frame!

      Then someone asks: But aren’t the Nikon 85mm’s kinda slow?

      My Ramblings:

    It depends on which 85mm you get. The f/1.4′s are slower than the f/1.8′s, and unfortunately, the G’s are slightly slower than the D’s. However the G’s are insanely accurate and consistent in low light, and in my experience on a semi-pro body such as the D700 the 85 1.8 G is incredibly snappy and trustworthy, even for stuff like aisle processionals and dance floor craziness. Although when autofocus conditions get truly abysmal, I must admit I opt for my 24-70 or my 50mm f/1.8, because those two lenses are just like laser beams with low-light focus.

    The reason for all this is that “D” and “G” lenses have different types of autofocus motors in them. The AF-D lenses are an older, “clunky but fast” type of autofocus and the AFS-G lenses are the newer, “slower but laser-accurate” type of autofocus. (Silent Wave Motor, AKA SWM much like Canon’s USM, if you’re interested)

    Basically, there is no reason to buy an AF-D lens unless you are on an extreme budget, or you have some very weird shooting demands for which the AF-D lenses are actually superior.

    Even on a budget, I would rather have a 50mm f/1.8 G than a 50mm f/1.4 D. The same goes for 85mm.

    Bottom line- having shot in all sorts of ridiculous light, from pitch-black to absurdly bright flares, I prefer the G lenses by a long shot, and the f/1.8′s suit my style very well- I prioritize focus speed and snappiness a little bit more than DOF. However if you’re mainly a portrait photographer and your subjects hold relatively still, then f/1.4 is the way to go.

    Personally, I just love these primes so much I wouldn’t mind owning both a set of 1.4′s and 1.8′s, …and just using whichever suited my fancy for the day.

    The 1.8′s are lighter and smaller, which is nice for general around-the-town type shooting. For example the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G is just about the ULTIMATE “trip to Disneyland” lens… http://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-28mm-f1-8-afs-g-n-lens-review

    Either way, you need to pick the lens that defines your style as a photographer, and invest the most in that lens first.

    BTW, right now both of these Nikon lenses have $100 instant rebates, but you gotta buy a camera body with them. Click HERE. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G comes out to be $397, and the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G comes out to be $369.

    Thanks for reading and take care,
    =Matt=

  • Shooting Large Groups / Families

      I found a question in a Facebook community regarding using a Nikon D3100 and a 50mm f/1.8 for a large group / family portrait. The concern of course is whether or not this is the appropriate lens for such a task…

      My Ramblings:

    Yep, while the D3100 will do a great job of delivering killer images as long as you shoot sharp and keep your ISO down, I would recommend renting something like a Nikon 24-70 for this.

    Nikon also makes a 17-55 f/2.8 which is great for crop sensor shooting in tight spaces, however the 17-55 can be prone to severe field curvature which means even though the lens may be ultra-sharp, it may not be able to get a flat line of people all in focus at once if you zoom out too far. The plane of focus may curve forward towards the camera and stopping down may not save the day.

    So you could go down to your local pro shop and see if the rental lenses have good off-center sharpness, but in general the safest bet is the Nikon 24-70. That thing is just wicked-sharp from corner to corner on a crop sensor, and as long as you have enough space to backup then 24mm will be more than enough to fit everybody in…

    Shooting 50mm on a crop sensor is fantastic if you have the room, (I’ve shot entire bridal parties on an 85mm on a crop!) …however it is just un-advisable to go into a job with ONLY that focal length, considering it equals about 75mm on full-frame. This is why I think renting or borrowing a 24-70 is the best thing to do. Don’t worry too much about distortion at 24mm on a crop sensor, even if you put a medium weight person at the very edge of the frame at 24mm, (actually, leave a little bit of room for a 8×10 crop!!!) …you’ll still be doing quite well considering that the focal length equivalent is just 35mm. For larger groups, that angle of view is still quite modest…

    Take care,
    =Matt=