Good lens for Nightshoots?

[2.8photography]

Needed a good nikon lens for nightshoots for a while, been pondering over the 17-35, 17-55 or the 24-70 (all are f/2.8)

Can anybody with the above lenses tell me about how good the lenses hold up during the night?

thanks.

anybody with any good night lenses, please reply! (third party lenses included)

Edit: no prime lens suggestions, please.

[Lmodel]

Originally Posted by 2.8photography Needed a good nikon lens for nightshoots for a while, been pondering over the 17-35, 17-55 or the 24-70 (all are f/2.8) Can anybody with the above lenses tell me about how good the lenses hold up during the night? thanks. anybody with any good night lenses, please reply! (third party lenses included) Edit: no prime lens suggestions, please.

There's no indication if you are using for portraits or nightshoot. I presume you are taking portraits with flash and thus, most lens (doesnt neccessary have to be a f2.8) are capable of it.

For nightshoot, it should be mounted on a tripod and like the earlier, most lens are capable of it as well.

There is no stating of a scenario, thus rather difficult to advise you.

[2.8photography]

Sorry, no indication of what kind of shoots

Will be using this lens for travel night photog, going to Las Vagas, want to take some shots of it at night

[2.8photography]

eh forgot to add, don't want to be lugging tripod around.

[Yatlapball]

You don't need an expensive lens with a wide aperture, because any way I look at it, you still need to tripod-mount, stop-down to increase DOF. Of course image quality of your f/2.8 zooms will be superior, furthemore you're talking about 17-35, 17-55 and the 28-70.

I see you have listed a 12-24 in your signature. That would make a great lens to shoot urbanscape with. Amongst the other lenses you have listed, I think you are already quite well equipped for travel photography. Just need to add a tripod to the packing list...

Although you did mention no primes please... the way I look at it, if you really want to handhold, your very wide aperture primes are the way to go...


LModel: Hey hello Haven't seen you posting for awhile.

[Zoobiee]

Get a nice light monopod. Its way better than nothing and pretty easy to carry around.

[Lmodel]

Originally Posted by Yatlapball LModel: Hey hello Haven't seen you posting for awhile.

TS: Sorry for the OT!

Yatlapball: Hi there~ have been busy of late and juz back in town. LoL~ tot I'm on a very low profile... didnt know I got noticed

[ortega]

Originally Posted by 2.8photography eh forgot to add, don't want to be lugging tripod around.

shoot at ISO 25600

But even if i had the "precious" i would still bring a tripod along

[ioriroger]

i choose my Sigma 30 f1.4 i try very hard to get this copy.

[2.8photography]

actually i was thinking of photography at places which are fairly brightly lit, such as orchard rd at night. do u guys think maybe iso 1600/3200 and an f/2.8 lens would be enough?

of course it depends on focal length (handshake) and vr too (but wide-std lenses no vr)

i suppose night portraits would require flash, but architectural shots at wide angles might sometimes be impossible to use a flash

was looking at a lens that wouldnt be a repeat of wat i already have, although might want to sell my 18-200 soon (its a tamron), in that case i'll get either a 80-200 or 70-200

just think that my 12-24's f/4 isnt fast enough, so thinking of either the 28-70/24-70 or 17-55 or 17-35

[Lmodel]

I don't think you would like to shoot anything on ISO1600 with a D70s, given that the noise level is extremely high.

While it may seem "bright" to our eyes, it may not be so for the sensor. For architechtural and landscape shoot, sharpness is rather important and that cannot be achieved at the widest aperture (e.g. f2.8 for f2.8 lenses) as the image becomes sharp usually after f4.

It seems like you are looking at the D3 body (defintely good at ISO3200) and a Nikon 28mm f1.4. The cheapest and most effective solution now however, is to get a tripod. You can always consider the Gitzo 0530 that weighs only 0.8kg and costs in the region of S$500, plus it is way cheaper than a f2.8 lens.

Cheers

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by 2.8photography eh forgot to add, don't want to be lugging tripod around.

Forget about night shoots then.. Anyway, I got by using 18-200VR with some support.

[STTNP]

You need a tripod for the night shot eg. to shoot new york new york hotel at night to capture the full viewfrom opposite road. or get a vr lens minimun.
YOur 12-24 f4 also good, wide len you dont need f2.8 mah. I went last year with canon S2IS and light tripod.

The 17-55 f2.8 is good but you got to walk around with the big and heavy lens lor. And whole day and night lor

[Kit]

Originally Posted by Lmodel While it may seem "bright" to our eyes, it may not be so for the sensor. For architechtural and landscape shoot, sharpness is rather important and that cannot be achieved at the widest aperture (e.g. f2.8 for f2.8 lenses) as the image becomes sharp usually after f4.

When you step down, you get a deeper DOF which essentially means more portion of your photo will be in focus. Being in focus does not necessarily make your photos sharper. There's a difference between DOF and sharpness.

[Kit]

Originally Posted by 2.8photography actually i was thinking of photography at places which are fairly brightly lit, such as orchard rd at night. do u guys think maybe iso 1600/3200 and an f/2.8 lens would be enough? of course it depends on focal length (handshake) and vr too (but wide-std lenses no vr) i suppose night portraits would require flash, but architectural shots at wide angles might sometimes be impossible to use a flash

Nobody uses a flash for exterior archi shots unless you zoom in to a particular area and your flash being able to hit it.

A good o tripod will at anytime, beat your f0.005/ISO 3,200,000/10 stops VR no matter what you think or what other people tell you... period.

[Lmodel]

Originally Posted by Kit When you step down, you get a deeper DOF which essentially means more portion of your photo will be in focus. Being in focus does not necessarily make your photos sharper. There's a difference between DOF and sharpness.

Thanks for the technical correction

[2.8photography]

looks like its back to carrying my tripod around

[rvxing]

Originally Posted by 2.8photography Will be using this lens for travel night photog, going to Las Vagas, want to take some shots of it at night

LV looks like day in the night. Just need big aperture, higher ISO, VR and if you can handle 1/15 sec, likely you don't need a tripod. Alternative, lean you cam against lamp poles, etc if the timing is slower. Still not sure, then bring a small tripod so that you don't have to carry heavy load.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by 2.8photography looks like its back to carrying my tripod around

Your 18-200 is VR isn't it? You should be able to get by with ISO400 around 1/15s exposures.

This was shot in Japan handheld with the 18-200VR using D70s.

[calebk]

If you want to shoot portraits, then large aperture lenses are fine.

If you're shooting cityscape shots (wide shots of Orchard Rd for instance), f/2.8 will not cut it. You need the DOF, hence you need to stop down, hence, you need a tripod.

There is really no escaping this.