Nikon Lens for school plays? or DX > FX?

Zarch

Zarch

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,005
Name
Mick
Edit My Images
Yes
Over the past couple of years the little ones have been in school plays.

You know the score, low light, but kids moving, so terrible shooting conditions.

Last year I used my old D7000, this year the D7100 and from the front row (get there early) i've been using my Tamron 17-50 and shooting wholly at 2.8. This meant the 70-200 2.8 sat in the bag, 70mm wasn't wide enough for me from where I was sat.

Using the 17-50 at 2.8 meant I can hover around 1/200 and have to put up with iso 6400 in most cases. Acceptable I suppose, but you'd always like lower.

Most of the time i'm around 17-35mm, but i'd really like to zoom more, but am I asking for something that doesn't exist?

A 2.8 lens from 17mm to 70/80/90/100mm? It doesn't exist does it? Or maybe a 1.8 around 17-35? The Sigma ART? Shoot at 1.8 allows lower ISO and maybe crop?

Or do I upgrade from D7100 > D7200 for a little ISO boost and again, just crop where required to get zoom that way?

Typing it all out, I feel i'm bound by the limitations of the DX sensor? I imagine a jump to FF would mean better noise management so I could crop more?

A no brainer that a 24-70 2.8 on a DXXX would be much better than a D7100/D7200 with my 17-50 2.8? But at what financial cost?

D7100 & 17-50 (£500) versus D6XX/D700/D800 and 24-70, anything from £1200 to £2000.

A DX to FX jump hardly seems worth it just for slightly better images once or twice a year?

mmmmmmmmmmm.
 
Last edited:
Zarch said:
Most of the time i'm around 17-35mm, but i'd really like to zoom more, but am I asking for something that doesn't exist?

.
Click to expand...

Buy a good D700 and use a Nikon 50mm f1.8 and crop to suit ....... it is also a good way to compare/appreciate FX over DX

use your other lens as needed

(I have always found the smaller DX sensors in the D7xxx ...... to be noisy over ISO 800 - I have had/have all three)
 
Last edited:
Morning Mick

As you say it's a huge outlay for once or twice per year, but I guess it depends how 'valuable' pictures of your kids in the school play are, and how flush you're feeling ;) However, looking at your general photography you don't appear to do a lot of wildlife or sports requiring telephoto so crop bodies don't really offer you any advantage over FF (other than AF spread), so IMO FF would offer an improvement more than once or twice/year. As you can see here, in low light FF would offer you about 1 & 2/3 stop improvement over the D7100 and maybe just over a stop better than the D7200.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...=1&x=0.1312927631284066&y=-0.9790009973890715

If you were seriously considering swapping to FF a used D700 (as mentioned) and a used Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 would offer a relatively cheap way into FF, if you don't mind the bulk of the D700 and can manage with 'only' 12MP. Another good option would be a used D610.
 
Last edited:
Hi Toby,

Thanks for the reply, but I beg to differ slightly on the requirement for needing telephoto.

I will admit, i'm not using my gear each and every week, but when I do use it I want the right lens for the job.

Through the summer at my kids dancing shows, shooting outdoors, I love using the 18-140 and getting both wide angle and zoom. Its pure convenience, ultimately not the highest quality, but i'm still taking good shots imho. The sun is shining and around f8 yields decent results on that lens. I've tried the 17-50 & 70-200 combo and whilst the IQ raises I miss shots as the shows are only 10 mins, so i'm happy with the 18-140 compromise. FF alternative?

I also like to take photos of running races. Happy with 17-50 for this in the main.

General day to day. The D7100 and 17-50 is an awesome 'little' package that is bolted on almost 99% of the time and I don't mind carrying it over the shoulder. I've tried the Nikon 17-55 equivalent and it's too heavy. This makes me think any FF body and lens combo would be too big and heavy for me. Not to mention, won't provide the flexibility in lens that I need and it will all cost too much anyway?

I also have a 35mm 1.8 and a 70-200 2.8 in the cupboard just incase, but I rarely use them.

Looking back at the photos from Friday, the main issues are

a) not quite sharp enough due to 1/200 ish
b) a little noisy, but not overly and looking back, i'm happy enough with 6400 if I can sort the sharpness out.

I'm thinking the 18-35mm art 1.8 could fill the gap for these indoor shows?

Shooting at 1.8 as opposed to 2.8 gives me 1.3 stop, so i'd be able to up the shutter to sort the sharpness and maybe still drop the iso a little?

Maybe sell on the 35mm to part fund the 18-35 1.8? A relatively cheap solution in comparison to an all out assault on FF?

Every Time people talk about the 18-35 1.8 on here they rave..... granted, they say it's heavy, but I won't be walking about with it.
 
Zarch said:
Hi Toby,

Thanks for the reply, but I beg to differ slightly on the requirement for needing telephoto.

I will admit, i'm not using my gear each and every week, but when I do use it I want the right lens for the job.

Through the summer at my kids dancing shows, shooting outdoors, I love using the 18-140 and getting both wide angle and zoom. Its pure convenience, ultimately not the highest quality, but i'm still taking good shots imho. The sun is shining and around f8 yields decent results on that lens. I've tried the 17-50 & 70-200 combo and whilst the IQ raises I miss shots as the shows are only 10 mins, so i'm happy with the 18-140 compromise. FF alternative?

I also like to take photos of running races. Happy with 17-50 for this in the main.

General day to day. The D7100 and 17-50 is an awesome 'little' package that is bolted on almost 99% of the time and I don't mind carrying it over the shoulder. I've tried the Nikon 17-55 equivalent and it's too heavy. This makes me think any FF body and lens combo would be too big and heavy for me. Not to mention, won't provide the flexibility in lens that I need and it will all cost too much anyway?

I also have a 35mm 1.8 and a 70-200 2.8 in the cupboard just incase, but I rarely use them.

Looking back at the photos from Friday, the main issues are

a) not quite sharp enough due to 1/200 ish
b) a little noisy, but not overly and looking back, i'm happy enough with 6400 if I can sort the sharpness out.

I'm thinking the 18-35mm art 1.8 could fill the gap for these indoor shows?

Shooting at 1.8 as opposed to 2.8 gives me 1.3 stop, so i'd be able to up the shutter to sort the sharpness and maybe still drop the iso a little?

Maybe sell on the 35mm to part fund the 18-35 1.8? A relatively cheap solution in comparison to an all out assault on FF?

Every Time people talk about the 18-35 1.8 on here they rave..... granted, they say it's heavy, but I won't be walking about with it.
Click to expand...
I didn't realise you used the 18-140 so much tbh, I guess the 28-300mm could be an alternative although not sure how it would compare in terms of IQ. But my point wasn't so much about not needing a telephoto, more about needing the extra reach advantage of the crop body :p But obviously, you know more than me if this is the case or not ;)

The 18-35mm does sound a good option to me, gives you everything you need (faster shutter/lower noise) and a much cheaper option than moving to FF.
 
Not sure the D700 offers a great deal of advantage over a D7100 tbh. Surprised it's so dark and dingy on a stage requiring 6400 ISO tbh. The D700 is a lovely camera, I have one and a D7100 but it's got quite a noisy shutter, I always wondered how wedding photographers coped with it in comparison to many other Nikons. Was it Sigma that did the 17-70?
 
IMHO, for what you are talking about the D7200 is not worth upgrading to from the D7100 - (I still have both)

I only upgraded mine for the increased buffer size and fps - I only use the D7200/D7100 for birds
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
I used the 18-35 on a D7100 and it is the best lens for sharpness.

If you found the Nikon 17-55 heavy then i dare say you will find the 18-35 heavy too.
Click to expand...
But it's fantastic glass! It is a beautiful lens! Selling that lens was my biggest consideration to going full frame
 
Just my opinion - and I know this is 'Talk Equipment' - just enjoy watching your kids in the play and stop worrying about photography. Take what you have and snap away by all means, but in years to come no-one will care if there's a little too much noise in the photos or that the depth of field wasn't optimal. It's the memories that count and an extra stop of high ISO performance isn't going to influence that one jot. Spend the money on Christmas presents or a holiday!

Feel free to disagree!
 
Organise a studio shoot for school on dress rehearsal and sell the images to parents and make a few quid from it... you wont have radiators and gym equipment and naff kids art on walls in the background either!

And get a large Baby Bell in the crib. It is the time of Baby cheeses after all................
 
Last edited:
Is this thread real? All this equipment for a school play?
 
Dupe, please remove. Ta.
 
redsnappa said:
Is this thread real? All this equipment for a school play?
Click to expand...
But I enjoy spending other people's money!


You need a d750 with a full range of ziess lenses prime from 18-70mm

That's about 20k spent .....

What else .....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top