I’ve been anguishing over lenses lately.
Right now, my kit consists of a Nikon D300s plus the following lenses, all Nikon-made Nikkor lenses:
- 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. This is my walking around lens. I used it during my European vacation last summer, and got some terrific shots of Venice and Florence. Although with my latest purchase, this might become redundant.
- 24-70 f2.8G ED. This lens seems to be getting a little long in the tooth (no VR, for example.) But it’s a sharp lens, and I’ve gotten some great shots, like these shots of San Francisco at dusk shot from the deck of the USS Hornet. In fact, it was the relative sharpness of this lens, as compared to the more DX-oriented 17-55mm f2.8 that made me choose the 24-70.
- 70-200 f2.8G ED VR. This is the older version, not the latest VRII version. It’s fine for what I’m doing on DX sized sensors, so I didn’t feel driven to upgrade.
- AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED. I got this particular lens for a fairly dumb reason. I was shooting indoor color guard competitions (aka Winter Guard) last winter. Some of the tournaments had exlcusive deals with professional photographers, so lenses “longer than 8-inches” were prohibited. That meant the 70-200 f2.8 was out, so I picked up this lens. As it turns out, this is a fabulous lens for a variety of work, and is now one of my favorites.
What’s missing from this picture?
Shooting with a Nikon D300s means that the 16mm end of the 16-85mm isn’t particularly wide. The 24-70 f2.8 is worse. In other words, I don’t really have a good wide solution.
One of the common denominators you might notice is that most of these lenses are fast. While I’d been shooting digital for a few years, I jumped back into more serious photography with both feet when I started shooting indoor volleyball. Lighting is terrible at those venues, so fast glass becomes an imperative. I kicked around getting something like the 85mm f/1.4, but in the end, settled on the two fast zooms.
The 16-85mm came later, when I wanted something for the European trip that was light and flexible. I also carried a 50mm f/1.4, but rapidly discovered that I rarely used it, so I eventually sold it when I returned from vacation.
Recently, another fall marching band season is upon us. I started shooting color guard and marching band two years ago, but really got into it last year. I’ve got quite a few different sets up on Flickr o fmarching band and winter guard.
Going Wide or Going Long?
One aspect of shooting on a football field is that the 70-200mm f/2.8 sometimes isn’t long enough, particularly if I’m trying to pick up one one or two people on the other side of the field. On the other hand, there were times when I wanted something wider – I was never able to get a shot of the entire band on the field in a single photo.
I figured I had the budget to get one of the two lenses: a wide zoom, or a long, fixed focus lens. Something like the Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 was out of reach of my budget. Sigma makes an interesting 120-300mm f/2.8 and a 100-300mm f/4. On the wide end, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8’s been getting some good buzz.
In the end, though, I went for versatility over lens speed. Outside of marching band, I’d rarely use something like a 120-300mm – and that wouldn’t do me any good with winter guard, which was all indoors. So I ordered a Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5. It’s not as fast as I’d like, but it’s not abysmally slow (it’s not f/5.6 or 6.3 at the extreme end.) And it complements my other lenses.
It does make the 16-85mm a little redundant. But I’ll probably keep it around because it’s light and versatile for daylight use.
Loading tweets...
6 comments
Jonathon says:
July 30, 2010 at 6:41 am (UTC -7 )
My daughter does color guard/winter guard as well and I have a difficult time getting good shots, not because of equipment but rather location. Where do you position yourself to get such great photos?
I find that standing on the track around the field to be something of a gamble with all the equipment with the percussion section plus the judges constantly moving in my way. On the other hand, trying to shoot from the stands is an exercise in frustration with people randomly walking in front of me, plus excited fans/parents/siblings moving around and making the bleachers vibrate enough to make well over half my shots blurry.
Ok, actually, one equipment/technique question as well. During nighttime performances, I have noticed that fields with more modern lighting systems sometimes end up making my shots a bit washed out or flat. I think it’s something to do with the light produced by those superbright stadium halogen lights. Have you noticed this as well, and if so, what do you do to combat it? I can certainly post-process the shots back to ‘normal’ but if there is a way to correct in the original, so much the better.
Loyd Case says:
July 30, 2010 at 1:56 pm (UTC -7 )
Some stadium lights actually change white balance on the fly, so white balance can actually vary from one shot to the next. You have to correct for it in post.
Finding a good position is tricky. The combination of using a DX sensor and the 70-200 f/2.8 gives me an effective reach (crop factor) of 105-300mm. That helps. Also, I shoot at continuous high speed, which is 8fps on the D300s. So one 15 minute band performance translates to 400-500 shots. I usually can find 15-30 good ones.
Some of my shots are from the first stadium level, rather than the track. That gives me a different angle, too.
Miguel says:
August 3, 2010 at 9:56 am (UTC -7 )
Did you considered the nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8?
Loyd Case says:
August 3, 2010 at 10:07 am (UTC -7 )
I did, but the problem is that I’m shooting with a D300s body. That means the 1.5x crop factor yields an effective minimum focal length of 21mm. The 10-24mm is more suited to a DX body.
YS says:
August 27, 2010 at 10:53 pm (UTC -7 )
24-70 is long in the tooth… and I’ve 20 year old lenses in my cabinet!
MPKen says:
September 23, 2010 at 1:17 am (UTC -7 )
maybe it is time to sell the D300s and get the D700 to get the wide angle you’re looking for