FreoJim Loc: Fremantle, Western Australia

Hi everyone. Although this is a personal question I’m guessing that responses will help other too in building a good set of equipment……

I have just moved from DX to FX and I’m wondering if the experts out there would take a moment to give me some advice on my equipment – specifically the gaps they see in what I have for what I want to do……I’m finding that the classic Google search and check reviews track - including UH search! - is just adding randomly to my options more than helping right now!

I’m an older guy with young kids. Both parts are relevant as I have a bad back - actually temporarily flat on my back right now after surgery - so backpacking heavy gear any great distance is out. And having young kids means that a lot of my photography is, inevitably, around them. I’m happy with my current camera and lenses, for candid shots and school sports etc, but want to move into taking more ‘formal’ i.e. planned, well lit portraits of them and eventually others, so some advice on basic portrait lens and lighting equipment would be very much appreciated. Making my 4 year old sit still for 2 minutes is another issue!

Enjoy macro – by that I mean close ups of flowers and bugs. My current Tokina lens seems to be OK. What is the best way to control the lighting? Put them in some sort of lightbox? And/or one of those circular flashes which attach to the lens?

Landscapes – plan to take more river and seascapes and shots in the bush. Weight of gear is not an issue in that I don’t intend to carry it far –so I think my current gear is ok? But maybe the tripod needs an upgrade?

Current gear:
• Nikon D600
• Nikon D7000 – which I’ll probably sell as I don’t seem to need a second DSLR body
• Nikon AF-S 24-70mm 1:2.8G ED
• Nikon AF-S 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G
• Tokina AT-X Pro Macro 100 F2.8 D
• Manfrotto 190XDB with ball head 486RC2
• Nikon 50mm 1:1.8D
• Nikon Speedlight SB-700
• Nikon remote control ML-L3
• Filters – rather a random set of UV/ lens protection filters but now no Polarising or ND filters since I sold a few DX lenses.

Cost is not an issue in that I would rather buy good quality, even if I have to wait a bit, than go for cheaper compromise solutions.

bewithabob Loc: Dallas TX

You have a lot of breadth there already.

If you like to shoot portraits, I think Nikon's AF-S 70-200 f2.8 VRII which is sharp and yields a fabulous bokeh for portraits.

For off-camera flash, I think you can do quiet well with SB900 or SB910 Speedlights which give good TTL results of NIKON's TTL creative lighting system. THese put out good light with the Photoflex Octobox (I have a pair of the 60"era for portraits) and I also like the 60" Photek soft lighters which work very nicely with speed lights.

Off camera flash takes a bit more equipment, and while you can get good results with one flash, I have found that for environmental portraits you often find yourself wanting extra light modifiers for hair lights, backgrounds, main light, fill light, and then a reflector ( I have a pair of the California Sunbounces in white gold, and silver).

Shoot through umbrellas are also a good investment and not too expensive.

You will need a good background or two, and some decent light stands (I like the Manfrotto BAC models which come in different heights to suit your needs, which will give you good height and are stackable for transport and storage.

But as I said you can get great results with just one flash.

I also prefer to go manual, and use a light meter when using a flash, my meter preference is the Sekonic L758DR which can be calibrated to your camera with the Sekonic target.

I did this portrait of my uncle a few weeks ago at my house with just one main light: a SB-800, set to Manual, at ⅛ power about 3 feet from the subject camera right, shot through a 60" Photoflex Octobox, with a 4x6 foot white reflector on the opposite side as fill. This is a reliable set up for me. I only had a few moments before he had to catch a plane, so took just 5 images and every one was a great exposure, so it was just a matter of expression. This was my favorite- the expression he uses when he is holding 4 aces when we play poker, but doesn't want you to know it.

This was shot with a Nikon D7000, ISO 100, f5.6, 105mm lens @ 1/125.

My uncle Jim

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

You certainly have some nice equipment but I do have a couple thoughts. You said you may want to get into some landscape work and the 24-70mm should really get some nice shots but you may want to consider a wide angle. Nikon’s 10-24mm is an excellent lens and not all that pricy. For your portrait work you may want to look into a couple soft boxes and an over head or hair light also called a halo light. These kits can be had for relatively little money for inexpensive stuff which will do fine since you won’t be hauling it around. I’d recommend using the fluorescent bulb units as they are cooler to operate and use far less energy. An additional flash is really handy and if you stay with the SB-600 or higher you’ll be able to operate with your cameras commander mode and you can really have some fun and get some nice lighting effects. Hope this gives you something to ponder and I do hope you are back on your feet very soon.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I agree. For portraits, go with the Nikon 70-200mm. It's heavy, but you'll be using a tripod. This zoom will give you the flexibility of doing full body, torso, head and shoulder, or head shots, but it's one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. Don't forget to insure your equipment.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Another reason to look at the 70-200 is if your kids are or will be (you haven't given us their ages or interests) involved in sports, school plays, etc this lens is great both indoors and out and the 2.8 nicely covers the low light venues such as school gyms and auditoriums and evening games.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Land & sea scape on a fullframe.
Nikon 16-35mm F/4 with a Lee filter kit with 1,2 & 3 stop soft grad ND plus a 2 and 3 stop hard grad ND.

Teacher Loc: Alabama

As others have said, the 16-35mm should cover your wide end for landscapes nicely. It is a sharp lens. Filters for this lens are the same size as 24-70 and 70-200 should you purchase one.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Sounding like a ditto machine this morning. For landscape I agree with Lighthouse and Teacher. The 16-35 is the real McCoy. Google Ken Rockwell for his review.

David Dennis Loc: West Palm Beach, Florida

If you can hand-hold the 24-70, it's not that much of an extra strain to hand-hold the 70-200, and as everyone else says it's one of the highest quality lenses money can buy. It's also on a $300 "instant rebate" discount during the month of March, if you can find one. (My camera store actually struggled to find mine.) If you bought one now, didn't like it and sold after the end of the rebate period, I don't think you'd lose much money.

If you are going to be doing tripod-based portraits, though, you might not need a zoom. A fixed 85mm would be cheaper and - more importantly - lighter. Consider the 85mm f/1.8 or 1.4. See http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-85mm-lensreview.htm .

And, while I'm at it, the 70-200:

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm

I shoot handheld and just purchased the 70-200. I shot with it all day yesterday. It's a bit of strain on the arm and shoulder (after taking 2,400 pictures over several hours), but it really does produce incredible results.

Kid shots are usually not about fine detail, in the sense that, say, bird or architectural shots are. So I might suggest that the 28-300 superzoom might be one of the best ways to catch them at play since you can rapidly change your field of view as conditions change. That being said, I've taken most of my kid shots with the 24-70, which you already have. (I am childless but some of the neighbor's kids have adopted me).

The 28-300 has pretty good optical quality, but due to the higher quality build I find it a lot more fun to shoot with the 24-70 and 70-200.

Hope that helps.

D

jjestar Loc: Savannah GA

If in your situation and money was not a problem, 70-200 F2.8, 14-24 F2.8 and a SB 910

FreoJim Loc: Fremantle, Western Australia

Thank you bewithabob for that long an considered reply. That covers a lot of my portrait issues and is really helpful. Love the character shot of your Uncle Jim!

FreoJim Loc: Fremantle, Western Australia

Oh wow lots of responses and a reasonable amount of consistency - but not so much that I don't feel I have a choice! I see there is now a newish f4, cheaper and lighter, version of the 70-200 but you are mostly recommending the classic f2.8. I've been taking OK pics but with little kids, 4 and 8 yrs, it's very easy to fall into the 'snapshots with a good camera' trap as mostly friends are very complimentary. But I want to move on and take more control of my shots so I'm thinking, once I get off my back, I might jump into landscapes and seascapes using ND filters as with winter coming we move here from endless clear blue skies - lovely for working up a tan but not all that interesting photographically - to clouds and storms. Then I'll think about portrait gear. So thanks again. I might even post some of my shots for you to demolish - constructively of course :-) I have already put a few up but they were mostly harmless.

David Dennis Loc: West Palm Beach, Florida

The f/4 variant has a lot of fans. Apparently it's comparably sharp to the 2.8.

However, it's also about 2/3 the price - in other words, cheaper, but not so much cheaper that the compromise looks attractive. This is especially in view of the $300 rebate on the f/2.8.

I happen to do a huge amount of really low light shooting and so f/2.8 is very important to me. As a result, there was very little likelihood that I would want the f/4.

The f/4 variant was made in Thailand instead of Japan, which usually implies less precision in assembly and lower quality (consumer grade) components. If you are like me and really love the quality of your 24-70 f/2.8, odds are that you don't want to compromise with the cheaper 70-200.

Hope that helps.

D

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

Well I think the lenses have been covered pretty good. And if you up grade any lenses always go with the F2.8's. You will never out grow them. And for a walk around and sit in a chair and get a shot of everything going on around you, it is the 28-300.:):)
Now the filters. Always buy the best here too. And just buy one for your biggest lens, then buy step down rings for the other lenses you have. Will save you money for more toys down the road.:):)
Erv

Aaron Braganza Loc: Sydney, Australia

Hi Steve,
I do understand the 70-200mm weighs 1540g (1.5kg)
I like the lens and am wondering, would a tripod be essential ?
Alternatively, can it be used as a walk around lens. ?
Cheers Mate