| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Least Useful Lens
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 12:38 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> I'm shopping for new gear. I have lots of wants. However I'm trying to figure out what lenses/bodies/gear I actually need.
So I'm hoping you all can help. Which lenses do you use least? Which lenses least justified their cost? Which lenses did you end up selling after a year or two due to lack of use?
FYI I currently shoot with a Nikkor 70-300 4.5-5.6, 50 1.4 and 14-24 2.8. My inclination is to upgrade my long glass first and I've been debating between 70-200 2.8, 300 2.8 and 400 2.8.
Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer. |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 12:44 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> I object! Vague and over broad! |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 12:47 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> What do you primarily shoot? That will go a long ways to answering your question. |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 12:53 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> Randy, general local news stuff. Everything from youth/high school sports to fires to municipal meetings to feature photos. |
|
Thomas Campbell, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 1:35 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> Lensbaby.
That should be the answer from here to 50. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> Paul, if you're using a D3 chassis, may I suggest you look instead at a 200-400 f4? Since buying one and selling my 400mm f2.8, I haven't looked back. The D3 will easily allow you to bump up the ISO to compensate for the loss of speed. The lens is fast to focus and produces great images.
Even my beloved 300mm f2.8 sits in the bag a great deal of the time. You can buy them used for $5300 give or take...
Hope this helps.
Michael |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 2:12 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> Michael, my biggest hesitation with the 200-400 is it prohibits the use of a teleconverter (right?). Part of me likes the idea of being able to convert a 300 or 400 prime into a 600 or 800. Of course this sort of range would not help everyday. But would be invaluable for shooting certain "big field" sports, certain crime stories, some feature photos (nature, distant subjects, etc.). |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 2:20 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> Most newspapers have a 16-35, 70-200 and a 300. All f/2.8.
That's about all you need for photojournalism.
Or go the old route of a 35 f/1.4 and something longer.
The 70-200 f/2.8 is a workhorse lens for most people on here. |
|
Lee Giles III, Photographer
|
Gig Harbor | WA | United States | Posted: 2:30 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> Nic hit it on the head with his response. I could shoot all year with just my wide 11-16 Tokina F 2.8 and my Canon 70-200 F 2.8 lenses. A a 1.4 TC is in my bag as well, but I hardly need it.
I have a third body with a 28-70 Canon F 2.8 on it as a another option lens. Cash is a problem for me to have a 300 F.8, although I would love to have one.
I just don't know that I would use it enough to justify canceling my kids Christmas for it. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:53 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> Paul I will happily send you files shot with a 200-400 gen 1 on a 1.7x TC shot at Gillette. Game was shot at 4:41 in December.... I'll leave all the exif in there so that you can judge for yourself. Just protect your computer before opening the files as joyous gushing will ensue.
Seriously it is an INCREDIBLE lens. Shoot me your email and get ready to put all fears aside. |
|
Greg Francis, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 8:15 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> I'd get a used 70-200 or 80-200 Nikkor.
Throughout college I shot f3.5-5.6 zooms (24-50 & 70-210) mainly because I had few mentors and no cash. In hindsight my life (and images) would have been a lot easier with 2.8 gear.
After that consider a 28-70/24-70, then the 200-400. |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 8:16 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> Approaching this backwards (most used) it would be the 70-200, 24-70 and then 300 and 400/2.8 pretty even. Since it came up the 200-400 is a great lens and the range is great for day time sports. It take the 1.4 very well and as Eric mentioned the 1.7, but of course you'll need some pretty good light for that. My least used lens is the 50/1.8. I just rarely use it. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 9:34 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> Geek Alert!
Okay. The least useful lens has go to be the 50mm (on a full frame 35mm camera or its equivalent).
It all dates back to Ernst Leitz and his design for the original Leica. He doubled the then-normal 18x24mm movie frame to make a 24x36mm format. He decided that a "normal" lens should be equal to the diagonal of his new format (A squared plus B squared equals C squared so C = 43mm!) Why? Who knows.
If 43mm was Ernst "normal" lens why did every camera come with a 50mm?
Because Leits had a rockin' design for a 50mm f/3.5 (the Elmar) on the books that they could make good, and cheap (relatively). A 43mm would have required some serious redesigning. 43mm? 50mm? Close enough!
So Leicas shipped with a 50mm lens.
Why does 50mm suck so much?
The human eye may "take in" 140ish degrees but it only pays attention, normally, to about 27-29 degrees. Your eye flicks around A LOT and your brain puts things together but your eye likes the equivalent of a 73mm lens, hence the Leica 75mm (and earlier 73mm) lenses.
When you (your brain) "focuses" on something you're paying attention to something in the 12 degree range, which is why a 180-200mm lens seems to be such a "natural" long focal length.
When you (your brain) "steps back" and thinks wide it does so to about a 85 degree angle and that is why a 28mm lens seems like a comfortable wide angle lens. Anything wider seems a bit "unnatural".
Why does the 50mm lens exist? Marketing.
As a lens it's pretty useless.
And forget the "Cartier-Bresson shot with a 50" arguement because it turns out he REALLY liked the 35mm Leica lenses and usually wandered around with one of them on his camera instead of a 50. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 9:43 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> @Jim,
I agree with you and usually carry a 35mm and an 85mm, but I do like to carry a 50.
It's cheap, small, fast and it works. |
|
Andrew Spear, Photographer, Assistant
|
Athens | OH | United States | Posted: 10:00 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> Yeah, 50's are a great length. I really only carry a 35, 50 and 85. The 50 is perfect for portraiture. |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 11:50 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> While I don't use the 50mm all that often, it's one of the sharpest and fastest lenses I own, and it's the cheapest. It comes in real handy at badly lit concert venues for the closer up stuff, and also a pretty good portrait lens on a DX body.
And though I know I'll be pretty much alone here, but I find I'm hardly using my 80-200mm AF-D zoom that I thought I had to have. It's just too dang heavy to carry on a second camera for sports, and has disappointed me too many times with poor tracking.
I recently bought the 18-200mm and I'm really impressed with it, making my 80-200 even less frequently used.
Otherwise, I really don't have a least useful. I always seem to find different lenses in the rotation for different needs, even some of my old-school manual focus stuff. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 12:24 AM on 05.17.11 |
| ->> "Leits" should, of course, be "Leitz" and "about a 85 degree angle" should be "about a 75 degree angle" (diagonal). |
|
Scott Randle, Photographer
|
Big Rapids | MI | U.S.A. | Posted: 10:15 AM on 05.17.11 |
| ->> For me the 70-200 2.8 is my standard lens for sports. The 400 2.8 is a beautiful lens but I find myself needing just a little less than 400mm at times when I have been shooting track and field this spring. I would consider the 200-400 zoom if you are looking for longer glass. |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 12:42 PM on 05.17.11 |
->> Maybe we ought to have a poll on here: "What is your favorite zoom/telephoto lens?" It's interesting there's not more consensus in this thread.
The 200-400 f4 is intriguing but I've always valued 2.8 lenses highly.
Considering I don't shoot the Red Sox (or even the Fisher Cats) full time perhaps I should stop dreaming about the uber expensive 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 ... the way I should stop dreaming about meeting, say, Alison Brie or January Jones ... and settle for the dependable, hard working and less sexy 70-200 2.8. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 3:15 PM on 05.17.11 |
->> Paul, I use a 1.4x with the lens - works fine. Assuming you're shooting with a D3 chassis, take a walk on the wild side. Besides, why would Eric or I lie?
Go ask Bert if you don't believe us. He called it in one post something like the best sports lens ever made. |
|
Peter Wine, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Dayton | OH | USA | Posted: 4:07 PM on 05.17.11 |
->> I use a 17-50 on one body and 70-200 on the other for 95% or more of what I shoot.
I cover mostly features and a few sports events here and there.
Least used (I'd guess less than five times per year) is the 28-70, in part because it needs to be cleaned, and in part because it isn't wide enough.
My ideal lens would be a 15-150 / 2.8 but as far as I know Canon doesn't make one. |
|
Rodrigo Pena, Photographer
|
Beaumont | CA | USA | Posted: 1:50 AM on 05.20.11 |
| ->> Paul I came from a paper that issued me the same as what Nic mentioned and I loved it. That was Canon gear. Now that I'm freelancing, I have switched to Nikon and I'm also trying to get my gear in order. I have the D3 bodies and a D7000. My lenses are the 50mm 1.8 (seldom used), 14-24 f/2.8 (most used lens in my bag), 70-200mm VR2, (second most used lens in my bag), 17-55mm (seldom used because it's a DX lens), 35-70mm (fourth most used lens) and finally my 400mm f/2.8 lens (3rd most used lens). I love the 400, it rocks! Sharp as heck! Fast AF, you can't go wrong with that baby. I shoot high school football on many occasion and I have found myself using the f/2.8 setting at all of my high school football events. If I had to shoot at f/4, I would be shooting at 1/250th at f/4 shutter speed compared to 1/500th at f/2.8. The clarity of the extra speed is awesome. Of course on brighter fields, like pro and college, the 200-400mm f/4 lens is definitely the way to go. Especially on a nice basketball court. It would be perfect for shooting the far side of the court. The 400mm is too tight. But for my needs, the 400mm is perfect. I sometimes wish I had a 300mm lens, (for shooting basketball) but since the D3 is a full-frame sensor, I've only been too tight a few times. In those situations, I just use my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. You can't go wrong with the 70-200mm zoom. That lens, especially the VR2 edition just ROCKS! It's great for baseball too. |
|
Tom Gannam, Photographer
|
St. Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 12:19 PM on 05.20.11 |
| ->> For everyday work its a 17-35, 70-200 on the two bodies and a 300 2.8 in the car. If it is sports on the agenda then the 400 2.8 takes its place on one of the bodies. This seems to be pretty much the norm for the photojournalism crowd around here. The super wides are cool for an occasional frame but not for regular use. When I switch to studio work or portraiture I tend to use my 28-70 more because the range fits what I am doing. In short, the perfect lens really depends on what your shooting on a regular basis. |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 5:29 PM on 05.20.11 |
->> "Why does the 50mm lens exist? Marketing. As a lens it's pretty useless."
Huh. Well, I guess that would be interesting to all the wedding photographers out their who use a 50mm f/1.2 or 50mm f/1.4 and claim it's their favorite and most-used lens for weddings.
I think it's all just a matter of preference. |
|
Paul Hayes, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Littleton | NH | USA | Posted: 5:36 PM on 05.20.11 |
| ->> You all are convincing me to buy a 70-200 2.8 and save up for a 300 or 400 2.8 later. With the money I'll save I might just buy a D7000 for video too. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:43 PM on 05.20.11 |
| ->> the one I'm not using. |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 10:43 PM on 05.21.11 |
| ->> My fav lens a 35 f1.4 on a full frame least fav the one I did not take to a shoot |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|