[E92Fan]

Originally Posted by Dan in PA

I saw it and commented. It's cool that they used the 5D II, but I'm wondering what percentage of pro and semi-pro users actually regularly use the video function...idk, I just think it's gimmicky and they should spend the $ on developing other things. A camcorder that takes DSLR lenses, on the other hand...







24-70 f/2.8

I have the 24-70 f/2.8 and it's an amazing lens, crystal clear, tack sharp right into the corners, no ghosting, just beautiful images...

BUT...

I just don't use it enough!! The focal lengths it covers are not what I shoot predominantly - I either go wide (and hover around 16-20mm) or work from 85mm onwards.

[mister wiggles]

35L
85L
135L

Trinity Trio on FF. unfortunately i don't like the 85L, focuses too slow.

Wouldn't mind owning this one, just to have it 28-300L
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2

[BillLee]

I currently have Nikkor 35mm f/1.8, Sigma 10-22mm f4-5.6, and Nikkor 18-200mm f3.5-5.6. I'm pretty happy with them but this is my dream setup:

Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8
Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

[KANdaddy]

I notice a lot of people saying the would have a 70-200 and a 24-70. Why wouldn't you kill two birds with one stone and get a 18-200? When I had my 18-55 and 55-200 I found it so annoying to have to change lens all the time because found I often wanted to shoot the same subject with the range of both lenses.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by KANdaddy

I notice a lot of people saying the would have a 70-200 and a 24-70. Why wouldn't you kill two birds with one stone and get a 18-200? When I had my 18-55 and 55-200 I found it so annoying to have to change lens all the time because found I often wanted to shoot the same subject with the range of both lenses.

Because the 18-200 is SLOOOOOOW. f5.6 at 200mm vs. f2.8 at 200mm. That means you can't control the DOF as well, and the lens will focus significantly slower (due to less light reaching the AF sensors.) Try shooting sports at 200mm with the 18-200 and see how many shots you get in focus vs. using a faster lens.

Also, the quality of the glass in the 24-70 and 70-200 is much better than the 18-200.

The 18-200 is a good lens (I used to own one), but I felt constrained by the variable aperture. Also, the 18-200 is a DX-only lens so if you move up to FF at some point, it has to go.

[Dan in PA]

Originally Posted by scollins

Because the 18-200 is SLOOOOOOW. f5.6 at 200mm vs. f2.8 at 200mm. That means you can't control the DOF as well, and the lens will focus significantly slower (due to less light reaching the AF sensors.) Try shooting sports at 200mm with the 18-200 and see how many shots you get in focus vs. using a faster lens.

Also, the quality of the glass in the 24-70 and 70-200 is much better than the 18-200.

The 18-200 is a good lens (I used to own one), but I felt constrained by the variable aperture. Also, the 18-200 is a DX-only lens so if you move up to FF at some point, it has to go.

Won't it still work in DX crop mode? But you're right, it should go.

[KANdaddy]

Originally Posted by scollins

Because the 18-200 is SLOOOOOOW. f5.6 at 200mm vs. f2.8 at 200mm. That means you can't control the DOF as well, and the lens will focus significantly slower (due to less light reaching the AF sensors.) Try shooting sports at 200mm with the 18-200 and see how many shots you get in focus vs. using a faster lens.

Also, the quality of the glass in the 24-70 and 70-200 is much better than the 18-200.

The 18-200 is a good lens (I used to own one), but I felt constrained by the variable aperture. Also, the 18-200 is a DX-only lens so if you move up to FF at some point, it has to go.

thanks. makes sense

[scollins]

Originally Posted by Dan in PA

Won't it still work in DX crop mode? But you're right, it should go.

Yes, FX bodies will automatically switch to DX-crop mode when an DX lens is attached. But, if you have the coin for a minimum $2,500 (D700) body and upwards of $8,500 (D3x), do you really want to slap a DX lens on there?

[Mr Tonka]

i'm running 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200is all F2.8

[Dan in PA]

Originally Posted by scollins

Yes, FX bodies will automatically switch to DX-crop mode when an DX lens is attached. But, if you have the coin for a minimum $2,500 (D700) body and upwards of $8,500 (D3x), do you really want to slap a DX lens on there?

Agreed 100%.

[dcstep]

In my bag:

EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (my walk around)
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM (incredible for autos, portraits, macro)
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM (birds and wildlife)

The above kit is not complete without EF 1.4x TC II and EF 25mm ET and diopiter kit for the 70-200mm for macros.

Camera's; 7D for sports, birds and wildlife; 5D MkII for almost everything else.

Next on the list:

EF 17mm TS-E f/4L (I may change my mind and get a super-wide zoom, after a rental comparison)

Notice there's not an f/2.8 among them. I believe in taking advantage of my cameras' excellent high-ISO performance. I suffered with film and ASAs of 25, 100, 200, etc. and used to own f/1.2 and f/2 lenses, but I consider that a waste in these days of practical ISO up to and including 6400. In early morning, I routinely shoot at ISO 1600 and 3200 with my f/4 500 with the 1.4TC stacked on it. The results are great.

Dave

[leJUNd]

50 1.4
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8

[leemik]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

i couldn't just own three.
if i had to go on a trip, i'd take (bear in mind these are full frame, not crop)
a 16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8.

^^This

but if i was going on a trip i probably wouldn't take my dslr.. I've done it before and it was not very enjoyable to carry around something that expensive and heavy while I was trying to enjoy myself.

[vachss]

Originally Posted by leemik

but if i was going on a trip i probably wouldn't take my dslr.. I've done it before and it was not very enjoyable to carry around something that expensive and heavy while I was trying to enjoy myself.

A couple of years ago I dragged this boatload of crap around Australia for several months.



Despite the 30 pounds of gear I actually had a pretty good time... but I agree you have to be really into photography as your main point of traveling to enjoy doing this.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

i'm running 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200is all F2.8

Same here except swap the 24-70 with 50mm/1.2. Gotta have at least one prime in there. I had the 24-70 prior to the 50 and don't miss it one bit.

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by vachss

A couple of years ago I dragged this boatload of crap around Australia for several months.

Despite the 30 pounds of gear I actually had a pretty good time... but I agree you have to be really into photography as your main point of traveling to enjoy doing this.

Agreed. I remember carrying about 10 lbs worth of crap while climbing a waterfall in Jamaica. I figured hell I was there so I might as well do it. Besides it was a good photo opportunity. I'm glad I did because I took some very nice pictures.

[Cyruz]

Originally Posted by KANdaddy

I notice a lot of people saying the would have a 70-200 and a 24-70. Why wouldn't you kill two birds with one stone and get a 18-200? When I had my 18-55 and 55-200 I found it so annoying to have to change lens all the time because found I often wanted to shoot the same subject with the range of both lenses.

because other than the 18-200 being slow, the other 2 have superior IQ, sharpness, color and contrast rendition. they arent in the same class.

also, to answer your question, you need 3 pieces of information -
what are you shooting with, crop body or FF?
what do you shoot mostly?
do you want primes or zooms?

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by vachss

A couple of years ago I dragged this boatload of crap around Australia for several months.



Despite the 30 pounds of gear I actually had a pretty good time... but I agree you have to be really into photography as your main point of traveling to enjoy doing this.

Arrgh, as Tim the Toolman would say, "More focal length."

Like you say, when photorgraphy becomes the main point (or a major point of your travel) even those big f/4 superteles can be worth carrying.

I've got a ThinkTank international carry-on sized roller bag for two bodies, my 500mm f/4L IS, my 70-200 f/4L IS and my 24-105mm f/4L IS and sundry other stuff. I'm taking it all to Florida next week and Alaska in July. For NYC I just took the 5D2 and the 24-105mm in a small bag, but if there's a chance for some birds or wildlife I take the whole kit.

When we travel with friends, they love the fact that I'll document the trip. I send them the jpegs on a DVD after each trip. It's amazing how they'll often say after the fact, "I didn't even see that."

Dave

[E92Fan]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Arrgh, as Tim the Toolman would say, "More focal length."

Like you say, when photorgraphy becomes the main point (or a major point of your travel) even those big f/4 superteles can be worth carrying.

I've got a ThinkTank international carry-on sized roller bag for two bodies, my 500mm f/4L IS, my 70-200 f/4L IS and my 24-105mm f/4L IS and sundry other stuff. I'm taking it all to Florida next week and Alaska in July. For NYC I just took the 5D2 and the 24-105mm in a small bag, but if there's a chance for some birds or wildlife I take the whole kit.

When we travel with friends, they love the fact that I'll document the trip. I send them the jpegs on a DVD after each trip. It's amazing how they'll often say after the fact, "I didn't even see that."

Dave

I agree entirely. It's amusing how many times my friends bemoan the fact I carry a big ThinkTank backpack along on a holiday, but then exclaim in amazement at the diversity and quality of images I manage to get, especially when compared to what they have obtained using a little compact. Then they always beg to get copies

I am selective with what I take though, depending on where in the world I'm heading to. No real point taking the 400mm f/2.8 if I'm going on a beach holiday! My normal backpack has the following -

Nikon D3X & D300 bodies
16-35mm f/4
24-70mm f/2.8
85mm f/1.4
135 f/2 DC
80-200mm f/2.8
SB900 flash
Lastolite mini reflector
Right-angle viewfinder
1.4x tele-converter

It's a chunky load, but very manageable as a backpack and covers the vast majority of my normal photo requirements. I'm not big on sports or wildlife - I'm more of a reportage/photo journalist with a bit of portraiture thrown in.

If I pare the system right down and need to travel light-ish, then I'll take only the D3X, 16-35mm, either the 85mm or 135mm, and flash unit.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by E92Fan

I agree entirely. It's amusing how many times my friends bemoan the fact I carry a big ThinkTank backpack along on a holiday, but then exclaim in amazement at the diversity and quality of images I manage to get, especially when compared to what they have obtained using a little compact. Then they always beg to get copies

Which Think Tank backpack are you running? Seems like a lot stuff that you are able to stuff in there. I assume it is also "carry-on" rated, or do you place it in a Pelican or something like that and check it?

[E92Fan]

Originally Posted by scollins

Which Think Tank backpack are you running? Seems like a lot stuff that you are able to stuff in there. I assume it is also "carry-on" rated, or do you place it in a Pelican or something like that and check it?

I use the Airport Acceleration V2.0 - click here for link

It's got everything in it, and the two camera bodies are mounted ready to go with lenses - the D3X has either the 16-35mm or 24-70mm on it, and the D300 has the 85mm mounted.

It also has my 15" Macbook in the front pocket, and I can even strap my Manfrotto tripod to the side if I need to

The whole thing is carry-on rated, although you should use an airline that has no weight restrictions on carry on baggage!

[scollins]

Originally Posted by E92Fan

The whole thing is carry-on rated, although you should use an airline that has no weight restrictions on carry on baggage!

Just wear long sleeves so they don't see your bulging muscles, struggling to lift it in the overhead bin.....