Thanks all!

Postman said:
I also have the first generation 18-200mm... and a big enough bag!

That with your "trio of 1.8G lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and an SB-600" you are good to go. I would keep the zoom on one body and swap primes on the other. When it's slow, you can swap & if you are caught in the middle, you have every focal length you need on the other body.

Just shoot RAW so you can monkey with the WB. Good Luck!

Postman said:
I caved, I got both. All in all, by the end of the week I'll have a budget wedding kit of x2 D5100's, a trio of 1.8G lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and an SB-600 all for a little under £1,300.00. Not bad I don't think.

There's always a fairly healthy second hand market for them if it all goes horribly wrong!

Good choice. Let us know how it goes eh?

I also have the first generation 18-200mm... and a big enough bag!

Just my two cents I think a 18-105vr would be a good addition. I love shooting primes, but many times at weddings, you don't always have the option to "move your feet" or to change lenses quick enough for the shot. Really depends on the venue and the ceremony. My preference is a 70-200 equiv and 35mm equiv lens for most of the shoots at weddings. Of course there are macro, wide, other ambient shots that I use other lenses for but vast majority of the time those are my main two.

Postman said:
I caved, I got both. All in all, by the end of the week I'll have a budget wedding kit of x2 D5100's, a trio of 1.8G lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and an SB-600 all for a little under £1,300.00. Not bad I don't think.

There's always a fairly healthy second hand market for them if it all goes horribly wrong!

Good luck! Hope it goes well.

I caved, I got both. All in all, by the end of the week I'll have a budget wedding kit of x2 D5100's, a trio of 1.8G lenses, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and an SB-600 all for a little under £1,300.00. Not bad I don't think.

There's always a fairly healthy second hand market for them if it all goes horribly wrong!

Postman said:
Therein lies a problem - this is supposed to be a budget kit and that thread makes me want to spend so much money, month after month.

Having seen plenty of samples from the 85mm 1.4G, I almost have to have someone hide my wallet.

Lol...there are lots of the recent pictures with the 85 F1.8G. For the price and for those with a budget I don't think you can go wrong with any of the new 1.8G lenses. They all seem to perform about as well as the 1.4 lenses with 1/3 or less of the price. Until you start to make significant amounts of money or if you really want to spend the money I don't see any reason to get the F1.4 lenses for non-pro/working photogs..

tcole1983 said:
Might also recommend looking through the PAD thread...lots of different lenses on there.

Therein lies a problem - this is supposed to be a budget kit and that thread makes me want to spend so much money, month after month.

Having seen plenty of samples from the 85mm 1.4G, I almost have to have someone hide my wallet.

Postman said:
The more I think about what you've said I'm going for the 85mm 1.8G. Considering the price of the 50mm 1.8G though (less than £150 some places) I'll probably just get that too, so that's x3 1.8G primes and two D5100 bodies to share them. That 50mm seems a right steal at that price.

Thanks for your help.

Might also recommend looking through the PAD thread...lots of different lenses on there. I think all are capable, but it is just a matter of what is going to work best for you. I too have thought about picking up the 50 F1.8G just because it is so inexpensive...just haven't gotten around to it yet.

The more I think about what you've said I'm going for the 85mm 1.8G. Considering the price of the 50mm 1.8G though (less than £150 some places) I'll probably just get that too, so that's x3 1.8G primes and two D5100 bodies to share them. That 50mm seems a right steal at that price.

Thanks for your help.

Postman said:
Good point, I guess the 50mm and 35mm focal points are quite close. Perhaps I should more seriously consider the 85mm 1.8G then.

I was just concerned as to the length of 85mm on a DX body being quite limiting in a wedding environment, being equivalent to what, a 135mm lens on an FX body in terms of angle of view?

I guess it depends on the venue the wedding is at, but 85 is a pretty good focal length for portraits. I shoot my 105 on DX and it works wonderful. Mike just posted some pictures of the 85 and 60 F2.8 in the favorite lens thread if you want to check those out. IMO the 85 would give you more range for those shots that you don't want to be in their face to get the shots...like during the ceremony. This is me just talking though as I don't have experience with it. Because of the focal length it also gives you good subject isolation...something you can't really do with the 35 and would still be kind of hard with the 50.

Good point, I guess the 50mm and 35mm focal points are quite close. Perhaps I should more seriously consider the 85mm 1.8G then.

I was just concerned as to the length of 85mm on a DX body being quite limiting in a wedding environment, being equivalent to what, a 135mm lens on an FX body in terms of angle of view?

Good luck! Seems like shooting one with someone else would be the way to start off. Having no wedding shooting experience I think I would go for the 85 instead of the 50. Those two would give you a better choice between two lenses since there isn't much of a difference in the 35 and 50. Plus the 85 is great for portraits.

If I did this I was thinking I would shoot my 17-55 F2.8 and a second body with 105 F2.8. I would like the zoom for some flexibility and the prime for portrait and shots that need a little more range. I know the 70-200 is pretty popular for wedding, but the 80-200 AF-S might another option.

Thanks to all that responded since I resurrected this thread :)

I've now been asked to do a wedding, fortunately not solo as I'd be too worried about messing up on my own, towards the end of August - so I have a little prep. time.

I'm thinking about putting together a budget wedding starter kit for myself to get up and running with: my existing D5100 wearing the 35mm f1.8G and another, second hand D5100 body wearing either the 50mm f1.8G, 50mm 1.4G or the 85mm 1.8G, all of which I can probably stretch to money wise, although the 85mm might be a bit too long on DX. I'll take advise on that 2nd lens choice before I spend my magic beans.

I'll also have the Nikkor 10-24mm in the bag, just in case - but I feel that's more of a landscape lens - but I suppose you never know.

How does that sound to the more experienced members here on the NRF?

@coastalconn Sounds like you have a lot more experience than you give yourself credit for. I had a D200, foolishly sold it. Have D90 and D4 now. Am waiting for the D400. The simple fact is, the D300 will produce photos just like all the others with only one exception and that is the extremely hi ISO.

So often folks think the only way to get good photos is to have the best or newest equipment. My suspicions are your wildlife photos with your knowledge are quite nice. When one talks about AF fine tune, this is beyond most user's knowledge.

Show us some of your wildlife on PAD.

I will start by freely admitting I do not have nearly as much experience as many people in this forum. I just recently picked up a D300 because of a few reasons. I think that for most people it makes very little sense to go from a D5100 to a D300. For many average users the D5100 sensor can trump so many features of the D300. For me personally however, I really wanted the D300 for several reasons, 1- I don't have much money to throw at camera gear. I found a really great bargain grade at KEH I couldn't pass up. 2- I just can't afford AF-S lenses. I have mostly been shooting wildlife and especially birds. The best long lens I could afford is a Tamron 200-500 that I found very cheap on craigslist. 3- I really wanted the best AF-system available in a DX camera. 4- I really wanted AF fine tune for my cheap Tamron. 5- I have a few non cpu lenses that I use once in awhile, and it is nice to have the D300 meter with them. I have no interest in video. I also have a D200 that is full spectrum converted and I absolutely love the handling of it, which made me really want the D300. If money wasn't an issue I would have went in a different direction...

So for most people I think glass is a better investment. So if you are unhappy with things (or lack of) on your D5100 than a different body might make sense. Think if you have very specific reasons why you want a D300 other than the experience. Of course this is just my humble opinion...

The D300 is one of the Nikons I will never sell. It has never failed me and has taken some of the best images I have ever shot. As I was way into large format photography for years it is very far from the most expensive camera I have used. Another rig I will never sell is the D90 and every day it accompanies me to job sites. The verdict is still out on my D7000 and for sure the video is superior to many DSLR cameras and I prefer it over our 12 movie cameras. Another nikon I will never sell is my F5 film camera. THe lens from the F5 though may well get heavily used if I get a D800, D600, etc. I owned a D700. I sold it. It was a very good still camera but I decided that I needed video. I found that my team always picked up the D300 or even D200 in preference to the D700. Still I rate the D700 as one of the best Nikons ever. The D300 is such a good camera that I personally doubt that the images in good lighting are not equal to the D700. I almost always use the D300 on ISO 640. Using a D300 on ISO 200 for me stopped after I did a batch of 20x30 prints at ISO 200, 400, 640, and 800. NO ONE could tell the difference. Only advantage I could ever see in the FX D700 was in VERY low light. Then the D700 was better. I myself keep on shooting but keep checking out NR more to see if a D400 might ever surface.

While there is excitement regarding the D600, I am a holdout for the D400 which I believe will be introduced in September. After shooting the D4 for a while, I can say I much prefer the control layout of this camera and regret selling my D200, instead of my D90. Oh well.

The D300 is a great camera, but the rapid technology advances, and especially the increase in ISO with low noise, is where it it at in my book. And I think the D300 is lacking in this area. Several other newer Nikon bodies outperform it. The D400 may be a surprise for everyone and have features which simply are a head above the others. Predictions suggest native ISO of 6400, but it would not surprise me to see higher. Other features, the processor, focus, metering, all, will be much improved aver the D300.

So, at the present time buy glass as you have an excellent body in the D5100

TaoTeJared said:

Honestly I think you money would be better spent on a good flash or some classes/books on lighting and composition then a body that you might replace in a short time and loose some $$ selling it.

I will second that...buy a better lens or two to make for the transition into your next body. IMO you could use a better lens for portraits or such at an event...I know I wouldn't feel comfortable shooting the 18-200 at someones wedding. At least a prime like the 85 F1.8G or 105 F2.8 seems like a must, if not a pro zoom like the 24-70, 17-55, or 70-200.

For what its worth, I had the most romantic affair with my old D300 than any other nikon camera I have owned including my new D800. It was like a faithful old car, it never failed me and deserved to remain in my stable of old cameras.
Why. Despite taking amazing shots for its time it felt comfortable in the hand, sounded like the door of a merc shutting when the shutter went off and just plain did what it was told.
JIMM22 I sympathize with you and your situation. The D7000 is worth checking out.

jim22 I am telling you right now the upgrade from the D300 to the D700 is truely amazing. I did this after having a D40x, D80, D300 and then D700. You won't regret it. I actually prefer it to the D800e now to be honest. The D700 is the best camera I have ever used it is outstanding in every way. The 12mp files are more than enough to work with, the files are extremly clean with very little noise up to at least 1600-1800. You shouldn't need anything over this range anyways. A lot of Nikkor glass works great on the body as well, which is not the case with a lot of other Nikon bodies such as the D800e or even the D300. I will be purchasing another D700 again before the year is over thats for sure. The only real reason why you shouldn't do this is the mysterious D600 rumors which keep circulating..

I think just buying a camera for the "feeling" or layout experience is probably not the best idea. Nikon does a great job of keeping the controls and "other" items very close between it's bodies. I got my D800 and coming from a D300 I was right at home within hours. When I moved from a D80 to a D300, it took me a bit longer but I wasn't shooting as much back then. If you take the time to go through the manual and do everything 2-3 times, and go out to specifically to try shooting in different settings, you will be good.

Honestly I think you money would be better spent on a good flash or some classes/books on lighting and composition then a body that you might replace in a short time and loose some $$ selling it.

I am in the same boat and I can't decide. I have looked at the d300, d300s, d7000, d90, d700 and even a d5100 or d3200. It is a gap right now. My thoughts are I hate to spend any money on something two generations behind with an update any time now. I don't think I have an answer though. I know the IQ and ISO performance of your d5100 will knock the socks off the d300 so the pro features of it appeal even less to me. On the other hand I know numerous people have shot events and made money with the d300...so maybe it is good enough. Most likely we are just spoiled right now with the new body releases. We all want more now. I will most likely jump on the next affordable updated body be it a d400, d600 or d7100...assuming it has specs that I find usable.

So, is the D300 (or D300s for that matter) still 'good enough'?

I have a D5100, Nikon 18-200, 35 and 10-24. I'm relatively new to photography and am a hobbyist with an interest in landscapes.

I realise the sensor and technology in the D300 is well out of date compared to the guts of the D5100 BUT I am still considering a second hand D300 body, purely for the pro body experience and features. I want experience of using a pro body basically. Really just for the layout, controls, feel etc. versus IQ right now as I am considering trying to make some money on the side shooting weddings for friends of friends, kids parties etc. to start with and if this turned into a going concern, I'd consider a D700 or maybe even a D400 should one turn out to exist in the future. For this reason I'd like to have prior experience of such a camera, rather than going straight up from a D5100 and being lost.

So, is this a bonkers idea or does it make any sense? Is a D300 body worth any of anyone's money any more, 2nd hand?