This really resonated with me, I purchased my 24-70 with my D750 6 years ago now. And since finally buying a 70-200 last year, my 24-70 has stayed in the bag virtually all of the time bar a couple of occasions (interiors etc). I wish I could have had this level of detailed information you put out 5-6 years ago. Keep on going with this great content, we don't get enough of it in automotive photography. It's great to watch someone shoot, breakdown what they're doing with reasoning, show the results and talk through their opinions and findings over their career.
Thank you SO much for this feedback and insights! Articulating this stuff to create videos has been helpful for myself, and I also wish I had some of this info 5-6 years ago 😅
Each lens has its own purpose. myself i use 17-50 F2.8 , 99% of the time as thats the lens i got and i've covered most of the types of photography with it. for motorsport i use 18-200 and thinking of swapping with 18-400. I know many motorsport photographers uses 100-700 (or something like that) but i've found that its better to be prepared to shoot shots when vehicle is close to me as well as a bit far away, i found 200 to be decent, only a few times i wished i had like 300mm or 400 just to get that shot, above 400 i say is not realy necessary.
“A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one” is how the full quote goes. If the quality of the 24mm setting on a 24-70 is as good as a prime and it fits the situation and it lessens the number and weight of lenses in your bag, it sure sounds like the most practical way to get the job done. Love your videos!
You are absolutely right, about everything. I've spent 3h watching your videos today. Excellent reasoning. Your photographs are not boring, and it's very obvious that you really love cars, so you want them to look good.
My approach is to use primes when I can move faster than my subject and zooms for when my subject moves faster than me (aka motorsports, rollers, etc). But switching to a dual body setup and working in pairs of primes was absolutely the gamechanger for me. Also, 135mm f1.8 is a killer look over a 70-200mm f2.8. Definitely a fun lens if your system has a decently affordable one.
Hi Kevin, I'm generally not a fan of "talk" type videos but I like yours. That is mostly because you don't go on rambling with sentences full of adjectives, there's substance in your talks. I binge watched your channel to prepare for a car show I was going to on Sunday and it helped a lot. Thank you very much. Here's the part where I argue with you (forgive me). A 24-70 is very useful for a busy outdoor car show. Here's why - I had to stop down to f4 or 5.6 anyway because there was too much light, so a f1.4 lens is pretty redundant. I had an 85 (which I love very much) but it was in a parking lot and cars were too close. I had to stand with my bum against the bumper of one car and then click the other car in front. It was just too long. With a 50 I found myself standing in the middle of the walkways, feeling embarrassed because I was obstructing people walking. And then my buddy shows up with his 24-70 and knocks out pictures with ease..... I do hear you and funnily enough I don't have a 24-70.....maybe that's part of why I am praising the 24-70. Cheers. Looking forward to more of your videos. Cheers
thanks so much! I have relaxed my stance on this a bit. Everything evolves, and there are some tasks and shoots where a 24-70 is the perfect tool. Actually *thinking* about this stuff and having an objective in mind when choosing a lens is the most important thing - it's so easy to just set it to 24mm and 'get everything in the frame,' as the default, and it can be helpful sometimes to eliminate that option in order to challenge yourself.
I agree with your philosophy as it can be applied to all forms of photography. The more common and everyday a photo is, the less interesting it really is. I try to avoid anything that could come close to looking like a cellphone picture. And always show a perceptive from what the eyes can't see, like as simple as shooting low or very high. But, for anyone just getting started, I still think the 24-70 is the first lens they should get followed up with a 50mm prime. And then the 70-200mm. It takes some getting used to shooting zooms. Our eyes don't see like that. It takes lots of practice to train our minds to see zoom shots before you point the camera at that. In the mean time, the 24-70 is still a good multi purpose lens that can do a lot for those that are still learning.
Hey Chris, these are great points! It does take some getting used to shooting zooms, and I hadn't considered that. The 24-70 (2.8) is a good lens for someone learning, but it's often price prohibitive for a beginner.
I get it. This last summer, I found the opposite for cars for me. I shot at a lot of shows/events. This limited my shots to details, interiors, etc. It was rarely possible to compose a decent shot with a 70-200 at these types of events where the cars are usually 10 feet or less apart. I rarely pulled the 70-200 out. Now, for portraits, I rarely use the 24-70. I don't care for any portrait I have taken with it. Give me the 70-200 for my portrait work. All day, every day. I imagine I will feel the same shooting single car type shots as well.
I recently bought a 28-70 f2 and have been really loving it after taking photos with only a 35mm for a few years. I appreciate your take and I think it also depends where you're at and what your focus is (pun not intended- lol) on your photography journey. For me, it's been about composition and having different focal lengths on one lens gives me flexibility at a car gathering to experiment with different compositions at different focal lengths. Perhaps when I start doing more organized shoots where I have control where the car goes, things will be different.
Really well said! I bounce back and forth between primes and zooms, they all have pros and cons, but I think it mixing it up keeps you sharp. Thanks for your comment 👍
I prefer to use primes because I feel like i’m more creative with my composition when I can’t zoom it out for the subject to fit, I still use my 24-105 for track or drift events but that being said I do prefer a 35 or 85 for photoshoots. 35mm can be very good depending on the location.
its funny you say that, I prefer my zoom 24-105 over my primes (50 and 85) i mostly shoot at car shows and i hate being so restricted in tight places. but i do get your point about being creative with primes.
I love it. I focus mainly on portraiture (specifically haircuts) so I’ve got most of my equity rolled into tighter lenses, but I bought an expensive RF 24-70 because I figured I’d probably need wider shots sometimes and thought it would be nice to have that whole end of the range covered with one lens. I regret it every time I grab that lens. It pretty much lives at 24mm if I use it at all. I’ve actually found that for what I need (non-action shots intended for social media) in that range my iPhone 13 can completely handle the job, and MAYBE at the 70mm end I can get better looking background blur than I can using the phones portrait mode, but 70mm F2.8 is like “diet 85mm” and feels like such a compromise compared to even a cheapo little 85mm F1.8… The minute canon releases the rumored RF 24mm F1.8 I’m ditching my 24-70 and making a video about how stupid that lens is 😂
hahah, nice! Sounds like you have a specific set of needs and you've figured out what works. Since making this video, I've gotten into Nikon's mirrorless Z system, which uses all different lenses, and the first Z lens I got was a 24-70 f/4 that came with it. And it's actually great 🤣. I use it mostly for car interiors and engine bay shots, so I don't want background blur in those instances, and I don't miss the size/weight/cost of the f/2.8 lens! I hope Canon releases the 24 1.8 you're waiting for!
Thanks for making this video! I've been enjoying the photo critique vids for the past few days.. you have a way around words, the content is clear but your personality still shines through. Anyways, i bought the Sony A6700 APS-C w/ a 24-70mm full frame equivalent and have taken a lot of wide-to-mid shots - which are fine, but i don't love them. If your subject is out of bounds for positioning, wide is a necessity i guess. But for me most of the time, i have that control and want to force myself to take those extra steps back to get a shot that is different and which i love. So instead of playing it safe, i ordered the Tamron F2-2.8 52-225mm full-frame equivalent thanks to your video. Keep it up!
I agree on this. I just recently traded my 24-70mm f2.8 & 14-24mm f2.8 since most of the time I will only use a wide angle for a certain specific shots. I use a 70-200mm f2.8 & 85mm f1.8 all the time and would only use a wide angle prime just because I need it for a wide angle shot.
Glad that I found this video. I've recently switched to Sony and purchased an A7R IV, and was considering a 24-70 as a first lens for it. Probably going to steer clear of that now lol. However, I still think a zoom lens would be nice to have for situations where I only want to carry one lens, and I've been struggling to choose between the 28-200 and the 70-200. Do you have any opinions on the 28-200? It seems like it would be a good versatile lens for travel and car shows, where I don't have a lot of time to switch lenses. In the meantime I'm going to pick up some primes first for planned shoots.
I am pretty old school, and I just don't trust anything with a range from 28-200 to be very good. That's just my instinct, I have no experience with the lens, it might be great.For my own habits, I know that having virtually every focal length in one lens would make me lazier while shooting, and less particular about composing shots. If you can get the 70-200 (particularly 2.8) I think it's a superior lens. Since this video has been made, I've been using 24-70 a little more, mostly for video. I have another video about techniques for shooting at car shows that might be of interest to you: ruclips.net/video/5lF4EkOWgd0/видео.html
This video and the one you mention in this video where you walk thru the different focal lengths has really resonated with me and has me reassessing my decision to shoot with a 35mm. However, my question is: should I be adjusting for crop factor if I’m using a Nikon Z50 (APS-C)? In other words, should I be treating my 35mm like a 50, and an 85mm like a 125mm and so on?
First of all I‘m thinking you have one of the most underrated channels here on RUclips. You bring out such great content and I really enjoy your calmness. I recently bought a Nikkor 28-75mm f2.8 for my Nikon Z5 mostly for traveling. I don’t like to carry all my lenses with me and the 28-75 is doing a great job so far and very versatile in usage. For traveling I think this is my favorite lens. BUT for shooting cars I will use my 85mm f1.8 more often. The bokeh is so smooth, I love the look of the photos I get with it and if I have the space to move around I will probably will always stick with the 85mm. If not the 50mm will do it. Thanks for the inspiring videos. 🤙🏿
hey, thanks so much for your kind words! That is some great insight. So less than a month after making this video... I bought a Z6 II with the 24-70 f4, and I've been using it ... a lot. 😅 It's great for video, and the versatility is just what I need right now, as I don't have a full suite of Z lenses yet. So maybe I've evolved a little bit and softened my stance. I still don't think I would ever shell out big money for a 24-70 2.8 again, but the 28-75 is a lot more reasonable and looks like a great lens. Thank for watching and taking the time to comment!
Ive had a 50 equivalent for a while, and I just realized, I kept wanting longer shots, or wider shots. I thought something was wrong with me. Now Im ready to ditch it, for a 70-200.
I just picked up the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 for shooting just about everything when it comes to cars, other than racing, and interiors. Like you, my 70-200 is my most used lens for cars, however, having 70 on the narrow end often necessitated switching to my, yes, 24-70. I may miss the 150-200 range a bit. 70-200 will still stick around for action photos of cars, since internal zoom is much better to use for moving subjects, and 14-30 will be in the bag for the rare superwide shot, but my 35-150 will be essentially my only lens now for most car events/situations.
Thanks for the video, I agree with your opinion. Do you have any tips for interior pictures? I shoot in shadow but still get a lot of lens flare and misty pictures.
thanks! Being in shade is the big one, and sometimes even if you're in the shade, the light direction can have an adverse effect, and it can help to turn the car 180°. Maybe a polarizer and/or lens hood? Lens flare and mist sound like they might look good 😅
This is great content! My (Sony mirrorless) kit consists of a 24-70mm kit lens, 50mm prime and a 70-200mm. I've always found the 24-70mm versatile but I've realised by this video that the coolest shots I have are from my 50mm prime or the telezoom. The one thing I'd rather use the 24-70mm would be rolling shots. Mainly because the roads here in Sweden are really narrow. Simply my 2 cents.. Also.. I love your content and this channel deserves alot more attention! Keep the vids coming!
thanks so much! A lot of good points. I agree that 24-70 is great for rolling shots, and I've kind of softened my stance on the 24-70 since mailing this video a year ago. 😆 It is an important tool, but I know what I like and don't like about it.
I stumbled upon this same realization when my 24-105mm f4 broke (and I was too broke to fix/replace it). I used the venerable 70-200 for the exterior…and my phone for the close-ups/details I couldn’t access with the long lens.
As much as I want to argue against this, I've mostly been shooting with a digital rangefinder lately. Not necessarily for car photography lately, but I do see your point.
Hi, this could definitely something to cover in a future video, but what I was trying to say and probably didn’t communicate well, is that my stance on primes versus zooms (especially wider zooms like 24-70) isn’t based on optics/image quality, but it’s more related to mindset and approach to photography, so it’s less tangible to show that result. Using the 24-70 in some (but not all) scenarios makes me lazier, less creative, and less curious. I found that lens to be less essential than I previously thought, and for an expensive lens that usually weighs a lot, it’s a relief to leave it at home or just not buy one if there isn’t one in your kit.
I'm just trying to learn. I'm just getting started and know nothing about the trade. I need entry level equip that can be quite versatile. After I make a few bucks I might be able to invest in specialized gear. I need an all around good camera for video and photos of cars and Im hearing the Nikon Z30 with the 16 to 50mm lens is a good start. Please tell me if I'm wrong
Hi Erick, I don't have personal experience with the Z30, but I like Nikon, and I am a big fan of the Z series. For shooting video and events, that lens will probably be pretty good and be a pretty good workhorse. I hate to give you homework, but these two other videos might be helpful: Shooting Car Events: ruclips.net/video/5lF4EkOWgd0/видео.html What you should know about focal lengths: ruclips.net/video/TKpu8-T1-hg/видео.html
@@capturingthemachine Awesome Thank you. I dont consider it homework. I have been researching everything I can about videography photography and editing. I would love to be able to eventually pay my bills in this industry.
Since I'm a filthy casual I snagged a sigma f3.5 18-200 lens to replace the two standard kit lenses that came with my rebel t5 (an 18-55 and a 70-300), it definitely isn't perfect, but it's MILES better than the kit lenses are. The chromatic aberration on the 70-300 was ABSURD, I barely used that thing because of it. If someone is looking for that kind of wide range of versatility, seems to me that something like this would be more handy than a 24-70 would be if you're on a little bit of a budget and/or don't want to carry very many lenses around w/you. I have a cheap f1.8 50mm prime as well for when I need something a little faster, too, it's great! Everyone should have a 50mm prime IMO. My only real problem with having that much range is that I have to keep reminding myself to pick what look I'm going for with the focal length first instead of going "I will stand here and adjust accordingly," but that's more because of my aforementioned filthy casualness than the lens choice :)
I’m at the crossroads where I’m starting to travel more and more again and I’m serious considering getting rid of my primes just for 2 zooms 24-70 an 70-200 but I agree 100% if I didn’t plan more traveling id be sticking to my primes, you feel more fulfilled and it makes you move your body those couple inches to frame it perfectly that count!
Hey Jacob, I criticized the 24-70, but it's a classic for a reason, and it's nice to have all the focal lengths with you! Good luck with your travels! 👍
This is a realization I've come to as well. The jack of all trades is great to have with you when travelling and doing general photography, especially when you don't want to lug around 3 different lenses. Shooting cars with too wide an angle will give you a boring, bland result. I haven't excluded it from my kit completely, but I try to keep a mental note to only use it at 50mm and above.
My very first lens was a 24-70 and honestly like 90% of my shots have been at either 70 or 24 I hardly ever stop in the middle of that range. I recently got an 85 1.8 and I absolutely love the lens I haven't even used it that much but the few shots I have taken are definitely some of my favorites
I couldn’t agree with you more. As a pro making a living shooting since the first digital camera was available, the 24-70 is a focal range that lacks all wow factor and the least used of all my lenses. Anything worth shooting looks more professional from longer focal ranges. Wide shots are only exciting to me with something very close to the lens in addition to the scene in the distance and to pull these shots off, I want wider than 24mm. 70-200 is my lens 99% of the time and it rarely gets used at 70mm.
This was helpful, I’ve been considering getting a 24-70mm because ‘professional’ like you mentioned but aside from the versatility on rolling/closer panning shots I’ve not really enjoyed using ones I’ve borrowed, and I much prefer using my primes, so I think I’ll hold off for now and maybe look at an 85mm prime or maybe a 70-200mm instead.
thanks Tom! I love my 70-200, and my 85 as well. If you can borrow or rent one to see if it works for you, that's always ideal. I 'upgraded' my 85 1.8 to an 85 1.4 Art lens and it is gigantic and I never use it now 😭
Questions: First, I'd love to get some primes, but as an amateur the cost is a bit prohibitive. How do you feel about vintage primes? Any favorites. Secondly, you're probably thinking that I didn't tell you what platform I'm shooting .So , next question. My camera is an APSC sensor. It's a Fuji X-T3. Any tips for shooting cars with APSC and focal lengths? Or, are you going to say it doesn't matter and composition/creativity is what matters? That's what I think. I currently have two vintage primes I play with: the very common and cheap Canon FD 50mm f1.8, and the Canon FD 135mm f 3.5. My only Fuji lens right now is the 18-55...
Hi Charlie, first of all, I agree with you that creativity and composition is what matters most! I don’t know a lot about APSC, but 50 and 135 are great focal lengths, and if the vintage ones work for you that might be all you need. In the Nikon world, I used some of the older “D” series primes for years, and not having the latest-and-greatest autofocus tech and optical sharpness was never the thing holding me back. If your lenses are manual focus, that could be making it harder for yourself, which could be a potential barrier, but aside from that I see no issues.
@@capturingthemachine Thank-you for the response. I do have focus peaking in manual focus. So, that helps a lot. I was more concerned about various distortion issues like fringing, etc. I'm not a pro at using editing software and currently I'm using the free version of Capture 1 because the alternatives are quite expensive. BTW, love your AC Porsche..... :-)
I have a 35 mm 1.8 for detail shots of cars. This is the only lens I have (started clicking cars this year). Can you please recommend what's best to add to my arsenal that'll help in medium to long range shots + panning shots? Thanks!
I think an 85 1.8 or a 70-200 would be a perfect complement to your 35. The 70-200 offers more flexibility for panning, if that's a factor, but it's always best to rent or borrow any lens before you take the plunge.
I use the tamron 24-70mm and is a great allrounder and can be useful at events, but im looking for a prime to force me to mix up my style by making me look at the subjects differently. But if you had to choose between the 35mm or a 50mm which would you pick?
I prefer the 50 (on a full frame sensor), it's such a good all-rounder. It taught me so much about framing subjects and positioning myself to get the shots I wanted. As a result, maybe, I just like how the world looks at 50mm. It's usually inexpensive (the f/1.8 is 99% as good as the 1.4) so I think everyone should have one.
@@capturingthemachine thank you i know what you mean about learning to look for framing differently as cant just zoom in or out as i found with the 85mm ive got. im full frame aswell so definitley going to look into it further maybe borrow a 50mm and see how it fits with my style.
I’m not a car photographer though I am interested in doing some automotive shoots. I just got a sigma 28-70, and buying I knew it was literally just for work lol. It was like car people who have daily drivers, my real babies are my 50mm summicron-r and I’m thinking I’m going to pair that with a 28mm and those will be my lens for everything that doesn’t require autofocus and speed.
I bought my 24-70mm f/2.8L in 2018, shot one car event with it in 2019, and it's been mostly collecting dust ever since, and a few days ago I posted it for sale. It's such a underwhelming and akward lens to do car stuff with, and I've never found a proper use for it. Feels sad to split up my "holy trinity", but why keep a lens that weighs down your bag and never get used anyway? Oh, I did a studio portrait shoot with the 24-70 once, which it's very good at, but yeah, that's not my forte.
About comparing compromises between 24-70 and 70-200: I think it's not the same, because to me, it looks like 24 70 goes from wide angle to short tele, but 70 200 is always at the telephoto end, you just choose if you want more or less of it. I am not into lens design, but I think that is the reason why more compromises are made with 24 70 then with 70 200. Could be wrong ofc.
24-70 f2.8 is my holiday lens - the one I take when I only want to carry one lens. I have never used it for automotive stuff as I just dont like the distortion.
I am pretty new on car photography, and I try 50mm, but i kind of, for me, was too tight shoot. I am not pro and still not used to get the distance. So I notice that was using more my kit lenses 18-55 on a range of 22mm (APS-C sensor, so around 35mm full frame) that why I got my sigma 18-35mm. Maybe becuase I still didnt got opportunity to get shot of a unique car, that I could frame better... most of my shots are in meetups, so to frame without showing the car next of the one in frame, 22mm looks easy for me. How work on a limited space with tele lense???
hey, if you can't get cars to other locations with more room and you're limited to shooting at events, trying thinking about what you want to capture and what sort of compositions you can get. In that case, details and juxtapositions might me more interesting than a car-framed-in-center with poles and people around it. I have a video about shooting at events that might be helpful: ruclips.net/video/5lF4EkOWgd0/видео.html
After 12 years of using canons 50 1.4, 85 1.8, sigma 35 carrying them, switching... now I bought RF 28-70 F2... It's game changer. But for rolling shots now I need something with IS and probably it will be 15-35 or 24-105
Totally agree. Zooms give you to many choices, and to many choices make it hard to make a choice. I shoot cars and 50 mm is the perfect choice and as you have said it forces you to see. Great work
I own a canon m50 and im looking to get a new lens for car photography any suggestions? I currently have a 24-105mm does the job but looking into something different and sharper.
I agree. The 24-70 2.8 is soul-less. I carry a 70-200 2.8 FL (this lens is so good that it grants wishes), 16-35 f4 because it covers all the wide prime lengths that the old masters would use - 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm - I shoot it at f4 wide open and it's sharp, although I wish the build didn't feel so plastic. Also a 50mm 1.8 as an emergency lens (it weighs nothing), and 35 f2 (I think this is better value than 35 1.8 which is physically too long) if I want to shoot the 35mm environmental portrait look with shallow dof..... The only time I would every own a 24-70 is if my job was documenting events.
I'm laughing my ass of now, as I've just purchased a 20mm for the same reason you stated in this video. I won't agree with you about 35mm, as that's my favorite focal length, but I've learned to love 50mm, which I hated (maybe disliked is better suited, but when I started shooting didn't understand what to do with that focal length and how can people shoot that narrow). And yes 70-200 is the most wonderful thing for car photos (my go to combo for years is 35 + 70-200).
Glad I saw this video. I'm upgrading and switching from Canon to Fujifilm and I already know I'll get the 70-300, but I've been debating in my mind on primes vs a 24-70 equivalent. Deep down, I don't really want to get a general zoom lens because I really love what low light capabilities and sharpness primes can give. Your Focal Length video made me choose a Sigma 30 F1.4 cause of its near 50mm equivalency for my Canon M50 last year and I've absolutely loved it! It really is fantastic value. Therefore, this video along with a landscape photographer I really like who also recommended a 20mm, 50mm and a 70-200 or 70-300 zoom has made me feel better in my future decision for the Fuji X-T4 cause a 24-70 equivalent would've felt like an expensive compromise. Thanks dude 👍
i bought a 24-70 f2.8 as my first expensive zoom lens alongside my first full frame camera (eos r) in preparation for a long trip abroad. While it was amazing for street and landscape photography, I really dislike how it looks for cars. I'd take my samyang mf 85mm f1.4 over it any day for shooting cars,and I wish I got a 70-200mm instead :/That being said, I'll still hold onto it for everything that isnt car related, and i'll be starting to shoot video soon so it'll be nice for that
You should have posted this video a couple of months ago 😅 I bought a 24-70 f/2.8 and use it only for interior shots and I thought I will use it way more. I prefer my 70-200 for car shots.
You have been very clever to draw attention with the title, but you have also known how to argue. I was thinking about my experience taking photos of cars and the ones I have were all with focal lengths greater than 50mm. Without a doubt, for your photographic subject, 24-70 does not make sense, makes sense for wedding photographers, journalism or like a travel lens. If you have time to compose, nothing better than a fixed lens, it is a simpler, sharper lens, with fewer aberrations and much cheaper. Kind regards.
My first lens specifically for my D4s was the 24-70 f2.8. Simply for weddings. A zoom lens has a lot more glass LENSES inside than any prime at set focal length. Prime is crisper PERIOD. So why buy zoom. For speed, not having to change lenses. Simply to keep up with the pace of moving subjects or multiple subjects at different focal lengths. Saves time. My camera can make up for most of the difference between not shooting the prime !
Thanks for watching and commenting, I definitely can't speak for usage in weddings. My argument against 24-70 (for cars) isn't about sharpness at all, it's that *I don't like how cars look at wider focal lengths*, and having such a wide zoom range makes me lazier when shooting. Taking pictures of people, under the time constraints of a wedding - for sure, a 24-70 is a valuable tool.
@@capturingthemachine I would think the 14-24 f2.8 would be an ideal lense for what you do ! I don’t say this from experience just in observation. I’m going to try the trinity as Iv never used zooms myself. This time around for the first year anyway. I’ll only use zooms. Primes are king but I need to develop more as a photographer in this area !
@@flatheadfletch something that wide is nice for car interiors and details, but I hate how it makes car exteriors look. Not to give you homework, but I have a video with my observations about focal lengths and cars here: ruclips.net/video/TKpu8-T1-hg/видео.html
Like someone else mentions below - I was reasonably satisfied with the 24-70 when I was on a crop-sensor. Now that I've moved to mirrorless full-frame (Nikon Z6II) it is still the lens I reach for...mostly out of inertia. The shots are never as pleasing as the mighty 70-200. I've been waffling on selling the 24-70 - replacing with the new 24-120 as a "I can only carry one lens" lens, and supplementing with some wide prime and maybe the new 40 f/2 as an everyday lens. Oh, and the Nikon 105 2.5 Steve McCurry Special that is coming to me via eBay...I need a bigger shoulder bag.
thanks Chris! I don't think the 24-120 would be satisfying at all, but having a 40 or 50 with the 70-200 is really ideal. I am really curious about the Nikon Z6, I'm still in the stone age 😅
@@tonn_chris haha! I am borrowing a Z6 (I think it's earlier though) this weekend, I shoot all my videos with a Lumix and stills with Nikon so it would be great if it could all be one system.
@@capturingthemachine yeah, the Z6 is one generation older than my Z6II - same basic camera, but the II version allows CF Express card (instead of just XQD), has a second SD slot for backup/overflow, and allows for a vertical grip (rather than just a battery grip with no controls on the Z6) but if you like the image quality on Z6 you try this weekend you'll be happy with Z6ii.
I dunno but maybe you said the reason a lot of your photos looks like they came from the 1970s-80s. simple and basic comps is what this new age is missing and you brought back the old ways of car photography. I love how super basic your auto photos are, and it seams like that's what makes it look interesting. Try and find magazines from the 80s or look up 80s early 90s car brochures and you will see what I mean.
@@capturingthemachine there is an art to how he does it. Remember these pros back in the 80s were a master of film. It was very important for them to get it just right. A lot of thought for perfection. It’s for sure spray and edit for most of us photographs in these modern times.
@@2two7seven0 yes - I've softened my stance on the 24-70 a bit since this, so a 24-70 would probably be great for that. Being deliberate about the lenses you use and giving it thought, instead of settling into a a lazy default - that's the best way to go. It sounds like you're on the right track.
I have a Tamron 2.8 that I use for covering an event kinda vibe, but I prefer my 35/50/85 combo when I actually have the time to shoot ONE car. I do eventually want a 70-200 cause I’d really like to shoot local drift events.
I'm waiting for my fd e mount converter so I can slap a vintage 135 2.8 +2x converter on my apsc for a equivalent of a $20k 405mm 2.8. so yeah I agree boring lenses are boring
hello, @CaptureTheMachine.. first of all... i would like to say thank you for your videos and knowledge of car photography. i am an aspiring car photographer, and i enjoy watching your videos. i have a 35mm 2.8 and i struggle to take "good photos".. but as soon as i use my 85mm 1.2 my car photos seem to stand out and look better. i always thought it was my inability to my 35mm 2.8 properly, but i am glad that to hear you think the same. i originally bought the 35 2.8 to simplify my EDC camera, but turns out... i actually hate my 35mm 2.8. its so boring and i find myself using less and editing less of my 35mm photos. it bums me out cuz i tend to not get caught up in gear and to many tools, but in this scenario.. i believe 35mm is a no go for car photography. at least get a faster 35mm.. maybe like a 1.4? anyway.. keep up the videos. cheers
Thanks for watching and for the comment! I definitely agree about the 35, I just don't care for that perspective with car exteriors, and I don't think a wider aperture improves it too much. Even at 1.4, the shallow depth of field effect isn't as dramatic as a longer lens at 2.8. A 50 1.8 or 1.4 is a nicer balance if you need to go wider than 85mm, and usually it's a pretty affordable lens.
Ahaaaa.........I need a rethink as this is what has had me head scratching for a while. Ive got 2 good lenses I bought recently, a 24-70 and a 35mm Sigma ART 1.4, because I saw a blog page saying how good they were for automotive. Not for me they arn't, so ive been sitting here wondering what to do. Buckle up and get a 70-200 in their place, or go for a couple of primes (85 /105 ish). Im not a car show guy so i dont need that versatility and i need the compression you have demonstrated in some of your vids as im as much aboput creating 'art with cars in' than just photos of cars ;-)
wow, thanks, and good insights! I love my 70-200 and couldn't imagine not having it. I love primes, and my thoughts about lenses and usage is constantly evolving (even since making this video 7 months ago!), but if you have a prime that's within the focal length range of your most commonly used zoom, you just end up not using the prime very much because it's inconvenient. I had a very good 85mm 1.4 that sat on the shelf for 2 years because it weighed a ton and the benefits weren't dramatic enough for me to unmount the 70-200!
@@capturingthemachine Kind of where ive landed.......just waiting delivery of a 'Nearly new' Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR, keeping the 35mm prime for now, but end up changing that out at some point as I feel it kind of sits in a no-man's land and probably won't get used much.
@@andytaylor1 oh awesome, that will be great! 35mm isn't my fav, but I think that's a nice combination and will serve you very well, and I've heard great things about the ART 35 1.4.
@@capturingthemachine It's a nice lens for sure, but I've not found it's calling yet in car photography....maybe as my 24-70 overlapped it there didn't seem much point swapping to it. Maybe it will come into its own when the new one is here :-)
@@andytaylor1 I think 35 is handy as your wider lens. You'll be able to do interiors, as well as creative and unusual exterior perspectives - things like high above or super low, where a 70-200 is impossible/impractical.
Im just starting and have obtained a nikon d3500 not a pro cam by all means but it is a good camera for a starter like myself. Have learnt heaps from ur vids so thank you. From NZ
The new(ish) RF28-70 F2 however ... is an entirely different animal. It is so ... so pretty at 70mm. Especially with natural light that flares a little. I suppose that still makes it a specialized tool. It is, however, unbelievably heavy. Which, ironically, is why I switched from the EF70-700 to the RF70-200. To save weight in my bag.
This makes sense. I've noticed when I walk around with my Tamron 28-75 at car meets (I left Nikon for Sony) I set it to 50mm and walk around like it's a prime. My 50 hardly left my D600 and I was always pleased with the results.
Imagine blaming the glass for “soulless” photos lol. I’ve seen tons of great images taken with a 24-70mm. It’s literally the same thing as owning a 24, 35, and a 50. Just doesn’t get to 85mm. Does that guy just not like any focal lengths?
Thanks for the video! It was very interesting. My main lens (I don't photograph cars, but I plan to) is 24 mm 1.4 (Nikon D 850) And over the years of working with him, I can say that this is one of the most difficult angles, watering in different directions will not work) Therefore, of course longer angles are easier from the point of view of frame construction. I take inspiration from Emmanuel Lubezki (chivexp inst) - he has almost all the photos taken at 24. And it's very difficult to build a composition like that. That is, what I'm all about - it's more difficult to build a general plan. Like in the movies)
This really resonated with me, I purchased my 24-70 with my D750 6 years ago now. And since finally buying a 70-200 last year, my 24-70 has stayed in the bag virtually all of the time bar a couple of occasions (interiors etc).
I wish I could have had this level of detailed information you put out 5-6 years ago.
Keep on going with this great content, we don't get enough of it in automotive photography. It's great to watch someone shoot, breakdown what they're doing with reasoning, show the results and talk through their opinions and findings over their career.
Thank you SO much for this feedback and insights! Articulating this stuff to create videos has been helpful for myself, and I also wish I had some of this info 5-6 years ago 😅
Each lens has its own purpose. myself i use 17-50 F2.8 , 99% of the time as thats the lens i got and i've covered most of the types of photography with it. for motorsport i use 18-200 and thinking of swapping with 18-400. I know many motorsport photographers uses 100-700 (or something like that) but i've found that its better to be prepared to shoot shots when vehicle is close to me as well as a bit far away, i found 200 to be decent, only a few times i wished i had like 300mm or 400 just to get that shot, above 400 i say is not realy necessary.
“A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one” is how the full quote goes. If the quality of the 24mm setting on a 24-70 is as good as a prime and it fits the situation and it lessens the number and weight of lenses in your bag, it sure sounds like the most practical way to get the job done. Love your videos!
thanks so much for your support!
No zoom is as good as a prime at any focal length. PERIOD
@@capturingthemachine I covered a Formula Drift event with only a 50mm and 70-300mm. It worked out pretty well.
@@MisterMonsieur fantastic!
wrong. the real quote is „Jack of all trades, and a master of one.“
You are absolutely right, about everything. I've spent 3h watching your videos today. Excellent reasoning. Your photographs are not boring, and it's very obvious that you really love cars, so you want them to look good.
you made my day, thanks so much!
My approach is to use primes when I can move faster than my subject and zooms for when my subject moves faster than me (aka motorsports, rollers, etc). But switching to a dual body setup and working in pairs of primes was absolutely the gamechanger for me.
Also, 135mm f1.8 is a killer look over a 70-200mm f2.8. Definitely a fun lens if your system has a decently affordable one.
thanks for this insight, that is a great rule of thumb. I will definitely check out the 135! 🤔
Hi Kevin, I'm generally not a fan of "talk" type videos but I like yours. That is mostly because you don't go on rambling with sentences full of adjectives, there's substance in your talks. I binge watched your channel to prepare for a car show I was going to on Sunday and it helped a lot. Thank you very much.
Here's the part where I argue with you (forgive me). A 24-70 is very useful for a busy outdoor car show. Here's why - I had to stop down to f4 or 5.6 anyway because there was too much light, so a f1.4 lens is pretty redundant. I had an 85 (which I love very much) but it was in a parking lot and cars were too close. I had to stand with my bum against the bumper of one car and then click the other car in front. It was just too long. With a 50 I found myself standing in the middle of the walkways, feeling embarrassed because I was obstructing people walking. And then my buddy shows up with his 24-70 and knocks out pictures with ease.....
I do hear you and funnily enough I don't have a 24-70.....maybe that's part of why I am praising the 24-70. Cheers.
Looking forward to more of your videos. Cheers
thanks so much! I have relaxed my stance on this a bit. Everything evolves, and there are some tasks and shoots where a 24-70 is the perfect tool.
Actually *thinking* about this stuff and having an objective in mind when choosing a lens is the most important thing - it's so easy to just set it to 24mm and 'get everything in the frame,' as the default, and it can be helpful sometimes to eliminate that option in order to challenge yourself.
I agree with your philosophy as it can be applied to all forms of photography. The more common and everyday a photo is, the less interesting it really is. I try to avoid anything that could come close to looking like a cellphone picture. And always show a perceptive from what the eyes can't see, like as simple as shooting low or very high.
But, for anyone just getting started, I still think the 24-70 is the first lens they should get followed up with a 50mm prime. And then the 70-200mm. It takes some getting used to shooting zooms. Our eyes don't see like that. It takes lots of practice to train our minds to see zoom shots before you point the camera at that. In the mean time, the 24-70 is still a good multi purpose lens that can do a lot for those that are still learning.
Hey Chris, these are great points! It does take some getting used to shooting zooms, and I hadn't considered that. The 24-70 (2.8) is a good lens for someone learning, but it's often price prohibitive for a beginner.
@@capturingthemachineYa. It's too expensive for a beginner.
I get it. This last summer, I found the opposite for cars for me. I shot at a lot of shows/events. This limited my shots to details, interiors, etc. It was rarely possible to compose a decent shot with a 70-200 at these types of events where the cars are usually 10 feet or less apart. I rarely pulled the 70-200 out. Now, for portraits, I rarely use the 24-70. I don't care for any portrait I have taken with it. Give me the 70-200 for my portrait work. All day, every day. I imagine I will feel the same shooting single car type shots as well.
thanks for this insight, Cecil! 👍
I recently bought a 28-70 f2 and have been really loving it after taking photos with only a 35mm for a few years. I appreciate your take and I think it also depends where you're at and what your focus is (pun not intended- lol) on your photography journey. For me, it's been about composition and having different focal lengths on one lens gives me flexibility at a car gathering to experiment with different compositions at different focal lengths. Perhaps when I start doing more organized shoots where I have control where the car goes, things will be different.
Really well said! I bounce back and forth between primes and zooms, they all have pros and cons, but I think it mixing it up keeps you sharp. Thanks for your comment 👍
I prefer to use primes because I feel like i’m more creative with my composition when I can’t zoom it out for the subject to fit, I still use my 24-105 for track or drift events but that being said I do prefer a 35 or 85 for photoshoots. 35mm can be very good depending on the location.
really good points!
its funny you say that, I prefer my zoom 24-105 over my primes (50 and 85) i mostly shoot at car shows and i hate being so restricted in tight places. but i do get your point about being creative with primes.
I love it. I focus mainly on portraiture (specifically haircuts) so I’ve got most of my equity rolled into tighter lenses, but I bought an expensive RF 24-70 because I figured I’d probably need wider shots sometimes and thought it would be nice to have that whole end of the range covered with one lens. I regret it every time I grab that lens. It pretty much lives at 24mm if I use it at all. I’ve actually found that for what I need (non-action shots intended for social media) in that range my iPhone 13 can completely handle the job, and MAYBE at the 70mm end I can get better looking background blur than I can using the phones portrait mode, but 70mm F2.8 is like “diet 85mm” and feels like such a compromise compared to even a cheapo little 85mm F1.8… The minute canon releases the rumored RF 24mm F1.8 I’m ditching my 24-70 and making a video about how stupid that lens is 😂
hahah, nice! Sounds like you have a specific set of needs and you've figured out what works. Since making this video, I've gotten into Nikon's mirrorless Z system, which uses all different lenses, and the first Z lens I got was a 24-70 f/4 that came with it. And it's actually great 🤣. I use it mostly for car interiors and engine bay shots, so I don't want background blur in those instances, and I don't miss the size/weight/cost of the f/2.8 lens! I hope Canon releases the 24 1.8 you're waiting for!
Thanks for making this video! I've been enjoying the photo critique vids for the past few days.. you have a way around words, the content is clear but your personality still shines through. Anyways, i bought the Sony A6700 APS-C w/ a 24-70mm full frame equivalent and have taken a lot of wide-to-mid shots - which are fine, but i don't love them. If your subject is out of bounds for positioning, wide is a necessity i guess. But for me most of the time, i have that control and want to force myself to take those extra steps back to get a shot that is different and which i love. So instead of playing it safe, i ordered the Tamron F2-2.8 52-225mm full-frame equivalent thanks to your video. Keep it up!
thanks for this comment!
I agree on this. I just recently traded my 24-70mm f2.8 & 14-24mm f2.8 since most of the time I will only use a wide angle for a certain specific shots. I use a 70-200mm f2.8 & 85mm f1.8 all the time and would only use a wide angle prime just because I need it for a wide angle shot.
thats awesome! Sounds like the perfect setup, thanks for watching 👍
Glad that I found this video. I've recently switched to Sony and purchased an A7R IV, and was considering a 24-70 as a first lens for it. Probably going to steer clear of that now lol. However, I still think a zoom lens would be nice to have for situations where I only want to carry one lens, and I've been struggling to choose between the 28-200 and the 70-200. Do you have any opinions on the 28-200? It seems like it would be a good versatile lens for travel and car shows, where I don't have a lot of time to switch lenses. In the meantime I'm going to pick up some primes first for planned shoots.
I am pretty old school, and I just don't trust anything with a range from 28-200 to be very good. That's just my instinct, I have no experience with the lens, it might be great.For my own habits, I know that having virtually every focal length in one lens would make me lazier while shooting, and less particular about composing shots. If you can get the 70-200 (particularly 2.8) I think it's a superior lens.
Since this video has been made, I've been using 24-70 a little more, mostly for video. I have another video about techniques for shooting at car shows that might be of interest to you: ruclips.net/video/5lF4EkOWgd0/видео.html
i am mostly a prime guy, but I am getting a 24-90 for my SL2s now for rolling shots interiors and corporate events. Great channel btw.
Right on! Thanks so much 👍
Prime’s all the way!
This video and the one you mention in this video where you walk thru the different focal lengths has really resonated with me and has me reassessing my decision to shoot with a 35mm. However, my question is: should I be adjusting for crop factor if I’m using a Nikon Z50 (APS-C)? In other words, should I be treating my 35mm like a 50, and an 85mm like a 125mm and so on?
yes, exactly, factor the sensor in. 35mm on an APS-C sensor offers pretty much all of the benefits as 50mm on full frame.
First of all I‘m thinking you have one of the most underrated channels here on RUclips. You bring out such great content and I really enjoy your calmness.
I recently bought a Nikkor 28-75mm f2.8 for my Nikon Z5 mostly for traveling. I don’t like to carry all my lenses with me and the 28-75 is doing a great job so far and very versatile in usage. For traveling I think this is my favorite lens.
BUT for shooting cars I will use my 85mm f1.8 more often. The bokeh is so smooth, I love the look of the photos I get with it and if I have the space to move around I will probably will always stick with the 85mm. If not the 50mm will do it.
Thanks for the inspiring videos. 🤙🏿
hey, thanks so much for your kind words! That is some great insight. So less than a month after making this video... I bought a Z6 II with the 24-70 f4, and I've been using it ... a lot. 😅 It's great for video, and the versatility is just what I need right now, as I don't have a full suite of Z lenses yet. So maybe I've evolved a little bit and softened my stance. I still don't think I would ever shell out big money for a 24-70 2.8 again, but the 28-75 is a lot more reasonable and looks like a great lens. Thank for watching and taking the time to comment!
Ive had a 50 equivalent for a while, and I just realized, I kept wanting longer shots, or wider shots. I thought something was wrong with me. Now Im ready to ditch it, for a 70-200.
I just picked up the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 for shooting just about everything when it comes to cars, other than racing, and interiors. Like you, my 70-200 is my most used lens for cars, however, having 70 on the narrow end often necessitated switching to my, yes, 24-70. I may miss the 150-200 range a bit. 70-200 will still stick around for action photos of cars, since internal zoom is much better to use for moving subjects, and 14-30 will be in the bag for the rare superwide shot, but my 35-150 will be essentially my only lens now for most car events/situations.
Great insight, thanks for your comment! 30-150 sounds interesting, especially if it's f/2-2.8 😱
Thanks for the video, I agree with your opinion. Do you have any tips for interior pictures? I shoot in shadow but still get a lot of lens flare and misty pictures.
thanks! Being in shade is the big one, and sometimes even if you're in the shade, the light direction can have an adverse effect, and it can help to turn the car 180°. Maybe a polarizer and/or lens hood? Lens flare and mist sound like they might look good 😅
This is great content! My (Sony mirrorless) kit consists of a 24-70mm kit lens, 50mm prime and a 70-200mm. I've always found the 24-70mm versatile but I've realised by this video that the coolest shots I have are from my 50mm prime or the telezoom.
The one thing I'd rather use the 24-70mm would be rolling shots. Mainly because the roads here in Sweden are really narrow.
Simply my 2 cents..
Also.. I love your content and this channel deserves alot more attention! Keep the vids coming!
thanks so much! A lot of good points. I agree that 24-70 is great for rolling shots, and I've kind of softened my stance on the 24-70 since mailing this video a year ago. 😆 It is an important tool, but I know what I like and don't like about it.
I stumbled upon this same realization when my 24-105mm f4 broke (and I was too broke to fix/replace it). I used the venerable 70-200 for the exterior…and my phone for the close-ups/details I couldn’t access with the long lens.
nice!
As much as I want to argue against this, I've mostly been shooting with a digital rangefinder lately. Not necessarily for car photography lately, but I do see your point.
very cool!
Do you have example of prime vs zoom? So we can understand what your specifically seeing.
Hi, this could definitely something to cover in a future video, but what I was trying to say and probably didn’t communicate well, is that my stance on primes versus zooms (especially wider zooms like 24-70) isn’t based on optics/image quality, but it’s more related to mindset and approach to photography, so it’s less tangible to show that result. Using the 24-70 in some (but not all) scenarios makes me lazier, less creative, and less curious. I found that lens to be less essential than I previously thought, and for an expensive lens that usually weighs a lot, it’s a relief to leave it at home or just not buy one if there isn’t one in your kit.
I'm just trying to learn. I'm just getting started and know nothing about the trade. I need entry level equip that can be quite versatile. After I make a few bucks I might be able to invest in specialized gear. I need an all around good camera for video and photos of cars and Im hearing the Nikon Z30 with the 16 to 50mm lens is a good start. Please tell me if I'm wrong
Hi Erick, I don't have personal experience with the Z30, but I like Nikon, and I am a big fan of the Z series. For shooting video and events, that lens will probably be pretty good and be a pretty good workhorse.
I hate to give you homework, but these two other videos might be helpful:
Shooting Car Events: ruclips.net/video/5lF4EkOWgd0/видео.html
What you should know about focal lengths: ruclips.net/video/TKpu8-T1-hg/видео.html
@@capturingthemachine Awesome Thank you. I dont consider it homework. I have been researching everything I can about videography photography and editing. I would love to be able to eventually pay my bills in this industry.
Since I'm a filthy casual I snagged a sigma f3.5 18-200 lens to replace the two standard kit lenses that came with my rebel t5 (an 18-55 and a 70-300), it definitely isn't perfect, but it's MILES better than the kit lenses are. The chromatic aberration on the 70-300 was ABSURD, I barely used that thing because of it. If someone is looking for that kind of wide range of versatility, seems to me that something like this would be more handy than a 24-70 would be if you're on a little bit of a budget and/or don't want to carry very many lenses around w/you.
I have a cheap f1.8 50mm prime as well for when I need something a little faster, too, it's great! Everyone should have a 50mm prime IMO.
My only real problem with having that much range is that I have to keep reminding myself to pick what look I'm going for with the focal length first instead of going "I will stand here and adjust accordingly," but that's more because of my aforementioned filthy casualness than the lens choice :)
hahaha, these are all good points, thanks!
I’m at the crossroads where I’m starting to travel more and more again and I’m serious considering getting rid of my primes just for 2 zooms 24-70 an 70-200 but I agree 100% if I didn’t plan more traveling id be sticking to my primes, you feel more fulfilled and it makes you move your body those couple inches to frame it perfectly that count!
Hey Jacob, I criticized the 24-70, but it's a classic for a reason, and it's nice to have all the focal lengths with you! Good luck with your travels! 👍
This is a realization I've come to as well. The jack of all trades is great to have with you when travelling and doing general photography, especially when you don't want to lug around 3 different lenses. Shooting cars with too wide an angle will give you a boring, bland result.
I haven't excluded it from my kit completely, but I try to keep a mental note to only use it at 50mm and above.
thanks for this insight, I agree, there are times where the versatility and speed is really useful.
Love this video. Kevin lays down the glass smack. Boom.
thanks Brad!
My very first lens was a 24-70 and honestly like 90% of my shots have been at either 70 or 24 I hardly ever stop in the middle of that range. I recently got an 85 1.8 and I absolutely love the lens I haven't even used it that much but the few shots I have taken are definitely some of my favorites
85mm 1.8 is excellent 😍
I couldn’t agree with you more. As a pro making a living shooting since the first digital camera was available, the 24-70 is a focal range that lacks all wow factor and the least used of all my lenses. Anything worth shooting looks more professional from longer focal ranges. Wide shots are only exciting to me with something very close to the lens in addition to the scene in the distance and to pull these shots off, I want wider than 24mm.
70-200 is my lens 99% of the time and it rarely gets used at 70mm.
totally agree, thanks for your comment!
This was helpful, I’ve been considering getting a 24-70mm because ‘professional’ like you mentioned but aside from the versatility on rolling/closer panning shots I’ve not really enjoyed using ones I’ve borrowed, and I much prefer using my primes, so I think I’ll hold off for now and maybe look at an 85mm prime or maybe a 70-200mm instead.
thanks Tom! I love my 70-200, and my 85 as well. If you can borrow or rent one to see if it works for you, that's always ideal. I 'upgraded' my 85 1.8 to an 85 1.4 Art lens and it is gigantic and I never use it now 😭
Questions: First, I'd love to get some primes, but as an amateur the cost is a bit prohibitive. How do you feel about vintage primes? Any favorites. Secondly, you're probably thinking that I didn't tell you what platform I'm shooting .So , next question. My camera is an APSC sensor. It's a Fuji X-T3. Any tips for shooting cars with APSC and focal lengths? Or, are you going to say it doesn't matter and composition/creativity is what matters? That's what I think. I currently have two vintage primes I play with: the very common and cheap Canon FD 50mm f1.8, and the Canon FD 135mm f 3.5. My only Fuji lens right now is the 18-55...
Hi Charlie, first of all, I agree with you that creativity and composition is what matters most! I don’t know a lot about APSC, but 50 and 135 are great focal lengths, and if the vintage ones work for you that might be all you need. In the Nikon world, I used some of the older “D” series primes for years, and not having the latest-and-greatest autofocus tech and optical sharpness was never the thing holding me back. If your lenses are manual focus, that could be making it harder for yourself, which could be a potential barrier, but aside from that I see no issues.
@@capturingthemachine Thank-you for the response. I do have focus peaking in manual focus. So, that helps a lot. I was more concerned about various distortion issues like fringing, etc. I'm not a pro at using editing software and currently I'm using the free version of Capture 1 because the alternatives are quite expensive. BTW, love your AC Porsche..... :-)
@@charliejg thank you!
24-70 was my favorite with crop censor. Now that I switched to FF I rarely use it.
👏
Oh, that's so true! Sold my 24-105 with no regrets other than build quality.
awesome to hear this!
I have a 35 mm 1.8 for detail shots of cars. This is the only lens I have (started clicking cars this year). Can you please recommend what's best to add to my arsenal that'll help in medium to long range shots + panning shots? Thanks!
I think an 85 1.8 or a 70-200 would be a perfect complement to your 35. The 70-200 offers more flexibility for panning, if that's a factor, but it's always best to rent or borrow any lens before you take the plunge.
I use the tamron 24-70mm and is a great allrounder and can be useful at events, but im looking for a prime to force me to mix up my style by making me look at the subjects differently. But if you had to choose between the 35mm or a 50mm which would you pick?
I prefer the 50 (on a full frame sensor), it's such a good all-rounder. It taught me so much about framing subjects and positioning myself to get the shots I wanted. As a result, maybe, I just like how the world looks at 50mm. It's usually inexpensive (the f/1.8 is 99% as good as the 1.4) so I think everyone should have one.
@@capturingthemachine thank you i know what you mean about learning to look for framing differently as cant just zoom in or out as i found with the 85mm ive got. im full frame aswell so definitley going to look into it further maybe borrow a 50mm and see how it fits with my style.
My first Nikon lens I bought was the 20mm 1.8. Things a beast and will prob be my favorite lens of all time.
nice! I enjoy it
I’m not a car photographer though I am interested in doing some automotive shoots. I just got a sigma 28-70, and buying I knew it was literally just for work lol. It was like car people who have daily drivers, my real babies are my 50mm summicron-r and I’m thinking I’m going to pair that with a 28mm and those will be my lens for everything that doesn’t require autofocus and speed.
well said!
I bought my 24-70mm f/2.8L in 2018, shot one car event with it in 2019, and it's been mostly collecting dust ever since, and a few days ago I posted it for sale. It's such a underwhelming and akward lens to do car stuff with, and I've never found a proper use for it. Feels sad to split up my "holy trinity", but why keep a lens that weighs down your bag and never get used anyway?
Oh, I did a studio portrait shoot with the 24-70 once, which it's very good at, but yeah, that's not my forte.
Absolutely, great points!
About comparing compromises between 24-70 and 70-200: I think it's not the same, because to me, it looks like 24 70 goes from wide angle to short tele, but 70 200 is always at the telephoto end, you just choose if you want more or less of it. I am not into lens design, but I think that is the reason why more compromises are made with 24 70 then with 70 200. Could be wrong ofc.
You're right, the 24-70 has to do more, which is why it's more compromised - but I don't have to like it! 😂 Thanks for watching! 👍
24-70 f2.8 is my holiday lens - the one I take when I only want to carry one lens. I have never used it for automotive stuff as I just dont like the distortion.
Preach!
I am pretty new on car photography, and I try 50mm, but i kind of, for me, was too tight shoot. I am not pro and still not used to get the distance. So I notice that was using more my kit lenses 18-55 on a range of 22mm (APS-C sensor, so around 35mm full frame) that why I got my sigma 18-35mm. Maybe becuase I still didnt got opportunity to get shot of a unique car, that I could frame better... most of my shots are in meetups, so to frame without showing the car next of the one in frame, 22mm looks easy for me. How work on a limited space with tele lense???
hey, if you can't get cars to other locations with more room and you're limited to shooting at events, trying thinking about what you want to capture and what sort of compositions you can get. In that case, details and juxtapositions might me more interesting than a car-framed-in-center with poles and people around it. I have a video about shooting at events that might be helpful: ruclips.net/video/5lF4EkOWgd0/видео.html
After 12 years of using canons 50 1.4, 85 1.8, sigma 35 carrying them, switching... now I bought RF 28-70 F2... It's game changer. But for rolling shots now I need something with IS and probably it will be 15-35 or 24-105
I've heard good things about that 28-72!
Totally agree. Zooms give you to many choices, and to many choices make it hard to make a choice. I shoot cars and 50 mm is the perfect choice and as you have said it forces you to see. Great work
thank you for watching!
I own a canon m50 and im looking to get a new lens for car photography any suggestions? I currently have a 24-105mm does the job but looking into something different and sharper.
I love a 50 1.8 or 85 1.8, but for tons of versatility, I can’t beat the 70-200 2.8
I agree. The 24-70 2.8 is soul-less. I carry a 70-200 2.8 FL (this lens is so good that it grants wishes), 16-35 f4 because it covers all the wide prime lengths that the old masters would use - 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm - I shoot it at f4 wide open and it's sharp, although I wish the build didn't feel so plastic. Also a 50mm 1.8 as an emergency lens (it weighs nothing), and 35 f2 (I think this is better value than 35 1.8 which is physically too long) if I want to shoot the 35mm environmental portrait look with shallow dof..... The only time I would every own a 24-70 is if my job was documenting events.
Thanks for your comment, Dave! I love that you've put so much thought into your lens choices, and I agree. 👍
100% agree with the “soulless” comment!! First lens I purchased never used it again after I got an 85mm
Exactly!
I'm laughing my ass of now, as I've just purchased a 20mm for the same reason you stated in this video. I won't agree with you about 35mm, as that's my favorite focal length, but I've learned to love 50mm, which I hated (maybe disliked is better suited, but when I started shooting didn't understand what to do with that focal length and how can people shoot that narrow). And yes 70-200 is the most wonderful thing for car photos (my go to combo for years is 35 + 70-200).
haha, awesome, thanks for watching and and commenting! 👍
Glad I saw this video. I'm upgrading and switching from Canon to Fujifilm and I already know I'll get the 70-300, but I've been debating in my mind on primes vs a 24-70 equivalent. Deep down, I don't really want to get a general zoom lens because I really love what low light capabilities and sharpness primes can give.
Your Focal Length video made me choose a Sigma 30 F1.4 cause of its near 50mm equivalency for my Canon M50 last year and I've absolutely loved it! It really is fantastic value.
Therefore, this video along with a landscape photographer I really like who also recommended a 20mm, 50mm and a 70-200 or 70-300 zoom has made me feel better in my future decision for the Fuji X-T4 cause a 24-70 equivalent would've felt like an expensive compromise. Thanks dude 👍
awesome to hear it! Thanks for watching, and I'm glad it was helpful 👍
i bought a 24-70 f2.8 as my first expensive zoom lens alongside my first full frame camera (eos r) in preparation for a long trip abroad. While it was amazing for street and landscape photography, I really dislike how it looks for cars. I'd take my samyang mf 85mm f1.4 over it any day for shooting cars,and I wish I got a 70-200mm instead :/That being said, I'll still hold onto it for everything that isnt car related, and i'll be starting to shoot video soon so it'll be nice for that
great insights, thanks for watching!
You should have posted this video a couple of months ago 😅
I bought a 24-70 f/2.8 and use it only for interior shots and I thought I will use it way more. I prefer my 70-200 for car shots.
hahaha well it's always useful to have in the kit, so I'm sure it will find its purpose for something - travel, events, architecture maybe!
Me with my pretty compact Tamron 28-75mm 2.8: He said heavy hah! My lovely Tamron is saved from all the criticism!
Hahaha, well played 😅
great reflection
thanks!
You have been very clever to draw attention with the title, but you have also known how to argue.
I was thinking about my experience taking photos of cars and the ones I have were all with focal lengths greater than 50mm. Without a doubt, for your photographic subject, 24-70 does not make sense, makes sense for wedding photographers, journalism or like a travel lens. If you have time to compose, nothing better than a fixed lens, it is a simpler, sharper lens, with fewer aberrations and much cheaper. Kind regards.
Thanks for your comment and for watching!
My first lens specifically for my D4s was the 24-70 f2.8. Simply for weddings. A zoom lens has a lot more glass LENSES inside than any prime at set focal length. Prime is crisper PERIOD. So why buy zoom. For speed, not having to change lenses. Simply to keep up with the pace of moving subjects or multiple subjects at different focal lengths. Saves time. My camera can make up for most of the difference between not shooting the prime !
Thanks for watching and commenting, I definitely can't speak for usage in weddings. My argument against 24-70 (for cars) isn't about sharpness at all, it's that *I don't like how cars look at wider focal lengths*, and having such a wide zoom range makes me lazier when shooting. Taking pictures of people, under the time constraints of a wedding - for sure, a 24-70 is a valuable tool.
@@capturingthemachine
I would think the 14-24 f2.8 would be an ideal lense for what you do ! I don’t say this from experience just in observation. I’m going to try the trinity as Iv never used zooms myself. This time around for the first year anyway. I’ll only use zooms. Primes are king but I need to develop more as a photographer in this area !
@@flatheadfletch something that wide is nice for car interiors and details, but I hate how it makes car exteriors look. Not to give you homework, but I have a video with my observations about focal lengths and cars here: ruclips.net/video/TKpu8-T1-hg/видео.html
@@capturingthemachine
No. Thanx I appreciate it. Always open to suggestions. I’ll check it out now !
Like someone else mentions below - I was reasonably satisfied with the 24-70 when I was on a crop-sensor. Now that I've moved to mirrorless full-frame (Nikon Z6II) it is still the lens I reach for...mostly out of inertia. The shots are never as pleasing as the mighty 70-200. I've been waffling on selling the 24-70 - replacing with the new 24-120 as a "I can only carry one lens" lens, and supplementing with some wide prime and maybe the new 40 f/2 as an everyday lens. Oh, and the Nikon 105 2.5 Steve McCurry Special that is coming to me via eBay...I need a bigger shoulder bag.
thanks Chris! I don't think the 24-120 would be satisfying at all, but having a 40 or 50 with the 70-200 is really ideal. I am really curious about the Nikon Z6, I'm still in the stone age 😅
@@capturingthemachine well I came from the underfunded stone age with a D7100 so ANYTHING is an improvement.
@@tonn_chris haha! I am borrowing a Z6 (I think it's earlier though) this weekend, I shoot all my videos with a Lumix and stills with Nikon so it would be great if it could all be one system.
@@capturingthemachine yeah, the Z6 is one generation older than my Z6II - same basic camera, but the II version allows CF Express card (instead of just XQD), has a second SD slot for backup/overflow, and allows for a vertical grip (rather than just a battery grip with no controls on the Z6) but if you like the image quality on Z6 you try this weekend you'll be happy with Z6ii.
@@tonn_chris oh wow, I didn't even realize the Z6 was full frame, I'm really looking forward to trying it, thanks! (also I'm an XQD fanboy)
I dunno but maybe you said the reason a lot of your photos looks like they came from the 1970s-80s. simple and basic comps is what this new age is missing and you brought back the old ways of car photography. I love how super basic your auto photos are, and it seams like that's what makes it look interesting. Try and find magazines from the 80s or look up 80s early 90s car brochures and you will see what I mean.
Wow, thanks so much for your thoughtful comment! I hadn’t considered this but I will in the future.
@@capturingthemachine there is an art to how he does it. Remember these pros back in the 80s were a master of film. It was very important for them to get it just right. A lot of thought for perfection. It’s for sure spray and edit for most of us photographs in these modern times.
@@Snooze-vy1yo absolutely, well put
so what im hearing is get a 24mm prime lens?
that, but just don't use it with car exteriors
@@capturingthemachine would it be ideal to shoot car rollers with?
@@2two7seven0 yes - I've softened my stance on the 24-70 a bit since this, so a 24-70 would probably be great for that. Being deliberate about the lenses you use and giving it thought, instead of settling into a a lazy default - that's the best way to go. It sounds like you're on the right track.
@@capturingthemachine thank you for the advice, it helps 💆🏽♂️
I’ve sold my zoom lenses except the 70-200mm. Primes are my favorite.
the perfect setup IMO 😄
Hi!! just want to say that photography is a hobby for me and i also found 2470 very meh. got myself a 35 instead to supplement the 20 and 70200.
Very nice!
I have a Tamron 2.8 that I use for covering an event kinda vibe, but I prefer my 35/50/85 combo when I actually have the time to shoot ONE car. I do eventually want a 70-200 cause I’d really like to shoot local drift events.
nice!
I'm waiting for my fd e mount converter so I can slap a vintage 135 2.8 +2x converter on my apsc for a equivalent of a $20k 405mm 2.8. so yeah I agree boring lenses are boring
hahaha, that sounds like a very cool setup
hello, @CaptureTheMachine.. first of all... i would like to say thank you for your videos and knowledge of car photography. i am an aspiring car photographer, and i enjoy watching your videos.
i have a 35mm 2.8 and i struggle to take "good photos".. but as soon as i use my 85mm 1.2 my car photos seem to stand out and look better. i always thought it was my inability to my 35mm 2.8 properly, but i am glad that to hear you think the same. i originally bought the 35 2.8 to simplify my EDC camera, but turns out... i actually hate my 35mm 2.8. its so boring and i find myself using less and editing less of my 35mm photos. it bums me out cuz i tend to not get caught up in gear and to many tools, but in this scenario.. i believe 35mm is a no go for car photography. at least get a faster 35mm.. maybe like a 1.4? anyway.. keep up the videos. cheers
Thanks for watching and for the comment! I definitely agree about the 35, I just don't care for that perspective with car exteriors, and I don't think a wider aperture improves it too much. Even at 1.4, the shallow depth of field effect isn't as dramatic as a longer lens at 2.8. A 50 1.8 or 1.4 is a nicer balance if you need to go wider than 85mm, and usually it's a pretty affordable lens.
Ahaaaa.........I need a rethink as this is what has had me head scratching for a while. Ive got 2 good lenses I bought recently, a 24-70 and a 35mm Sigma ART 1.4, because I saw a blog page saying how good they were for automotive. Not for me they arn't, so ive been sitting here wondering what to do. Buckle up and get a 70-200 in their place, or go for a couple of primes (85 /105 ish). Im not a car show guy so i dont need that versatility and i need the compression you have demonstrated in some of your vids as im as much aboput creating 'art with cars in' than just photos of cars ;-)
wow, thanks, and good insights! I love my 70-200 and couldn't imagine not having it. I love primes, and my thoughts about lenses and usage is constantly evolving (even since making this video 7 months ago!), but if you have a prime that's within the focal length range of your most commonly used zoom, you just end up not using the prime very much because it's inconvenient. I had a very good 85mm 1.4 that sat on the shelf for 2 years because it weighed a ton and the benefits weren't dramatic enough for me to unmount the 70-200!
@@capturingthemachine Kind of where ive landed.......just waiting delivery of a 'Nearly new' Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR, keeping the 35mm prime for now, but end up changing that out at some point as I feel it kind of sits in a no-man's land and probably won't get used much.
@@andytaylor1 oh awesome, that will be great! 35mm isn't my fav, but I think that's a nice combination and will serve you very well, and I've heard great things about the ART 35 1.4.
@@capturingthemachine It's a nice lens for sure, but I've not found it's calling yet in car photography....maybe as my 24-70 overlapped it there didn't seem much point swapping to it. Maybe it will come into its own when the new one is here :-)
@@andytaylor1 I think 35 is handy as your wider lens. You'll be able to do interiors, as well as creative and unusual exterior perspectives - things like high above or super low, where a 70-200 is impossible/impractical.
24-70 is good for automotive video, but I really resonate with the idea that it has no soul😭
(I don’t plan on getting one)
hahaha 👍
I feel exactly the same way about this lens and those thoughts were solidified from seeing that very tweet (you probably put it on my TL 😂)
SOLIDARITY! ✊ Yes, that was definitely me (but you should follow Linhbergh too!)
Im just starting and have obtained a nikon d3500 not a pro cam by all means but it is a good camera for a starter like myself. Have learnt heaps from ur vids so thank you. From NZ
awesome, thank you so much! Keep at it 😄
100% agree
I get enough 'disagree' replies on this one that I'm extra grateful for any positive comments, thank you! 🤣🙏
The new(ish) RF28-70 F2 however ... is an entirely different animal. It is so ... so pretty at 70mm. Especially with natural light that flares a little. I suppose that still makes it a specialized tool.
It is, however, unbelievably heavy. Which, ironically, is why I switched from the EF70-700 to the RF70-200. To save weight in my bag.
I'll have to check it out, thanks for the insight!
Talking smack about the 24-70! Sacrilege!!! 😂
This makes sense. I've noticed when I walk around with my Tamron 28-75 at car meets (I left Nikon for Sony) I set it to 50mm and walk around like it's a prime. My 50 hardly left my D600 and I was always pleased with the results.
😅 I'm really kicking the hornet's nest with this one
my art 24-70is heavy af :(
I'm 100% positive you can do great stuff with the lens! Just try mixing it up with a prime or two and see what happens 👍
ok, then give it to me :D
haha, it's already sold
Imagine blaming the glass for “soulless” photos lol. I’ve seen tons of great images taken with a 24-70mm. It’s literally the same thing as owning a 24, 35, and a 50. Just doesn’t get to 85mm. Does that guy just not like any focal lengths?
I thought I made it clear that I hate most of those photo lengths for car photos 😄
Salty 😉 I think the best lens is the one you have.
😄 I can't argue with that!
24-90 is cooler. It works for me
One day you like the lens the next day you don’t. What’s going on?
Use cases change, the types of jobs you do changes, techniques evolve. But I don't remember ever saying the 24-70 was Good
Thanks for the video! It was very interesting. My main lens (I don't photograph cars, but I plan to) is 24 mm 1.4 (Nikon D 850)
And over the years of working with him, I can say that this is one of the most difficult angles, watering in different directions will not work) Therefore, of course longer angles are easier from the point of view of frame construction.
I take inspiration from Emmanuel Lubezki (chivexp inst) - he has almost all the photos taken at 24. And it's very difficult to build a composition like that.
That is, what I'm all about - it's more difficult to build a general plan. Like in the movies)
Thanks for your comment - I like the idea of approaching the 24mm as a challenge to tackle. I will check out Emmanuel's work. Cheers!