15 replies to this topic

[KatieG0487]

I recently made the switch to FX (Nikon D610) after using a few DX (started on D3100, then D5100) cameras for the past 5 years. During this time I made some edits to my lenses to get more compatible lenses for my new camera, and admittedly scaled back on number of lenses I used as I sold several of my DX lenses to help offset the cost when I upgraded to FX camera. 

 

Currently in my bag is just a Nikon 24-120 f4 lens and a 50mm prime (f1.8G).

 

 

Craving some faster lenses out there...as I often catch myself in low-light/undesirable light situations. Mainly indoors. I don't use a lot of flash photography (next on my list to get but want to work more with natural light first before I feel comfortable adding another technique).

 

 

I mainly take photos of my children (2 years and 3.5 years old, with another on the way), family gatherings, our dog, anything during our travels (so a little landscape, we recently went to Europe last year so I took advantage of opportunities there, especially in Paris!).

 

My questions are: 

 

1. Tamron 70-200 f2.8 lens. Seems to get good reviews for the price (I'm merely a hobbyist). Will this duplicate some of what my 24-120 or will "take over" ? Or look into a portrait prime lens (85 or 105), or is that going to frustrate me because I mainly take photos of my kids and they are active (meaning I have to move around a lot more to get shot I'm looking for)

 

 

2. Trade in the Nikon 24-120 f4 lens for something faster for wide angle shots? In the long run I don't see myself keeping this lens forever, mainly because there are faster lenses out there. Right now, I switch back and forth a lot between the 50 prime and this, but always wish I had better low light performance with this lens just because I like idea of being able to zoom in and out with just one lens and keeps me from having to move a ton like when I use the 50 prime and have to do a lot of cropping in post-editing. 

 

 

 

 

[nbanjogal]

Katie, I have the D600, the precursor to your D610, and I have the Tamron 70-200...honestly, I don't love them together. I don't know if it's my copy of the lens or if it's the camera or if it's both not working well together..or heck, maybe it's just me. But it's slow to focus, so I miss a lot of shots. I don't do a ton of action, but I do enough to get frustrated by the dang thing--seems a bit soft in too many shots. (I just upgraded to a D810, and I'm looking forward to experimenting with the Tamron on that body to see if it's any better. One of our forum members--dcBear--swears by his Tamron 70-200.)

 

That being said, I have shot weddings and fashion shows with that combo, and I have come away with enough acceptable images to keep using it. (I just get lots of practice in cussing.)

 

Your 50mm should be pretty good for most of the shots you want to do with your family--I have the 1.4 version of that lens and have used it a TON for everyday family shots. 

 

I would not consider the 70-200 as something that would duplicate your 24-120 because you would be missing a wide angle, which is so nice to have for landscapes if you plan to do more of them. The slowness of the lens is irrelevant for landscapes as long as you've got a good tripod.

 

The extra reach of the 70-200 is nice to have at events (dance recitals, soccer games, etc.). FYI--the 70-200 is a bit heavy. Not a great walk-around lens.

 

I also have the 85 and 105--I really like both and usually choose the 85 over the 105 because it is faster. When it comes to shooting family in active situations, I don't know if I would choose either of those lenses--I tend to use a zoom for exactly the same reasons you mentioned above and reserve those lenses for purposeful portrait work. For your purposes, I'd wait on acquiring either of those. But you have to decide what works best for your style and what's most important to you--faster lens for low light or convenient zoom (at 2.8, the 70-200 is no slouch in low light)?

 

I'd recommend keeping your 50mm (maybe eventually upgrade to the 1.4--it's not that much more). Sure, buy the 70-200, but keep the 24-120 for awhile. If you end up liking Tamron, eventually you may want to consider their 24-70 to replace the 24-120. At 2.8 it's a bit faster than your 24-120. With those three lenses (24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm) you'd have some pretty good coverage.

 

For low light situations, your D610 does pretty well at high ISO, so even if you can only open up as wide as 2.8, you'll still get some pretty great results. 

 

I don't know if any of this makes sense--I'm doing stream of consciousness on little sleep! Hope you're enjoying your D610--I have loved my D600 and am keeping it as a second body for weddings and other events. It's been a fantastic camera!

[KatieG0487]

Thanks that really helps! I have been kicking my ISO up a lot more with the Nikon 24-120 and found the noise isn't really that bad on it, biggest challenge is the blur from faster objects (read: kids), but that's not the camera's fault  

 

I think I'll give the Tamron 70-200 a shot, for the money and their latest rebate "deal" right now I'll see if I get a good match with my camera. If not, I'll consider the Nikon version of the same lens. 

 

I do find I have the 50 prime on my camera a lot, probably 85% of the time because I love it so much. I may get the slightly better one over time, especially since it's really not that much more. 

 

It's good to talk this through with someone else, thanks!

[M.Beier]

Tamron has multiple 70-200, the USD version is amazing, the macro isnt.

However one thing is certain, it won't replace 24-120... 70-200 is amazing for sports where your not too far away, it is my certain go-to lens for zoo - however, I'd suggest 24-70 as a replacement for 24-120, mind that the Tamron might be sharp - but its slow when it comes to AF - yet so, it is my far most used lens lately, you can almost do macro with it, as it allows you very short focus distance.

The pictures are crisp, and VC really helps a lot.*

 

*Except for fast objects, you'd need a good shutterspeed, indoor for kids, flash is a must.

[leighgion]

Welcome to the awesome world of using full frame DSLRs on your kids! I have a 2-year-old myself, use a D700 and love fast primes, so I can share some very topical experiences.

 

My Nikon 50mm f/1.4G does the lion's share of the heavy lifting for me. It's compact, fast and a flexible focal length, which is really what I can ask for. I'd estimate up to 70% of my daughter's photos were taken with this lens. On my last trip to my mother's, it was all I took with me.

 

I own the original Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and... honestly I don't think my kid is old enough for it to be that useful yet. I've taken it out a couple times and gotten some good shots, but it was a lot of work in the confined space indoors and it's such a beast that you can't just the combo hang off your shoulder for hours while tending the kid and biding your time for the right moment the way you can with a fast prime. Also, f/2.8 isn't really that fast at the end of the day when you're talking about chasing children in indoor lighting. In order to get the shots I got, I had the 70-200 plus SB-600 flash and.. it was all a bit much to be waving around. I don't recommend rushing to a lens in this range if your main preoccupation is getting shots of your kids at those ages.

 

Unfortunately, f/2.8 is fast as zooms get, so for the real low light performance, you need to resign yourself to moving around.

 

You might consider 35mm and 85mm primes.

 

I actually use my 35mm f/1.8 DX in full frame mode and it's great; there is some corner softness and vignette, but long as you don't stop down farther than f/2.8 I consider it more than acceptable a trade off. It's handy in closer quarters.

 

For more portrait-y work, I use a manual focus 85mm f/2 AIS, which is a bit challenging, but there are a few nice more modern 85mm's very worthy of consideration. It's a good focal length as it allows you to get a tighter perspective, but still gives you a reasonable amount of flexibility. 

[Wayben]

I don't have kids, so take this for what it's worth, but I do have an 85 f/1.4.  I would think this would be great for kids pictures because it gives you better working room than a 50mm and will work well in most lighting conditions.  I really like the 85mm for portraits, which should translate well to kid photos (if you can keep up with them). 

[KatieG0487]

Thanks all! 

 

The 85mm has been on my "wish list" for a bit but wasn't sure..so I appreciate the feedback that it may be a good way to go. Considering my 50 prime has literally been my go-to with my kids and nearly all of my favorite shots in the past few years have been with that particular camera. 

[Ron]

I'm not sure what I can add to this... but here goes.

 

I use a D610 but I don't have any non-OEM lenses. All my glass is Nikon.

 

Your wish to use available light pretty much determines what kind of glass you need. Inside the house you'll be looking for pools of light... light rays coming through windows and stuff like that. You'll also want to isolate your subjects from the background a bit. I have four lenses that I use in such situations. The AFS 50mm f/1.4G that Nicole mentioned is probably my go to lens in such situations. However, my favorite lens for low light portraiture is my AFS 85mm f/1.8G. This lens is pure magic for subjects like kids and pets. The bokeh can be a bit fussy compared to it's faster and much more expensive f/1.4 cousin but that's only been a problem on rare occasions. The fact that it's both light and relatively compact is a real bonus. It handles extremely well on the D610. 

 

The other two lenses I use in low light situations are the AFS 35mm f/1.8G FX and the AFS 20mm f/1.8G. You would probably find the 35mm more useful than the 20 but I've always liked wide angle lenses and it does come in handy when you really need to 'get it all in'. Just be careful of perspective problems.

 

As you might have noticed, there are no zooms in the list. These are all prime lenses. However, if I were going to add a longer reach low light lens, it would probably be the Nikon AFS 70-200VR f/2.8 but that's a lota glass to hang on the end of  a camera. I donno.... maybe if I were shooting sports. Are shooting kids the same as shooting sports?

 

--Ron

[TBonz]

I am mostly a sports photographer.  As such I've shot baseball from 5 year old T-Ball up through the Majors and the same with other sports.  I do understand all of the points made.  Personally, the one lens I used to have that I miss now was my 24-120.  I needed to go to the 24-70 (or a few prime lenses) to get f2.8 when shooting high school football and other sports - 24-70 is perfect for the crowd shots and in case the players get too close for your longer lenses.  The 24-120 with f4 just didn't give me enough light for the crowd shots at the ISOs I was comfortable shooting at the time.  Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 is an amazing lens and I'm quite happy with it.  I just felt like the 24-120 range was a perfect walk-around lens when I just wanted to wander and take pix if I found anything interesting.  I have shot both the Nikon and Tamron versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200.  The Nikons are faster focusing for sure.  You can probably find either manufacturer's lenses used at B&H or KEH.  Depends on how dark your house is, but f2.8 should be fine for indoor shooting.  Probably not as bright as a gym, but on the other hand, kids that age aren't moving as quickly as 16-18 year old athletes so it should even out pretty well...

[M.Beier]

I am mostly a sports photographer.  As such I've shot baseball from 5 year old T-Ball up through the Majors and the same with other sports.  I do understand all of the points made.  Personally, the one lens I used to have that I miss now was my 24-120.  I needed to go to the 24-70 (or a few prime lenses) to get f2.8 when shooting high school football and other sports - 24-70 is perfect for the crowd shots and in case the players get too close for your longer lenses.  The 24-120 with f4 just didn't give me enough light for the crowd shots at the ISOs I was comfortable shooting at the time.  Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 is an amazing lens and I'm quite happy with it.  I just felt like the 24-120 range was a perfect walk-around lens when I just wanted to wander and take pix if I found anything interesting.  I have shot both the Nikon and Tamron versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200.  The Nikons are faster focusing for sure.  You can probably find either manufacturer's lenses used at B&H or KEH.  Depends on how dark your house is, but f2.8 should be fine for indoor shooting.  Probably not as bright as a gym, but on the other hand, kids that age aren't moving as quickly as 16-18 year old athletes so it should even out pretty well...

Must admit, I cannot agree with the focus speed of 70-200, I've got D800E, my photo-buddy has D800E, he has the Nikkor VR II version, I got the Tamron USD - Side by side, the Tamron tends to win, it might be that he has older firmware on the body while I keep updating whenever some new appears.
 

Perhaps I've just been lucky with my sample of 70-200, it really works magic for me - don't have any better lens... Its not my most used lens, my 24-70 is, but never been dissappointed by the 70-200, in fact, it makes me sad about quality of anything else

[Merco_61]

Marc, do both of you use the same AF settings? IME there are some settings that slow AF down noticeably in the D800, even if I don't remember exactly which. 

If I remember correctly, you use yours gripped, do you use a higher voltage battery as well? I have found that my 80-200 AF-S is significantly slower with an EN-EL3e instead of the EN-EL4a in the grip on my dinosaurs.

[M.Beier]

We both have higher voltage battery, him in an original battery grip, while I use Meike.

I tested with single point AF-S, single point AF-C, and 9 point AF-C

[dcbear78]

I have heard the same about focus speed, but not seen one, single, piece of evidence to prove it. Not a single reviewer I have seen, and I saw/read more than I care to remember. People say the Nikon is noticeably faster yet nobody has provided any empirical evidence to back up the claims. 

 

It's not that hard. Hold a microphone next to the lens, record the sound then analyse the soundwaves will give a precise time to focus. 

[Merco_61]

Cameralabs have tested the speeds and found the Tamron to be around 15% slower from infinity to 1.4 m (0.7 vs 0.6 s). It is by no means slow to focus, but the Nikkor is faster.

[dcbear78]

Thanks for some real info.

I had no doubt it's slower. But still don't think it is perceptible to most people nor worth the price premium of the VR2.

But that's me. I am yet to come across a Nikon lens that has made me have own one.

[TBonz]

I agree that it is not a slow lens...but with action, you can miss shots with any lens before it has time to focus...I found more keepers with the Nikon than the Tamron, but both excellent lenses.