Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

D700 and Weddings

douglascostanzo

São Paulo, BR
15 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
douglascostanzo Registered since 31st Oct 2005
Fri 10-Jul-09 02:03 PM

Hi guys,

I've read a few topics but still need some advice for the best exchange with my gear.

I am starting with weddings, here in Brazil. I now have two D80 bodies. My assistant usually uses a 18-135 lens kit, and, as I want to upgrade half of the gear, she will keep using it for a while...rs

I am decided to change one of the D80s for a D700, but with the lenses, I am confuse.

I now have these lenses with me during the marriages:
- Tokina 12-24
- Nikon 50 1.4
- Tamrom 17-55 2.8
- Nikon 80-200 2.8

The tokina, I am selling it to raise money for the D700, and the Tamrom I will be selling to get a FX lens.

The question is, for marriages, would better the sell the 80-200, get the a Nikon wider lens, like the 24-70 (although I don't use the 80-200 as much as a wider lens in a marriage, I love the lens), or keep it and buy some more affordable like a sigma 24-70 2.8.

Of course, I would prefer to have all Nikon lens but I just can do it now...

Thanks for any help.

blw

Richmond, US
28575 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#1. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 0

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004
Fri 10-Jul-09 12:48 PM

What about the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 instead of the Tamron 17-50/f2.8? It's an FX lens and vastly less expensive than the Nikkor 24-70/f2.8. It certainly seems to be a top-quality optic from what I've seen.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

mitchman

Kennewick, US
133 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#2. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 1

mitchman Registered since 08th Jul 2009
Fri 10-Jul-09 01:20 PM

Did you see this discussion?

https://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=226&topic_id=15910&mesg_id=15910&page=

---------
Nikon D700 | 17-35mm f/2.8 | 50mm f/1.4 | 80-200mm f/2.8 (mainly a videographer but am dabbling into professional photography)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

douglascostanzo

São Paulo, BR
15 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#3. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 2

douglascostanzo Registered since 31st Oct 2005
Fri 10-Jul-09 02:38 PM

Thanks blw and mitchman.

About the Tamron, I am just thinking if I am going to miss this 4 mm of diference. Two question somebody could help me about it:

Isn't there any full frame lens, even not 2.8, to fill the range before 28mm at a better price than the Nikon 17-35 2.8 and 14-28 2.8?

I haven't really read anything about the Tamrom and I am going to give a look but why is it so different in prices, the Tamrom at U$399 and the Sigma at U$899,00?

And mithman, I read this topic and it clarify me. I even wanted to get a 24-120VR but, as most said the it has poor glasses, I am not even considering it any more. Thanks!



Visit my Nikonians gallery.

blw

Richmond, US
28575 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#4. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 3

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004
Fri 10-Jul-09 03:14 PM

Re: 24-120. "Poor" is a really strong overstatement. It's not up to the 24-70 or 200/f2 - hardly - but it's not poor. On the other hand, I wouldn't recommend it for professional work (weddings are obviously in that category).

> I am going to miss this 4 mm of difference.

You're using a 17-55 on DX now. That's the equivalent of 28-90 or so on FX. Is 17 wide enough now? Look through your files - I think I'd be surprised if you're using the 12-24 for very much in weddings. (I'm sure it's usable, just not that much.)

> Isn't there any full frame lens, even not 2.8, to fill the range before 28mm at a better price than the Nikon 17-35 2.8 and 14-28 2.8?

Sure, several of them. More than likely, even if you do need something wider than 28 for weddings, you will have a very unusual style if you need something wider than 20mm, so something like the 20/f3.5 Color Skopar ($400) probably fits the bill nicely. You probably haven't heard of this one, made by Voightlander, but it's an excellent lens. (It has been compared to the Zeiss 21/f3.5 ZF, which costs about $1700.) It's a CPU lens although it is manual focus. There are also the Sigma 12-24/f4-5.6 (yes it's FX) and the Tamron 17-35/f2.8-4. Both are AF lenses, and both are vastly less money than the Nikkors. They don't compete with the Nikkor 14-24/f2.8 in performance or price.

> why is it so different in prices, the Tamrom at U$399 and the Sigma at U$899,00?

Part of it is that the Tamron doesn't have the faster focusing specs (the Sigma is an HSM), it doesn't have the additional range, and it's an older design. Tamrons tend to be less expensive than Sigma, which in turn usually costs less than Nikkors and Zeiss.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

douglascostanzo

São Paulo, BR
15 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#5. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 4

douglascostanzo Registered since 31st Oct 2005
Fri 10-Jul-09 03:54 PM

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your really useful reply.

Yes, I don't use the Tokina 12-24 that much. But, I do need it sometimes...and the problem is that, when you have that only time when you need it. But, for sure, it stays most of the time in my bag. As, I am selling it, I was trying to replace a lit bit of its wide coverage in the newer lens.

About the 24-120, would be more correct to say "not as good" as the other ones. I even had one, but now, depend on photography to survive, I have to be critic about it..

About the wide angle, I think the best thing it is going to wait a bit more and see how much I am going to miss it.

And for the mid-range Sigma and Tamron, the last sounds more attractive to me as cheaper and with a better macro mode. I will have to see some pics of both to decide.

But really thanks for your reply.

Douglas



Visit my Nikonians gallery.

blw

Richmond, US
28575 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to send message via AOL IM

#6. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 5

blw Moderator Awarded for his high level of expertise in various areas Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004
Fri 10-Jul-09 07:19 PM | edited Fri 10-Jul-09 07:21 PM by blw

I suggested the Voightlander precisely because it's less expensive than just about anything else and has great performance - it's also nice and small. Remember that 20mm on FX is like 13mm on DX, so it really is pretty darn wide. Matched with a 28-75, I would think it a good pairing.

The Tamron seems to be a real bargin. It's slower AF is hardly an obstacle in a wedding situation - it's rare for focusing speed to be so critical in non-sports, non-wildlife situations. (OK, I know that some weddings and especially receptions probably could be classified as "wildlife...")

You can almost get the Voightlander and the Tamron for the price of the Sigma - let alone the Nikkor.

Edit: my bad, the Skopar is $550, not $400. See CameraQuest, the distributor.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

douglascostanzo

São Paulo, BR
15 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#7. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 6

douglascostanzo Registered since 31st Oct 2005
Sat 11-Jul-09 03:38 PM

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the information about the Voightlander. I was looking at the BH site and it seams a joy. Let's see, during the events, how much it's going to be missed.

I will try to keep my 80-200 2.8, buy the Tamron and add the 50 1.4 into the bag for the marriages. It should cover most of the situations...

Really thanks!!!

Douglas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Photo_Art_W

US
986 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#8. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 0

Photo_Art_W Silver Member Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 21st Nov 2005
Sun 12-Jul-09 06:07 PM

Another vote for the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR lens, but make sure you're pleased with the copy you get. I have one of the early copies w/o the built in motor, and tried a new copy with the new BIM and it was just a bit soft at 50mm on up compared to my original Tam lens so I sent it back.

I bought the 24-70 Nikon as an impulse buy before the price increase, and while it's a beautiful lens, the Tamron is lighter therefore easier to carry all day shooting a wedding. You'd probably be hard pressed to tell the difference in IQ other than shots at wide open which I don't do too often. The Tam is a bit slower in focusing than the 24-70 but not by any large difference IMHO.

I'd opt for the Tam 28-75, keep the Nikon 50 f1.4 & 80-200. Maybe look to add a Nikon 20mm for any real wide angles you need that the 28-75 can't capture. The D700 has an incredible range you'll find which will enable you to shoot far more using available light.

Regards,
Art

http://www.artsplace.us

mitchman

Kennewick, US
133 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#9. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 8

mitchman Registered since 08th Jul 2009
Sun 12-Jul-09 10:59 PM

I did some indoor people shots (available light) over the weekend. Candid stuff from a party inside a bar. The 50mm f1/4 worked great along with the Auto ISO setting on the D700, they combined to allow plenty of light for great exposures. But....the unexpected issue was with focus. At f1.4 the DOF is so shallow (seemed like only an inch or so) the camera has a tough time focusing on the right thing (persons face instead of a nearby wall, or the table, or even the person's hands or shoulders). This could be my problem as I'm still not comfortable with all the autofocus options. But I thought I'd bring it up as a potential "gotcha" for shooting at a dimly lit wedding reception.

---------
Nikon D700 | 17-35mm f/2.8 | 50mm f/1.4 | 80-200mm f/2.8 (mainly a videographer but am dabbling into professional photography)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

douglascostanzo

São Paulo, BR
15 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#10. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 9

douglascostanzo Registered since 31st Oct 2005
Tue 14-Jul-09 11:09 AM

Hi Art and Mitchman,

Yes, I agree than, by now, the Tamron is going to be the best choice. Let's see how the business goes. I will probably miss the wide lens at the brides room...

About the Nikon 1.4, it's really difficult to take snaps with it wide open. I avoid to use even 2.8 for groups as someone is always blurred. The problem is, in low light, I have to put the D80 iso up to keep at least f4 and the results, from iso400, are far from excellent. At f1.4, I just use for details at the party as rings, table sets, make-up..

Thanks for your advices!

Douglas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

douglascostanzo

São Paulo, BR
15 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#11. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 10

douglascostanzo Registered since 31st Oct 2005
Thu 30-Jul-09 10:07 AM

Guys,

What you think about the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4?

Thanks
Douglas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

shep64

Martinsville, US
48 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#12. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 0

shep64 Registered since 02nd Sep 2002
Fri 31-Jul-09 02:09 PM

I use a 20mm 2.8, 24mm 2.8, 35mm F2, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 180mm 2.8 and a 70-200 F2.8. They are all Nikkor. I only use the 70-200 in the ceremony. I use two D700s with the 24mm on one and the 50mm on the other for most of the day and the other lenses when I need them. I keep the primes and a couple of flashes in a ShootSac. I keep colored gels, extra batteries and cards in a case I wear on my belt. I'd be real happy if Nikon releases a 24mm F1.4.

I put the 70-200 on the D300 set up for the ceremony and really only use it then when I have to shoot from the back of the church in the ceremony. I also have a bag, that my wife keeps up with, with two Olympus E-3s, the 14-35mm F2, 7-14mm F4, 25mm F1.4, a couple of flashes and 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 in case I need them.
Shep

douglascostanzo

São Paulo, BR
15 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#13. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 12

douglascostanzo Registered since 31st Oct 2005
Sat 01-Aug-09 11:38 AM

Thanks Shep.

It is a lot of primes. I love my 50 1.4 and was considereing getting the 35 1.8 but, I am worried about lost the wide angle capabilities, even using it a few times and I am considering getting one cheap wide angle, as the Tamrom, instead of this second prime.

Upgrade my cheap D80 for a D700 is getting to much of my pocket but I know it will be better, so I have to manage with a few bucks for the lenses, so far.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

shep64

Martinsville, US
48 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#14. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 13

shep64 Registered since 02nd Sep 2002
Sun 02-Aug-09 02:45 AM

Douglas,
I just got home from today's wedding. I used the 24 and 50 all day on two D700s except from the ceremony when I had the 70-200 on one body, the 35 on another and the 85 on another. I used the 20 at the reception for the cake cutting and for some late night dancing.

On a day like today shooting from 11 a.m. until 11:30 p.m. It's nice to just use two bodies with small primes. My back appreciates it. Good luck with your decision. It's always difficult to decide what lenses are most important.
Shep

douglascostanzo

São Paulo, BR
15 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#15. "RE: D700 and Weddings" | In response to Reply # 14

douglascostanzo Registered since 31st Oct 2005
Sun 02-Aug-09 12:44 PM

Hi Shep,

I would love to work with two bodies as well but, starting now and providing the second camera to my assistant (in my company is my wife), is going to be difficult this extra bucks so far.

I am just starting in this new market but I am loving it.
Good photo and Weddings for you!

Douglas

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

G