Lens advise required please (nikon)

[leeb]

hi all,

i have a nikon D200 with a sigma 70-200 nikon 35-80 neither of which are fast lenses, fine for normal shooting, but i have some weddings booked in for next year, and i am reviewing my kit camera is fine, but i am looking to get a couple of 2.8 lenses for the church shots, and which are faster at focusing etc.

can someone reccomend me a couple of lenses that would suit, as yet its not my speciality and if im honest its all a bit confusing until i get my head round it. Any other kit req for weddings would be very much appreciated.

Thanks

[VxDuncan]

My usual advice then... Nikon 80-200 AF-D F2.8 (newest model you can afford) and Something like the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, or the sigma equivalent. I've used this for a few weddings and it works well. My 80-200 is the older one-touch version. Sharp but slow to focus and minimum focus distance is quite far - a problem with kids how tend to walk right close to your lens. I think the two-touch version is faster to focus, but has the same min focus. If you can run to it the AF-S VR 70-200 is a god of a lens, but not cheap! VR would come in very, very handy in dim churches, believe me! Otherwise I'd consider the Sigma 70-200 as it brings HSM focus speed and closer min focus, though at the expense of a small amount of quality.

The Tamron 17-50 is great, seriosuly sharp and very good value for money. Macro mode is good enough for emergency flower close-up's and the like without lugging a dedicated macro lens around and the 17-50 goes down to eqiu of 25.5 on 35mm. Usefully wide. That said the build quality is a bit flimsy but the resolution figures at 50mm are on a par with a 50mm prime. That's reason enough for me...

[_dobbo_]

What's your budget? Sigma, Nikon and Tokina all make nice lenses that would fit the bill, but the price is decidedly different for each!

[lowdrag]

For weddings I use the 17/55 and 70/200 Nikkors. You need f2.8 for decent bokeh and certainly wide angle for indoors work and group photos. I use the SK6A flash bracket (damned expensive though) too. If you are planning to do weddings professionally I assume you have a back up body since (it's never happened though) if your camera fails for any reason what are you going to say to the B&G? I have the flash and 17/55 on the D2X and the 70/200 on the old D70. No dust problems and you can change cameras quickly. The 80/200 is still a damned good lens for portraiture but I haven't looked in to whether it will work electronically with the modern digitals and flashes. I love its balance and use it for outside work. Many people swear by the Sigma 20/40 and the Tamron 17/50 both of which are heaps cheaper than the Nikkors. Oh, and don't forget a good diffuser for the flash.

Edited by lowdrag on Sunday 14th October 11:44

[Mroad]

Have to agree there the Nikon 80-200 AF-D f/2.8 is an excellent lens and can be picked up second hand for reasonable money (£200ish?, are £500 new). Focusing is not as fast as later AF-S versions but still OK.
I upgraded to the AF-S version (non VR) and there is not a lot of difference in quality.
I also have the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S and 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S both quality lenses but pricey, I picked them up secondhand, both around the £400-£500 mark but worth every penny (I certainly couldn't stretch to £1300 each!).

[leeb]

thanks a lot guys, i will have a hunt around for some second hand lenses as described.

Budget wise, i am looking £3-500 around that region until it can start paying for itself. not massive amounts but thats the way it is im afraid.

Just to clear it up, can someone confirm whats the af-s and af-d all about? Auto focus - ?????

Edited by leeb on Sunday 14th October 19:18

[VxDuncan]

I'm sure someone will come in and give the full answer, but AF-D uses the autofocus drive motor in the camera (except the D40/D40x which don't have one), whilst the AF-S has it's own built-in (quicker, quieter) motor. Similar to canons USM Ultra Silent Motor or Sigmas HSM Hyper Sonic Motor. AF-S can also be overriden on demand if you want to manually focus when in AF mode.

[japhilip]

Quick question, when you say faster, what are you meaning? I'd assume aperture (correct meaning) but you mentioned focus at one point.

Do you require the better low-light performance of a fast lens (f2.8) or a rapid autofocus system? For the former, with a D200 you can ramp up the ISO quite a bit without too much worrying, thereby negating the need for a faster lens. For the latter, you need AFS, although for weddings I don't see why really.

[lowdrag]

Aperture in itself doesn't mean faster only in that it lets more light in so you can use a faster speed. The AFS lenses have a motor built in and are faster to focus. The AFD lenses rely on the camera motor to turn the lens and are much slower to focus. The 80/200 I dug out yesterday and compared it to the 70/200; Still a beautiful lens and IMHO better balanced than the 70/200 but like I say, a tad slow to focus since it is a big f2.8 lens being focused by the camera body, not its own inbuilt motor. That shouldn't matter for a wedding though since by definition they are pretty static. I have to say though that I am somewhat worried by the OP's attitude since this is the couples very special day and cheap glass and only one body with no proper flash arrangements is looking for trouble. In this world most business comes by recommendation after a while too. Mess it up and you can be in deep doo doo.

[japhilip]

I'd agree there regarding the cheap glass. The whole point in my view of a Nikon or Canon is their glass. Having cheap glas negates this to some extend.

Convention amongst photographers is that the larger the lens aperture, the 'faster' the lens. It's just a way of referring to the glass. Obviously, you get a faster shutter speed for a given light level.

[leeb]

japhilip said:

Quick question, when you say faster, what are you meaning? I'd assume aperture (correct meaning) but you mentioned focus at one point.

Do you require the better low-light performance of a fast lens (f2.8) or a rapid autofocus system? For the former, with a D200 you can ramp up the ISO quite a bit without too much worrying, thereby negating the need for a faster lens. For the latter, you need AFS, although for weddings I don't see why really.

Yes i meant fast as in f2.8 the current ones are 4-5.6 which in low light neans longer shutter speed, i have always been a bit hesitant about upping the iso due to noise, but need to run some tests. And a faster auto focus would be a bonus but not essential as has been mentioned, weddings are not particularly fast affairs i have been considering doing a bit of local sports stuff which i would need something faster focusing that the current fleet.

lowdrag said:

Aperture in itself doesn't mean faster only in that it lets more light in so you can use a faster speed. The AFS lenses have a motor built in and are faster to focus. The AFD lenses rely on the camera motor to turn the lens and are much slower to focus. The 80/200 I dug out yesterday and compared it to the 70/200; Still a beautiful lens and IMHO better balanced than the 70/200 but like I say, a tad slow to focus since it is a big f2.8 lens being focused by the camera body, not its own inbuilt motor. That shouldn't matter for a wedding though since by definition they are pretty static. I have to say though that I am somewhat worried by the OP's attitude since this is the couples very special day and cheap glass and only one body with no proper flash arrangements is looking for trouble. In this world most business comes by recommendation after a while too. Mess it up and you can be in deep doo doo.

Dont worry about my attitude, i am not a total numpty planning to turn up with a camera phone and blag it, i have a sb-800 flash, reflectors etc, and i also have an olympus dslr E1 back up, mamiya 645 medium format and normally i will plan to have another photographer helping out.

I was just looking for simple lens advise as to what is the best option etc.

Edited by leeb on Monday 15th October 21:00