My two camera set up. Ideas for lenses welcome.

L

lukewoodford

FYI, I am Luke Woodford.....by Luke Woodford
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,320
Name
Luke Woodford
Edit My Images
No
Ok since the now infamous "Prague Fiasco" in a few days I will have a D300 back so my camera set up will be-

Nikon D300, Nikon D700

Lenses- Sigma 50mm f/1.4, Nikon 28mm AI-S

My Sigma (when it works) I can use for most things like I have been- portraits, family stuff, glamour and the most used lens at weddings.

What I really want is a great set up for weddings. I love a good prime and im used to working with them. Im thinking somehting like wideangle on the D700 and longer on the D300. I actually know for me in most situations the Sigma 50mm is long enough on a D300, I actually think its long enough on my D700. The wedding I have just done I used it and I got great results, I do love this lens because its so sharp wide open. Anyway what do you guys think my setup should be? I like hearing your ideas.

Luke
 
Hi Luke,

I shoot using pretty much the same body set-up as you have. I leave the Nikkor 50 1.4 on the D300 (for the day) as this is really intended to be my back up and I want it as a catch all solution should I need it quickly.

My D700 normally has either the 24-70 or the 85 1.4 or the 70-200 on it depending on circumstances. Its only occasionally I go wider then 24 mm at a wedding, and my gut feeling is leaving a wider angle lens on the camera would result in it being wasted for most of the day.

Cheers

Hugh
 
boyfalldown said:
Hi Luke,

I shoot using pretty much the same body set-up as you have. I leave the Nikkor 50 1.4 on the D300 (for the day) as this is really intended to be my back up and I want it as a catch all solution should I need it quickly.

My D700 normally has either the 24-70 or the 85 1.4 or the 70-200 on it depending on circumstances. Its only occasionally I go wider the 24 mm at a wedding, and my gut feeling is leaving a wider angle lens on the camera would result in it being wasted for most of the day.

Cheers

Hugh
Click to expand...


Yeah my problem is if I got the 24-70 I can image id only use that or the 50mm and I really want to make the most out of having two bodies. Its interesting, so many choices. The 24-70 is a definate possibility but id have to wait a little while for one, too expensive at the mo.
 
I agree - it is. I run that set up just because I view the d300 has a back up only so I know I don't make the best use of it. Maybe I should try to make a bit more use of the second body, be interesting to see what set upf other people run during the day.

Cheers

Hugh
 
I can, and have, shot weddings with nothing more than a 24-70 on one D3 and a 50/1.4 on the other.

But I'd never turn up with just those. The 24-70 tends to stay on one body for most of a given wedding. It may get switched for a 14-24 or 70-200 on occasion. I'll also have a 35/2, 85/1.4, 105/2.8 with me, along with a D700 backup.

I personally don't believe a longest lens of 50mm is anywhere near long enough, nor a 28mm wide enough. You are going to get ceremonies where you'll not be allowed at the front and you are going to get group shots where you need wider than 28mm.

At the moment you're very short on glass for professional wedding photography. You have to assume one or both lenses will fail. At the moment you're stuffed if that happens.
 
Radiohead said:
I can, and have, shot weddings with nothing more than a 24-70 on one D3 and a 50/1.4 on the other.

But I'd never turn up with just those. The 24-70 tends to stay on one body for most of a given wedding. It may get switched for a 14-24 or 70-200 on occasion. I'll also have a 35/2, 85/1.4, 105/2.8 with me, along with a D700 backup.

I personally don't believe a longest lens of 50mm is anywhere near long enough, nor a 28mm wide enough. You are going to get ceremonies where you'll not be allowed at the front and you are going to get group shots where you need wider than 28mm.

At the moment you're very short on glass for professional wedding photography. You have to assume one or both lenses will fail. At the moment you're stuffed if that happens.
Click to expand...


Hence the thread im getting another lens and more in time.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
What about a 70-200 VR? That'll work fine on both bodies
Click to expand...

I thought about that but too expensive at the moment, I also like the primes as they are generally smaller and I like them. the 70-200 will probably come in a few months time I reckon.
 
lukewoodford said:
Hence the thread im getting another lens and more in time.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but you have to mitigate on the loss of reputation possible until that happens.

I'd buy the best you can as soon as you can - buy cheap, buy twice and all that.

Buy for your best body, so a 24-70 should be on the list, as should a true portrait lens - so an 85/105/135 or 70-200.

And I second Andy's point on the D700/D300 below.
 
Well... I think you should lose the D300 and get another D700 for a start.

The D300 is a poor backup to the D700.

I'd be looking at two D700, with a 24-70 or 28-75/28-70 on one body all the time.

I don't do weddings but I think you need a second body as good as your first, and one Pro zoom too.
 
puddleduck said:
Well... I think you should lose the D300 and get another D700 for a start.

The D300 is a poor backup to the D700.

I'd be looking at two D700, with a 24-70 or 28-75/28-70 on one body all the time.

I don't do weddings but I think you need a second body as good as your first, and one Pro zoom too.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, I loved my D300 and have regretted selling it since I did. The only area for the work I do where the D700 is better I find is the ISO, but on Saturday I learnt how to use flash and still keep the ambience good. I think I will get the 24-70. To be honest though I don't know why you NEED a pro zoom. I produced these http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=122035 on saturday with my two lenses and I know an amazing photographer on here that uses two bodies with two primes. I do agreet that 28mm might not always be wide enough for group shots though and would like soemthing a bit wider.

EDIT: I don't mean just keep my two primes though as I want more for backup
 
Radiohead said:
That's fine, but you have to mitigate on the loss of reputation possible until that happens.

I'd buy the best you can as soon as you can - buy cheap, buy twice and all that.

Buy for your best body, so a 24-70 should be on the list, as should a true portrait lens - so an 85/105/135 or 70-200.

And I second Andy's point on the D700/D300 below.
Click to expand...

yep 24-70 I think will be next then the 85 f/1.4 Ok close thread :)
 
You need to provide backup for your lenses as well Luke. So that 24-70 pretty much covers you for primes from 24, through 35 and 50, to 85mm.

In my experience there are plenty of wedding pros who use only primes, but very few of them don't have a fast standard zoom in the bag.

The D700 has a tonality and richness that the D300 doesn't.
 
Well those are very nice primes - I have both of them, and love them, but I can't help but think that you are limiting yourself at 50mm and 28mm.

I think you need something around 24/28-70, I really do.

The D700 is vastly superior the the D300, and would be noticeable to a client if your D700 died I think.
 
Radiohead said:
You need to provide backup for your lenses as well Luke. So that 24-70 pretty much covers you for primes from 24, through 35 and 50, to 85mm.

In my experience there are plenty of wedding pros who use only primes, but very few of them don't have a fast standard zoom in the bag.

The D700 has a tonality and richness that the D300 doesn't.
Click to expand...

I don't see it, I really don't. Anyway thats another debate.
 
puddleduck said:
Well those are very nice primes - I have both of them, and love them, but I can't help but think that you are limiting yourself at 50mm and 28mm.

But if it works for you, why not stick to it?
Click to expand...

Because I want backup so I don't have another incident. Anyway think I have decided on the 24-70 now, just got to get one mint second had or wait for the price to drop a bit. I can't bring myself to pay that price when I know what it was a couple months back.
 
puddleduck said:
The D700 is vastly superior the the D300, and would be noticeable to a client if your D700 died I think.
Click to expand...

Andy,I am still sorely tempted to get a D700,is it really THAT much better than the D300? Would it produce so much better images with my 80-200 on it than my D300?

Advice appreciated........:thumbs:
 
I really like both of these primes - I shoot mainly primes myself, but I suspect you will get into situations where due to environment neither 50mm or 28mm will do.

I'm not a fan of the 24-70 at all due to its size / bulk but in your instance I think you need to get one.
 
fracster said:
Andy,I am still sorely tempted to get a D700,is it really THAT much better than the D300? Would it produce so much better images with my 80-200 on it than my D300?

Advice appreciated........:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Well... I got a D300 a few weeks back, and frankly I can easily see the difference.

Its quite hard to quantify, but images are tonally much nicer, more "3d" looking, bokeh transition tends to be smoother, with more graceful OOF fades.

You won't see this shooting test charts or brickwalls, but 5 minutes with both and decent lens will convince :)

A real joy for me as an old lens nut is being able to use them all as nature intended too, a big plus for me personally. And the big viewfinder. And the much faster less laggy 14-bit performance...
 
puddleduck said:
Well... I got a D300 a few weeks back, and frankly I can easily see the difference.

Its quite hard to quantify, but images are tonally much nicer, more "3d" looking, bokeh transition tends to be smoother, with more graceful OOF fades.

You won't see this shooting test charts or brickwalls, but 5 minutes with both and decent lens will convince :)

A real joy for me as an old lens nut is being able to use them all as nature intended too, a big plus for me personally. And the big viewfinder. And the much faster less laggy 14-bit performance...
Click to expand...

I actually think I prefered the more choppy bokeh of the D300, definatley for my outside family shoots. Maybe imwierd :cuckoo:
 
lukewoodford said:
I actually think I prefered the more choppy bokeh of the D300, definatley for my outside family shoots. Maybe imwierd :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Well you are definately seeing the difference.

I didn't expect you to prefer the DX rendition though :lol:
 
Not sure what others may think, but how about the Fuji S5 pro as a back up body. Then it makes the 24-70 2.8 more affordable as the fuji is half the price of the D300.
 
I disagree with the statement made above that a D300 is an unacceptable back-up to a main body of a D700. From what I remember reading of Luke's posts over the last few months, he is fairly new as a pro photographer and he's on a very steep learning curve but from the results I've seen him post, he seems to be doing remarkably well. Photograhers in their first year or so of being professional generally aren't in the fortunate position of having the money to buy two £1,800 bodies and all the lenses you need to go with them. For the stage he is at right now then I think a D700 and a D300 is an acceptable position to be in and the limited money he does have available seems to be going in to building up his array of lenses and rightly so.

As for my advice on what lens you should get Luke, go for the best you can get for the budget you have available. If that means a 24-70mm then great. If you don't have the budget for that now then get something a little cheaper and trade up when you have the funds to do so. It's a tough balancing act between buying everything you want off your wish list and still making sure there's enough money in the bank to pay the bills.
 
-Rob- said:
I disagree with the statement made above that a D300 is an unacceptable back-up to a main body of a D700. From what I remember reading of Luke's posts over the last few months, he is fairly new as a pro photographer and he's on a very steep learning curve but from the results I've seen him post, he seems to be doing remarkably well. Photograhers in their first year or so of being professional generally aren't in the fortunate position of having the money to buy two £1,800 bodies and all the lenses you need to go with them. For the stage he is at right now then I think a D700 and a D300 is an acceptable position to be in and the limited money he does have available seems to be going in to building up his array of lenses and rightly so.

As for my advice on what lens you should get Luke, go for the best you can get for the budget you have available. If that means a 24-70mm then great. If you don't have the budget for that now then get something a little cheaper and trade up when you have the funds to do so. It's a tough balancing act between buying everything you want off your wish list and still making sure there's enough money in the bank to pay the bills.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that post, yes 8 month ago I decided to become a photographer. I do have savings and could buy it all now but id like to keep alot of my savings as I worked so hard to save in the first place, then spend some of the money I make from photography upgrading. The D300 is coming straight out my savings though.
 
-Rob- said:
I disagree with the statement made above that a D300 is an unacceptable back-up to a main body of a D700. From what I remember reading of Luke's posts over the last few months, he is fairly new as a pro photographer and he's on a very steep learning curve but from the results I've seen him post, he seems to be doing remarkably well. Photograhers in their first year or so of being professional generally aren't in the fortunate position of having the money to buy two £1,800 bodies and all the lenses you need to go with them. For the stage he is at right now then I think a D700 and a D300 is an acceptable position to be in and the limited money he does have available seems to be going in to building up his array of lenses and rightly so.
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone said it's unacceptable. The point was made that, for wedding photography, the D700 is a better body. And it is.

I'm also a firm proponent of having 2 bodies exactly the same.

Much of my comment here is aimed at ensuring a clearly capable photographer doesn't get his fingers burnt due to lack of backup.
 
Radiohead said:
I dont think anyone said it's unacceptable. The point was made that, for wedding photography, the D700 is a better body. And it is.

I'm also a firm proponent of having 2 bodies exactly the same.

Much of my comment here is aimed at ensuring a clearly capable photographer doesn't get his fingers burnt due to lack of backup.
Click to expand...

And its all greatly appreciated. I must say I love your wedding work.
 
what about the Nikon 17-55 on the DX Body? Will give a simplar range tot he 24-70 FX Body
 
Sorry i was alittle vague

My thought would be use the zoom (17-55) on the D300 thus giving you the freedome to use your primes on the D700 as you say you prefer those, i was meaning the 17-55 to go on the 300 and you save a fair bit and meaning you dont have to buy the 24-70 and put the money into other aspects you need aswell
 
whitey said:
Sorry i was alittle vague

My thought would be use the zoom (17-55) on the D300 thus giving you the freedome to use your primes on the D700 as you say you prefer those, i was meaning the 17-55 to go on the 300 and you save a fair bit and meaning you dont have to buy the 24-70 and put the money into other aspects you need aswell
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea that mate....
 
lukewoodford said:
Not a bad idea that mate....
Click to expand...

not sure I agree there though - quick glance at prices shows the cheapest new 17-55 is £930 and the cheapest new 24-70 is £1,185. Either lens is great, but the 17-55 doesn't give the future proofing of the 24-70 and I suspect you'll end up selling it again fairly quickly. You also wouldn't be able to use it on your d700 if you were in a situation now when a zoom was advantageous over a prime

Hugh
 
At a pinch the 17-55 will work on the D700. Apparently it'll give full frame coverage from about 30mm out. Never tried it myself.
 
puddleduck said:
At a pinch the 17-55 will work on the D700. Apparently it'll give full frame coverage from about 30mm out. Never tried it myself.
Click to expand...

I've heard that as well, but if you could choose, would you choose to do it this way?

H
 
Personally I'd get a 24-70 but only on a full frame body. But then I think Luke needs two identical bodies, one of which should have a 24-70 on.

But if he wants to go with a D300, the 17-55 is still a very sound choice.
 
boyfalldown said:
not sure I agree there though - quick glance at prices shows the cheapest new 17-55 is £930 and the cheapest new 24-70 is £1,185. Either lens is great, but the 17-55 doesn't give the future proofing of the 24-70 and I suspect you'll end up selling it again fairly quickly. You also wouldn't be able to use it on your d700 if you were in a situation now when a zoom was advantageous over a prime

Hugh
Click to expand...

If you look around though you can get a 17-55 for under £600 second hand, its quite a saving and its a great lens to get started with, especially as the OP mentions preferring primes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top