Gear Guide: Updated

Todd Owyoung·
Photography Gear
·1 min read·2670 views

14-24.jpg I've updated the Gear Guide to include a more information on how I use each piece of my kit for concert photography. In particular, the notes for each lens feature some specifics about when and why I'll reach for a given hunk of glass.

I've also added a bit about the SanDisk Extreme IV 4gb CF cards that I recently bought to replace my Ridata 150x 4gb cards. These new cards are working beautifully with the D3, and I've especially been enjoying the faster transfer speeds thanks to UDMA and Firewire 800.

I'm in the process of writing a general guide for concert photography and starter lenses that I hope to publish soon.

In the meantime, if there are any suggestions you have for the Gear Guide or if there are new features you'd like to see on concert equipment, let me know.

Previous ArticleChingy @ the Chaifetz Arena — 2008.04.26
Next ArticleBarry Manilow
Todd Owyoung

Todd Owyoung is an internationally published music photographer based in New York City. He specializes in music lifestyle, concert, and celebrity portraits. He is proud to be a Nikon Ambassador for Nikon USA.

Related Posts

6 Responses

  1. Definitely looking forward to that concert guide man. Sorry, I didn’t know if I should post this here or in the guide: what do you think of the tokina 11-16 2.8? And when it comes to 3rd party lenses (tokina, sigma, tamron..) which do you tend to favor, if any? I know it’s a good idea to stick with Nikkor, but if I’m gonna drop some money for a lens, is the 11-16 worth it, or should one save for the 12-24, offering a greater field at the expense of 1mm?

    Reply

  2. Hey Chris,

    If you really need wide, the Tokina 11-16mm looks like a very interesting lens if you can accept its limited range. The f/2.8 aperture would certainly make it more useful than the slower f/4 12-24mm.

    For third party lenses, the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 was the only third-party AF lens that I owned. I think Tokina does a great job with build quality, something that I can’t always say about Sigma and Tamron.

    The 12-24mm was totally solid and had a nice “dense” feeling in the hand.

    Personally, Sigma’s “EX” finish on their lenses creeps me out. I don’t want my lenses to feel like smooth like a baby’s bottom.

    Ultimately, I think it comes down to range versus speed: the 12-24mm lenses offer a more usable range, while f/2.8 brings a whole stop of added usability – which is really important if you want to do PJ stuff, but not so much if you’re shooting landscape and architecture.

    Reply

  3. Oh sorry, I meant 12-24 f/2.8. But I’m guessing from your response, it’s a “no duh” for the 12-24.

    Reply

  4. Hey Chris, do you mean the new, full-frame Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8? Nikon also makes a 12-24mm f/4 for their cropped sensor (DX) cameras.

    If it’s between the Nikon 14-24mm and the Tokina 11-16mm, both of which are f/2.8 lenses, then it’s a slightly different game.

    What do you foresee your primary use for this lens being?

    Reply

  5. Agh! Completely my bad, yes, I meant 14-24 2.8. Which I know is like, a bagillion dollars for a student such as myself, but if I knew it would be worth it to save 3x the money, then I would. Right now I’m looking on building my setup. I’m interested in concert photography and street photography — so I would imagine I’d use it more for concerts, but I could see using it in some daylight, in which case the f/4 wouldn’t hurt. (I may have just answered my own question… haha) I have no idea if I’ll end up getting into PJ or not.

    Reply

  6. Hey Chris,

    Now it gets interesting. I would say that hands down f/4 is generally slow for concert stuff. But now that it’s between the 14-24mm and the 11-16mm, it’s a much more difficult question.

    On DX, the difference between 11mm and 14mm is going to be noticeable, but either way, both are very wide.

    While I almost never used the Tokina 12-24mm for gigs, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 has really surprised me by its quality and ability to deliver super high-impact images, so much that I find myself using it even when it’s not strictly appropriate. It’s just that kind of lens.

    Overall, I’d say 14-24mm is more useful on either DX or FX full-frame.

    Aside from differences in range, I think a lot of it comes down to price. Given my positive experience with the 14-24mm, I would say that it’s worth the money.

    Hope this helps, let me know if you have any more questions.

    Reply

Join in the Discussion

© Copyright Todd Owyoung