Help me decide...

michaelg

michaelg

Suspended / Banned
Messages
564
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
I realise this section of the forum is hardly an unbiased crowd but I will ask away anyway...

So, until recently I had 3 Yongnuo YN568EXs with accompanying triggers, stands with cheap Amazon octaboxes and I sold two of them and the triggers as I thought I was all set to move to buying a Lencarta Smartflash 2 set-up.

Most (read:all) of my photos these days are of my wife, 3 month old baby, family who stop by or some combination thereof.

Just as I had the money ready, I was thinking, am I expecting too much of both my wife and baby to be able to pose long enough whilst I fart about adjusting lights etc between feeds, nappy changes and naps? Is this more of a suitable purchase for when my daughter's a bit bigger?

So I started leaning more towards a fast prime inspired by having hired a Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G from Calumet recently and getting some nice candid shots and shallow depth-of-field portraits that I was happy with and was thinking about the Sigma 35mm (ART). It's a bit more than I had intended spending but I do think it would get some great results out of my D800 provided I get a good copy.

To give some background on my current kit - I have a D800, Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. I did have a 50mm f/1.8G that I sold - that in combination with the Lencarta set up as another possibility I considered but I just wonder if I'd feel like I 'compromised' and regret it.

Just to clarify, if I do go with the lens rather than lights now, I think the lights will happen at some point (possibly in 6 months where hopefully should inherit some money which some may be allocated towards photography treats :))
 
Only you can answer that question...
As someone in exactly the same position as you (but with lights !) & my daughter at 5 months, It really depends on the shot you want in your album...
My favorite shot so far of my daughter was with no lights - lol.....
 
There are arguements for both cases. You already have that focal length covered, but you can light a great photo using natural light.

Personally, I have a flash light kit and only ever use it when someone hires me for a home studio shoot. I don't use it with my family as personally I prefer a candid shot to a posed one.

If I were in your shoes I'd either get the 35mm lens or save some money and get a single speed light to enable you to use the 2.8 for inside candid shots.
 
Thanks both for your input. I think much as it's a bit out of my intended budget but I think I will get the 35 as I think I'll use it a lot for more candid shots in the house and out and about. And think about the lights when our baby's a little bit older. I have one speedlight for now so should be sorted for a bit of lighting stuff if I up the ISO etc.
 
My pics went up a notch (IMHO) when I got my lencarta lights!! Have a look at my Flickr for examples!
 
So here is my current thinking (and I know I may change my mind again soon!)

Sell my 24-70 and get a Sigma 24-35 f/2 as that's the range I most use on the Tamron and the extra stop will help with the candid natural lighting shots.

And buy the Lencarta Smart Flash 2 kit.

Opinions? Shame Sigma don't do buy one get one free as if they did I'd buy the primes instead!
 
michaelg said:
So here is my current thinking (and I know I may change my mind again soon!)

Sell my 24-70 and get a Sigma 24-35 f/2 as that's the range I most use on the Tamron and the extra stop will help with the candid natural lighting shots.

And buy the Lencarta Smart Flash 2 kit.

Opinions? Shame Sigma don't do buy one get one free as if they did I'd buy the primes instead!
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you'd gain from selling your 24-70 f/2.8 and getting a 24-35 f/2 instead. Your current lens already covers the range of the proposed new lens - and then some!
So it goes 1 stop wider - is that really worth having? Yes, to some extent it will reduce depth of field at any given distance, but at short focal lengths the difference isn't exactly amazing. And I'm not sure that it would really help with natural lighting shots, you have a camera that performs extremely well at high ISO settings, so you can get that extra stop of light back simply by adjusting the ISO setting.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I'm not sure what you'd gain from selling your 24-70 f/2.8 and getting a 24-35 f/2 instead. Your current lens already covers the range of the proposed new lens - and then some!
So it goes 1 stop wider - is that really worth having? Yes, to some extent it will reduce depth of field at any given distance, but at short focal lengths the difference isn't exactly amazing. And I'm not sure that it would really help with natural lighting shots, you have a camera that performs extremely well at high ISO settings, so you can get that extra stop of light back simply by adjusting the ISO setting.
Click to expand...

Hi Garry, I was seeing it as a compromise as, if I sell the 24-70 and buy a 35mm f/1/4, I lose the flexibility of the zoom So this way I would have some flexibility and some shallower depth of field. But, I am still thinking about it though as the 24-35 isn't exactly a light, discreet little lens either!
 
Thanks all for your advice - I've just ordered a Smart Flash kit from Lencarta. The prime may still be on the cards later on but I may pick up a wee 50mm f/1.8G at some point if I can't wait 'til I have the funds for the Sigma. I had one and sold it - kicking myself!

Looking forward to it!
 
michaelg said:
Thanks all for your advice - I've just ordered a Smart Flash kit from Lencarta. The prime may still be on the cards later on but I may pick up a wee 50mm f/1.8G at some point if I can't wait 'til I have the funds for the Sigma. I had one and sold it - kicking myself!

Looking forward to it!
Click to expand...
I think you will find that they work rather well but I'm not sure it's going to help with your confusion over how to tackle the situation. You asked if you are possibly asking too much to setup the equipment and be able to get the desired photos. The answer to that is no by the way but then your questions shift more towards candid pictures as apposed to the posed ones so it comes down to "what kind of images do you want?"

I get hired to take baby pictures in peoples homes and for that I use Lencarta lights (most of the time) and a 24-70 but to be honest it's more about technique and composition that really make the images stand out.
 
Hi Jamie,

I am really just a hobbyist if I'm honest and just looking to capture nice photos of my baby growing up and my wife too (together or separate) so kind of a mixture of candid and posed. So I'm viewing the lights as kind of an investment for current and future posed pictures and the prime for the more candid ones when we don't have time to get things set-up etc.

If I find that I am getting good results with the lights I may expand to taking pictures for friends and family but currently no plans to start to do any paid work.

Recently I was using my 70-200 and on-camera YN568EX (with Neil Van Niekirk's Black Foamie Thing) and ISO about 800 and I got quite nice results for candid shots around the house so I think for now I can get by that way for the candid shots (or use natural light if it's sufficient on its own without overly high ISO). I do love primes still but I think probably items around our house (which is where most of my time is just now) aren't the best material for nice bokeh and when we do get out and about, I have enough room to stand far enough away to use the 70-200, or just use the 24-70.

Composition is definitely something I have room to improve on though - I'm always getting annoyed on viewing pics on the computer to find I've not included hands or feet in the composition! Like in the pic below for instance :(

_MGG3032 by Michael Gallagher, on Flickr
 
Personally, for your situation I would suggest you use what you have and get proficient w/ TTL one light setups. Approaching the situations more like covering events.

When time/motivation/cooperation all coincide then you can go for the more involved setups with multiple lights/manual mode.
 
michaelg said:
Hi Jamie,

I am really just a hobbyist if I'm honest and just looking to capture nice photos of my baby growing up and my wife too (together or separate) so kind of a mixture of candid and posed. So I'm viewing the lights as kind of an investment for current and future posed pictures and the prime for the more candid ones when we don't have time to get things set-up etc.

If I find that I am getting good results with the lights I may expand to taking pictures for friends and family but currently no plans to start to do any paid work.

Recently I was using my 70-200 and on-camera YN568EX (with Neil Van Niekirk's Black Foamie Thing) and ISO about 800 and I got quite nice results for candid shots around the house so I think for now I can get by that way for the candid shots (or use natural light if it's sufficient on its own without overly high ISO). I do love primes still but I think probably items around our house (which is where most of my time is just now) aren't the best material for nice bokeh and when we do get out and about, I have enough room to stand far enough away to use the 70-200, or just use the 24-70.

Composition is definitely something I have room to improve on though - I'm always getting annoyed on viewing pics on the computer to find I've not included hands or feet in the composition! Like in the pic below for instance :(

_MGG3032 by Michael Gallagher, on Flickr
Click to expand...



Ok that makes sense so I think a combination is what you're after. I think there's a bit too much going on in the image you just provided and it's my view that when it comes to baby pictures there should be little distractions unless they really add to the scene.

I would recommend removing the toy to the left and change the patterned background to a white sheet or something plain. If it was be I would take the picture without the stripey suit and take the picture above the waist. You could also improve the angle by twisting what I presume is a beanbag slightly anti-clockwise and come down a bit lower (a bit more than 45 degrees), this will mean that you need something plain and neutral in the background but a white wall would suffice about 1-2 meters behind. The image is also underexposed and you need more light in there, probably closer to the subject.
 
connersz said:
Ok that makes sense so I think a combination is what you're after. I think there's a bit too much going on in the image you just provided and it's my view that when it comes to baby pictures there should be little distractions unless they really add to the scene.

I would recommend removing the toy to the left and change the patterned background to a white sheet or something plain. If it was be I would take the picture without the stripey suit and take the picture above the waist. You could also improve the angle by twisting what I presume is a beanbag slightly anti-clockwise and come down a bit lower (a bit more than 45 degrees), this will mean that you need something plain and neutral in the background but a white wall would suffice about 1-2 meters behind. The image is also underexposed and you need more light in there, probably closer to the subject.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Jamie - lots of useful feedback there! It was kind of a grab shot - I was standing on the bed above Amy trying to balance long enough to take the shot, with as mentioned before, bounced on-camera flash flagged to avoid any direct flash falling on her. The u-shaped cushion was as she's not quite at the sitting up stage yet - the pattern isn't my favourite either but it's what we have :) Stripey outfit was the last wear of a Christmas themed outfit before she outgrows it. Re exposure, I did just a very quick edit in LR (changed to Camera Portrait from Adobe Standard and lens correction) and then exported as jpeg to share with the family. But will brighten up in LR and see how it goes.

Any thoughts on the first image? I know this isn't really the section for critique but seeing as we're here... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top