What lens do you use to shoot your cars?

[Judge]

Similar to the "what camera?" thread posted recently, I'd like to know what lens and focal length everyone is using to photograph their work?

I will be picking up a DSLR in the near future (most likely a used D300 or D7000) and I'm still trying to decide on a lens. I'm leaning towards the Nikkor 16-85mm as I've read it's a great walk around lens. Their 35mm f/1.8 also looks interesting and I'm considering adding that to the mix at some point.

I'm not going this route strictly to photograph cars but it will be a big part of what I use it for. I'm sure some of you can relate that researching lenses can be exhausting...I think it might be worse than researching waxes

So I was hoping I could get a little insight here

[Eric@CherryOnTop]

I use Nikon and have, in addition to the kit 18-55 lens, a 55-200 with vibration reduction, and the 35mm f1.8 lens you mentioned. The 35mm is awesome because the wide aperture really allows you to shoot in low light without getting blur. It is also a fantastic portrait lens. It's also a steal at 200 bucks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

[zmcgovern45]

Similar to the "what camera?" thread posted recently, I'd like to know what lens and focal length everyone is using to photograph their work?

I will be picking up a DSLR in the near future (most likely a used D300 or D7000) and I'm still trying to decide on a lens. I'm leaning towards the Nikkor 16-85mm as I've read it's a great walk around lens. Their 35mm f/1.8 also looks interesting and I'm considering adding that to the mix at some point.

I'm not going this route strictly to photograph cars but it will be a big part of what I use it for. I'm sure some of you can relate that researching lenses can be exhausting...I think it might be worse than researching waxes

So I was hoping I could get a little insight here

Get the 35 f/1.8 - it is without a doubt the best lens for the money.

I use my 12-24 f/4, 35 f/1.8, and 50 f/1.8 during my details. I just sold my 60 f/2.8 macro, but it was useful for capturing certain defects and now I kind of miss it.

If you can drop some cash (and don't mind a big, heavy pro lens), just pickup a used 17-55 f/2.8 and call it a day.

[StangFan25]

Nikon 24-70 f2.8
Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII

I wouldn't suggest fixed focal lenses for this. Much easier and more convenient to use a quality zoom lens so you're not constantly changing lenses and getting dust on your sensor.


Don't skimp on glass. Its the most important investment you'll make regarding photography. Get the cheaper of the two bodies, use the saved cash towards good glass. Also, the kit lens is not the best for quality.

Photography is what i do for a living, if you'd like help on where to look, purchase, comparisons, etc. id be happy to help(unless you go Canon) lol

[SlowWRX]

most time I use my Canon 17-55 2.8IS
sometimes 135 f2L

[07gtcs]

I shoot Cannon and use my 17-55 2.8 all the time. When needed for sports or long shots i have a 70-200 2.8

[Judge]

Get the 35 f/1.8 - it is without a doubt the best lens for the money.

I use my 12-24 f/4, 35 f/1.8, and 50 f/1.8 during my details. I just sold my 60 f/2.8 macro, but it was useful for capturing certain defects and now I kind of miss it.

If you can drop some cash (and don't mind a big, heavy pro lens), just pickup a used 17-55 f/2.8 and call it a day.

I've seen a lot of praise for the 17-55 f2.8 on the photography forums. The price might be doable, but another possible concern would be that it doesn't have VR. Would that make it tough to use without a tripod?

Nikon 24-70 f2.8
Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII

I wouldn't suggest fixed focal lenses for this. Much easier and more convenient to use a quality zoom lens so you're not constantly changing lenses and getting dust on your sensor.


Don't skimp on glass. Its the most important investment you'll make regarding photography. Get the cheaper of the two bodies, use the saved cash towards good glass. Also, the kit lens is not the best for quality.

Photography is what i do for a living, if you'd like help on where to look, purchase, comparisons, etc. id be happy to help(unless you go Canon) lol

Haha unless something changes, I'll be going with Nikon. A local camera store has a D300 body in "very good" condition for $450. Would you say that is a good price? They also have a D7000 in similar condition for $700 but I don't plan on shooting any video so I don't think I'd be missing much there.

[Chevota Guy]

I'm in the minority here, but a dedicated Pentax user for many years. I use a an 18-135 zoom and also a 50 mm Macro. Gives me the best range and clarity depending on conditions.

[zmcgovern45]

I've seen a lot of praise for the 17-55 f2.8 on the photography forums. The price might be doable, but another possible concern would be that it doesn't have VR. Would that make it tough to use without a tripod?

^VR is not a large concern unless you are either shooting at slower shutter speeds or at longer focal lengths. The general rule of thumbs is to take whatever your focal length is and put a 1 over it... ie if you are shooting at 50mm, the slowest shutter speed you should be using is 1/50s. Nikon's VRII adds (I believe) 4 stops of added stability, so for the situation mentioned above, you should be able to use a shutter speed of around 1/3s without much motion blur in the shot (caused by camera shake).

To be honest - it is not a big deal for me personally because for detailing, I set my camera on a tripod to get perfect before/after shots of the exact same area and in real life, I am typically shooting at faster shutter speeds since I normally take pictures of moving subjects like people.

Haha unless something changes, I'll be going with Nikon. A local camera store has a D300 body in "very good" condition for $450. Would you say that is a good price? They also have a D7000 in similar condition for $700 but I don't plan on shooting any video so I don't think I'd be missing much there.

^Nikon FTW... go with the D7000 over the D300 if you can afford it. While they are both good quality cameras, the D300 is very outdated by today's standards. I have a D7000 and really enjoy it. (I also do not shoot video and have never taken that into consideration when choosing a camera body).


**If you could afford a 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 as mentioned above then you would be set for life. Those are 2 of the best lenses ever made. As far as prime lenses vs. zoom lenses... both have their place. I really enjoy my standard range primes and find absolutely no inconvenience of using them vs. a zoom lens, however for action/sports a telephoto zoom is a must IMO.

***Also remember that both bodies you mentioned above are crop sensor (DX) bodies so the focal lengths are multiplied by the 1.5x crop factor. Therefore a 35mm lens is really a 52.5mm lens on a DX body, so the 17-55 f/2.8 (which is designed specifically for DX bodies) is comparable to the 24-70 in terms of focal length on a full frame body.

[StangFan25]

Haha unless something changes, I'll be going with Nikon. A local camera store has a D300 body in "very good" condition for $450. Would you say that is a good price? They also have a D7000 in similar condition for $700 but I don't plan on shooting any video so I don't think I'd be missing much there.

I would say, unless budget is not an issue, get the D300 and use the extra $250 towards better glass.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to anyone, but something being "outdated" doesn't mean its not a great choice. The sensor on it is high quality and will allow high iso usage if needed. The D300 was at the top of a lot of peoples list when it debuted. You mentioned video is not an importance, I'd get the D300. I also have no use for video on my D800.

The 17-55 2.8 is an excellent lens, I had one until i got the 24-70. It was my main lens, rarely came off the camera. You can't go wrong with either lens.

Don't stress too much on which body, that's not the important part.

As mentioned above, for shorter focal lengths, VR isn't really necessary unless you don't have a tripod and need to shoot at 1/10 handheld.