which lenses for walk-around street candid?


Status
Not open for further replies.

aranair

New Member
Aug 20, 2008
149
0
0
31
Boon Lay
#1
I am currently using d200 with tamron 17-50, plus a 50 1.8 to handle slightly wide-normal candids/lowlights.

But I am kinda stuck between nikon 55-200 VR and tokina 100 f2.8 for the slightly longer end. Anyone help me with these 2? I will probably be travelling with one of the two, primarily used for street candids/portraits.

Do you guys think the VR can "replace" the large aperture? Other than the loss of proper isolation by the 2.8. and Is the 100-200 end all that useful?

PS: i currently have both actually, so price wouldn't be that much of a problem;P
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#2
This is a very common question that has been asked many times before.

VR does not equate to faster shutter speeds for freezing motion. It will reduce your handshake vibration, but not help you freeze the subjects.
 

aranair

New Member
Aug 20, 2008
149
0
0
31
Boon Lay
#3
Actually, I am not looking to shoot fast moving action/objects or people. my "replace" was kinda referring to just slightly low light situations where a 2.8 is needed. With the tokina i would probably have to shoot at 1/80 min, but with the VR i can practically shoot at 1/40 f4 (at 100mm) which basically compensates for the lack of big aperture.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#4
Actually, I am not looking to shoot fast moving action/objects or people. my "replace" was kinda referring to just slightly low light situations where a 2.8 is needed. With the tokina i would probably have to shoot at 1/80 min, but with the VR i can practically shoot at 1/40 f4 (at 100mm) which basically compensates for the lack of big aperture.
Yes, but then you introduce motion blur. You'll probably be able to easily shoot as fast as 1/20s actually; I can shoot 1/6s to 1/12s hand-held at 300mm with SSS switched on.
 

aranair

New Member
Aug 20, 2008
149
0
0
31
Boon Lay
#5
wow 1/6 you've got really steady hands man.
MM so basically it is really only useful when you're shooting dead stationary objects/architecture eh? Oh well that brings me back to my choice heh, still can't really decide which one i'll need more when im outside roaming
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#6
You don't think the 50mm is long enough for street portraits? Most people use even wider lenses for street photography.
 

aranair

New Member
Aug 20, 2008
149
0
0
31
Boon Lay
#7
mm with 50mm i'll capture more of the surroundings i guess, but if i want to just capture an expression or facial/shoulder i have to go pretty near, im slightly shy about it ;P especially when im overseas!
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#8
Give it a try. :) Practice is free, and definitely cheaper than buying a longer lens. :D
 

aranair

New Member
Aug 20, 2008
149
0
0
31
Boon Lay
#9
hehe i currently have the tokina 100mm and the 55-200 VR already. im looking to sell one of the two away ;D

I shot my last overseas trip with a 1855 and found myself slightly short sometimes, so i thought of going to the mid tele end. /grunts and it brings me far too many choices lol ;P
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#10
The 55-200 offers more versatility, but its use in low light is rather limited (as you have already found out), compared to the 100mm f/2.8. If it were me, I'd pick the 100mm, but that's my preference. You have to find out what your preference is.
 

aranair

New Member
Aug 20, 2008
149
0
0
31
Boon Lay
#11
nods, thanks calebk for the inputs :) i'll go ponder about it through the night lol
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#12
Go look around... plenty of lens choices...

Esp for the D200, you can even go and consider the MF AI's or AI-S. I'm using a 70-210mm AF-D on my D200 for streets and it's fun with good lighting.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#13
I am currently using d200 with tamron 17-50, plus a 50 1.8 to handle slightly wide-normal candids/lowlights.

But I am kinda stuck between nikon 55-200 VR and tokina 100 f2.8 for the slightly longer end. Anyone help me with these 2? I will probably be travelling with one of the two, primarily used for street candids/portraits.

Do you guys think the VR can "replace" the large aperture? Other than the loss of proper isolation by the 2.8. and Is the 100-200 end all that useful?

PS: i currently have both actually, so price wouldn't be that much of a problem;P
depends on what you are talking about, to me, 55-200 and 100mm are way too long focal lengths for travel and street candids/portraits. reason being, no environment being showcased, if that is the case, what is the point?

but it really depends on your choice, but most hardcore street photographers would probably not go longer than 50mm in 35mm film terms.

you can get the 55-200 for a more extended range, but to use it for "street portraits and candids", well, i question the merit in doing so.

anyways, if you are going to shoot low light portraits, the wide open aperture will be far more useful, vr will help with static objects, because your shutter speed is limited, maybe you can tell your subject not to move, but whether they really do not move is another thing altogether
 

aranair

New Member
Aug 20, 2008
149
0
0
31
Boon Lay
#14
Yeah zac08, the longer range is fun, i didn't imagine beforehand, some of my shot framings would work when shooting with the 55-200. Its sad it isn't enough for bad lightning heh.

Recently I brought in a voigtlander 40mm on impulse. I kept it on my camera for awhile and it seems to suit me relatively well for street random shots, low light or not. Guess i've got my answer!
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#15
Yeah zac08, the longer range is fun, i didn't imagine beforehand, some of my shot framings would work when shooting with the 55-200. Its sad it isn't enough for bad lightning heh.

Recently I brought in a voigtlander 40mm on impulse. I kept it on my camera for awhile and it seems to suit me relatively well for street random shots, low light or not. Guess i've got my answer!
Good for you then.... it's about 60mm on the 35mm equivalent... so more of a normal to tele perspective.
 

Lomographer

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2009
2,047
0
0
Paterson Road
#16
maybe you can get a 28mm f/2.8 from nikkor the AI-S version

that was my old lens i bought with my F3 4 years ago

seemed good enough.
 

#17
depends on what you are talking about, to me, 55-200 and 100mm are way too long focal lengths for travel and street candids/portraits. reason being, no environment being showcased, if that is the case, what is the point?

but it really depends on your choice, but most hardcore street photographers would probably not go longer than 50mm in 35mm film terms.

you can get the 55-200 for a more extended range, but to use it for "street portraits and candids", well, i question the merit in doing so.

anyways, if you are going to shoot low light portraits, the wide open aperture will be far more useful, vr will help with static objects, because your shutter speed is limited, maybe you can tell your subject not to move, but whether they really do not move is another thing altogether
Yup. I use the 17~35mm for Street... 80~200mm for close up and portraits. When.. getting lazy... or not feeling too well... Just the 18~200mm to cover 'everything'

Cheers!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom