D4 vs. D5 upgrade or get 200 f/2

[LaTanya]

I'm a believer of getting the best if you can. I have a used D4 and I'm wondering what would be the best use of the money to upgrade my gear. I'm not sure if the diff is worth the cam upgrade between D4-D5. I've wanted the 200 for quite some time. I have a 70-200 2.8.  I shoot kids sports and want to shoot more children and babies. I am self taught and also wondering where I can learn all the ends and out of these so I can take full advantage of being blessed enough to be able to have them. 1:1 mentor or ?? Lastly, I have a 135 that a rarely use and thought about trading that for 85. What are your thoughts?

[Brian]

If you aren't using your 135, you probably won't use the 200mm f/2.0. Do you realize on just how LARGE the 200mm f/2.0 is? It's just under 6.5 pounds all by itself and the lens is 4.9 inches wide by about 8 inches long. That's roughly the size of a large 100-pack of blank DVDs. (The large cylinder of blank DVDs, I'm sure you have seen what I'm talking about.)  

What does your lens setup look like now? You have a 70-200 f/2.8 now. How committed are you to shooting sports? How committed are you to shooting newborns? Because with newborn photography, if you want to stand out, it needs an investment of time and resources; t's not something you can casually pick up. Believe me, I see A LOT of "Newborn Photographers" that really shouldn't be.  Also an investment in lighting should be considered. Don't give me that BS in "specializing" in natural light. LOL! 

As between the D4 and D5...here is the thing, what are you missing from your D4? I'd kill to have one. I'm still shooting with a D300s and making things work. What doesn't the D4 do that you think it should? Do you know every square inch of that D4 and what ALL the settings and menu choices do? I'm asking from the viewpoint of why throw away $6500? Of course, you could sell the D4 and get a D5, but if all you do is click the button and not utilize any of the flagship features that make a D4 a D4 or D4s or D5... why bother? You aren't going to suddenly get better just by having a D5. 

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. Say I purchase a brand-new shiny guitar. I went as far as picking the wood from the tree and all of the features. In fact, there was enough wood for another guitar that Eric Clapton ended up buying. Our two guitars are identical, except for the one digit difference between the two guitars' serial numbers. Who do you think will sound better onstage?

Me or him?  

Of course, I do agree with you in purchasing the best equipment that one can afford. But you already have top-of-the-line-stuff.

If it were me, I'd take the $6500 you are going to spend and put it towards education or even a trip to help change your perspective. Or maybe get a set of nice Profoto Lights and Modifiers in preparation for newborns. Heck, rent a nice studio for a year. You'd be surprised in just how much a PITA it is to shoot at home, especially if you don't have a large room to work with (with high-ceilings.) 

So let's talk lenses. What do you have now?  

[Brian]

Another thought. How about a 200-400 f/4 or investing in a 1.4 Teleconverter to get some extra reach with the sports stuff? I've also heard of very good things with the new 300mm f/4 lens. 

Now that I think of it, you are at a crossroads. The gear that you'll choose depends on what path you truly want to follow. If you want to be a newborn and baby photographer, I have a few recommendations. Of course, there are TONS of Cutesyname Photography Businesses who shoot babies and newborns. Not so many that shoot little-league games who have a D4 at their disposal. Something to think about. 

[LaTanya]

Thank you! This is the type of feedback I was looking for to make me think!! First, no I don't know my D4 inside and out! It was a gift and I know it's very complex and one of the best. Conderation for the D5-just been reading that it's easier to utilize every feature of the camera, improvements, etc. So I will take that off the table. NO to the D5.

Next, lens wise. 135 1.2D, 58 1.4, 35 1.4 and the 70-200 2.8. I shoot football and indoor basketball for the highschol. (Volunteer)..I don't have any wide angles (what do you recommend, 24?) and love the bokeh & sharpness of the 85 and 200 and the inside of the gym lighting is awful was why I was considering those. I don't have any tele (what would you recommend? I was sharing a space to shoot newborns and the children just outside. I need a place to shoot either my home (which I would prefer NOT) to use or find a place but I don't have enough newborn clients right now to need it. Also could spend it on website, branding as I think about it... I do need a mentor that could help me with learning but don't know to find one.. At some point, I will need my own lighting now that I'm not sharing the studio anymore...sighss..help....

hotmess.com

[Brian]

Gym Lighting is one of the WORST kinds of light you can shoot in. There are really only two solutions, crank the ISO to compensate, or off camera strobes to illuminate the space. Since it's a volunteer kind of thing, I'm not sure how they would feel if you brought a four AB 1600 (or four Einstein 640) strobes with 60" umbrellas. (complete with sandbags and stands.) So unless you have an assistant to help keep an eye on things, you are cranking that ISO, probably above 6400 to help get your shutter speed up.

Lenses, you actually have most of the lenses I was going to recommend. What I think you need to add is:
 

• Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4G ($1496.95)
• Nikon AF-S 105 VR Macro ($796.95)
• Nikon AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ($1696.95)

Currently, those lenses are on sale, so if you are going to purchase one, do it before April 1st. I think the lens only rebates end April 2nd, but I'm not 100% sure. Traditionally, Nikon always does this every year as a way to boost sales before they end their fiscal year. The total for those three lenses is $3990.85. So call it $4000. That still leaves you with $2500 to purchase lighting or to take a class. Most newborn workshops will run you around $1800-ish. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Plus the cost of possible hotel, rental car and airfare if they aren't local.

Which lens first? Well, as far as primes, I'd get the 85mm f/1.4G if you do plan on shooting newborns. The 105VR Macro Lens is great for close-ups and baby toes, stuff like that. So those two should be on your short-list. You already have the 35mm f/1.4G and 58mm f/1.4G, both lenses are excellent choices. The 24-70 f/2.8G is the 70-200's counter part. I just purchased one myself, in preparation to switch to FX.  If you really want wider, there is the legendary 14-24mm f/2.8G and the awesome 16-35mm f/4. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

The 14-24mm...it's so good that Canon users rent it and use the adapter to mount on their canon bodies. The downside is, it doesn't take filters and it's a big lens. At 14mm, you really need to be close to the action in order to fill the frame. Plus, you really need to take time to learn how to shoot with that lens. It's not one you can just mount and immediately run-and-gun with, expecting the best results.

The 16-35mm f/4. It's the 14-24 counter-part. It's smaller, and takes filters (circular polarizer, ND filters, etc.) I've read that this lens ends up being used more than the 14-24, due to convenience, the downside is...f/4. You lose a stop of light. For me personally, I plan on getting a 14-24 eventually, since I tend to shoot really wide on a lot of occasions. Plus I'd like to get into Astrophotography. That said, the 16-35 is on my short list. Who knows, I might get that one over the 14-24.

You could also go with a 24mm f/1.4G, or even a 20mm. But if it were me, the 85/105 combo or the 85 1.4 and 24-70 would be the next choices, unless you get all three. Oh, there is a newer 24-70, the AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G VR. It's a little more expensive and larger than the standard 24-70. I've received mixed reviews on the newer lens. So say it's sharper overall, others, not-so-much. Some say if you like getting close to your subject for portraits, as I do, then it's not as sharp as the older 24-70. Then you'll have the Photography rockSTARS who will rave about the lens, but of course they are Nikon Ambassadors, who have to tow the company line. Since I've shot with the original 24-70 on occasion for about 6+ years, I know the lens and what it can and can't do. That's why I bought one. (Plus, $1700 was a easier pill to swallow. :D)

[LaTanya]

Awesome! 14-24 vs.24? And lastly, what's the best lighting set up? I will have to put money with it but that's ok. Is there another 135 besides the one I have? I guess I can just rent the 200 f/2.

[Brian]

We, if you are into primes, then a 24mm 1.4 is a good lens. That said, you are shooting sports, and 24mm isn't used a whole lot. Well, for area / environmental shots to put things in context. Most of the time, you are too busy zooming in. A prime, is a prime. You zoom with your feet. At 24mm, you'd take a few shots and then switch over to your 70-200. Don't get so caught up with f/1.4. You have a friggin' D4. Set the thing to 12800 ISO and use a 24-70. 

Oh, I don't think you are going to use a 24mm f/1.4 as much with newborns, due to the distortion that you get with wide angle. Don't think you have to fill the frame constantly, because when you go to print, stuff is going to get chopped off if you don't leave enough wiggle-room on the sides. I really think you should consider the 24-70, but that's your call. 

[Brian]

Only one AF 135mm f/2.0D. This lens is an old, but excellent, and one that is in dire-need of an update. No, nothing on the horizon. You have the only 135mm lens that's available and can purchase new. 

[Brian]

Lighting, I usually recommend the Paul C Buff Einstein 640 instead of an Alien Bee to start with. 

The lights that I drool over are Profoto Lights. They run about $2100...each. Since you have a larger budget and like high-end stuff, if I had $4200 laying around, I'd buy this kit:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1049889-REG

[Brian]

For a comparison, here is a E640:

https://www.paulcbuff.com/e640.php

[Brian]

Of course, you'll need stands and modifiers.