Zooms have come a real long way, for weddings and just about everything. When I had my first 35MM back in the early 80s (which is still relatively new for some people), they were horrible.

I cant imagine doing weddings without zooms now though, especially in the hall, where you are sometimes limited to where you can stand (especially in serious weddings with some very odd hall setups). Not saying it cant be done, of course it can be done, but I cant imagine doing it.

Back in the day, for the most part, zooms were crap, plain and simple. We all shot weddings with primes - and never with less than two bodies. Zooms have come a long way. My 18-200 is way better than any of the zooms I came across back in the 70s. But MY 18-200 does not compare at all with my pro glass - either prime or zoom. These differences are way beyond pixel peeping.

Hi all,

7crossing's is key to OP's note and Msmoto's rifled on that. A DX lens on an FX body is sort of a wrongly directed question.

I would also agree with Mirtos that thinking of a small light kit for a budding wedding photographer pay big dividends.

To some that think that a wedding can't be shot with primes, poppycock - a polite-r word for something else. Takes a little more effort, a little more creativity, and uses the photographer's noggin and legs and literal works the room or setting, but it used to be done all the time with no less results than today. The zoom is generally a convenience tool, albeit you don't have jump around tables, push people out of the way, or get in their way. I like zooms, but you can still work with primes.

As to sharpness of primes, and this is coming from someone who has two full lens bags nearly 50/50 of both, maybe more primes than zooms, both are very sharp. I really don't think there's are sharpness edge to primes at all. The real reasons I see to use a prime are brighter f1.8 is much brighter than f2.8 in a dim venue. You can see what you're getting much easier - that's saying a lot if you making images. Secondly, they focus faster for the same reason, (this is likely more my feeling from older technology from film days, but seeing my image focus snap sharply and quickly still seems faster than any of my zooms). And finally, two things that need to discussed as one, depth of field and bokeh - primes are better to my eye.

As always, my very best,

Mike

JSP said:
The 24-120 seemed like a good idea so I looked at the reviews, both reviews I looked at suggested getting the 18-200 instead.

Wait a minute.... why would you want to shoot a DX lens on an FX camera. The 18-200mm Nikkor (AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II) is NOT an FX lens per NIKON's website. The 24-120mm f/4.0 VR Nikkor IS an FX lens. SO with a D800, the 18-200 is unusual. Get a DX camera body or keep your D300s and use the 18-200mm. But the 18-200mm makes no sense on the D800.... or am I missing something here?

The 24-120 seemed like a good idea so I looked at the reviews, both reviews I looked at suggested getting the 18-200 instead.

And as mentioned above I have a 35mm prime I use most of the time, the 85 would be for that extra reach and portraits.

It looks like I just need to save up for the 24 - 70, its huge and heavy though, does no one find it too intrusive?

sevencrossing said:

I use the Nikon 24 -120mm f4 VR11

which is a bit cheaper than the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS

If I had to use just one prime I go for something wider than 85mm, probably a 35 or 24 mm

Well said my British friend. A note. Went to Europe in the 1970's with two NIKON F's equipped with, 24mm f.2.8, 85mm f.1.8 Nikkor lenses. Shot 280 Kodachromes.... Six with the 85mm, all the rest with the 24mm. When used carefully, the 24mm on FX can produce stunning photos and without distortion. It has to do with camera angle and subject distance. As sevencrossing has stated head shots may not be the goal of the wedding album. Even a 24mm and 50mm may be what is best.

Incidentally, the 24-120mm VR Nikkor is an excellent lens. Super for a walk around as it gives the wide and even a short tele. If one lens were the requirement, with one camera... go with the D800 and the 24-120.

I ( and I think we) cannot understand why you thinking of putting a 18-200 a DX lens on the D800, an FX Body

or why you have singled out the 85mm prime

There is plenty of FX mid range zooms

I use the Nikon 24 -120mm f4 VR11

which is a bit cheaper than the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS

If I had to use just one prime I go for something wider than 85mm, probably a 35 or 24 mm

Most brides want me to capture "the event" they want to see the venue they don’t just want a load of head and shoulder portraits, that could have been taken in studio

I used to use a 18-200 on my D90, I seemed fine to me a the time, but haveing swiched to FX and Pro glass, I would never go back

JSP said:
I was basically asking is the 85mm such a great lens and focal length that it would be worth swapping for a softer 18-200, does anybody here get by with primes?

So you keep asking that, but how are we to tell you? Some on here mostly shoot primes and some mostly zooms and I think everyone has at least one of both. The 85 is going to give you better image quality, is faster and does everything better at 85 than the 18-200. So get it if you want a prime in this length. I however doubt there are any wedding people that are solely shooting a single prime lens...I would suspect if someone was shooting only primes they would have at least have two bodies.

The biggest factor is how you shoot. Do you think you will get all your shots with the 85? I am not sure what else we are to tell you. They are different lenses and have different purposes. If you are using your 300s as a backup and are getting a zoom for the D800 then the 85 might be a good choice. The 85 is going to be a "better" lens, but it is a prime and it is up to you to decide if losing the versatility is what you want. If you don't usually shoot primes then I doubt it is what you want. Save up and get the 24-70, 24-120 or 70-200 instead.

JSP said:
Guys, I'm getting the glass, I understand it's important and that's why I'm asking you about buying a lens.

The d800 is a massive step up from the d300s in terms of iso and the faster autofocus will help me greatly too, it won't only show it's differences with expensive lenses.

I was basically asking is the 85mm such a great lens and focal length that it would be worth swapping for a softer 18-200, does anybody here get by with primes?

Well, if your question is only about the primes, on a D800, I would go 24mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and 135mm f/2.0..

But, PB PM has the best solution with the 24-70, 70-200 if one is anticipating some head shots form afar. You need 2 D800 bodies though....

Oh, the D800 has a native ISO of 6400 with the expanded up to 25,600, but I would suspect the noise gets a bit wild up there. That is why I said the native ISO of 6400 vs 3200 for the D300s.

I supect that the 85mm would be okay, but I'd want something longer myself. I shot a wedding last year with a D700, 60mm F2.8G, and a rented 70-200mm F2.8. Between those two I got 90% of the shots, the other 10% was with a 20-35mm F2.8D. That's why I suggested renting some lenses until you can buy what you need. If I shot another wedding I'd grab a 24-70 and 70-200mm over any primes, things change to fast to be messing with primes at a wedding.

I would have to test it first ... but i think you won't get a single benefit from using the D800 if you use DX cropped mode with DX lenses. Pictures won't be sharper, focus won't work faster and ISO won't be higher (than what a D7000) does.

Guys, I'm getting the glass, I understand it's important and that's why I'm asking you about buying a lens.

The d800 is a massive step up from the d300s in terms of iso and the faster autofocus will help me greatly too, it won't only show it's differences with expensive lenses.

I was basically asking is the 85mm such a great lens and focal length that it would be worth swapping for a softer 18-200, does anybody here get by with primes?

I tend to agree with msmoto. As someone who has a d300 (not even an 's'), I think that glass is the way to go. You can even buy FX pro glass, get the glass first then upgrade the camera.

I disagree that the camera upgrade would outweigh whatever glass you could get for the same amount.

Basically, you said that the camera upgrade (~3000.00 USD) would outweigh the 3,000 in glass (or as pointed out strobes)? If you're major issue has been blurryness due to ISO, the d800 wont help you much.

Sometimes we have a tendency to think the newest body is what is going to save us. If I were in your case, I would have kept the d300s, and spend the money in glass.

Also, for weddings, if you can (probably not in the church/reception, but certainly for posed, and since the posed shots are often in the church, depending on the bride's wishes), get a lighting kit. It helps big time.

Well, rarely being out of an opinion I would share my thinking here. I am confused as to why one would purchase a D800, rather than keep the D300s or wait and get a D400. Or one of the other DX bodies the NRF members can testify to. If higher ISO is desired, the D800 is maybe not the way to go as it only gives you 6400 basic ISO. One stop more than your D300s. And if the money were put into the glass, or even some strobes, it would improve the wedding shots.

I have been pushing the 85mm because I do not find it necessary to use all the zoom stuff. Unless of course you bought the 24-120mm f/4.0 VR or the 24-70 f/2.8.

For my money, get the glass, wait for the D400, maybe some lights, this is a better plan than the D800 which will only show its difference with the expensive lenses. You have an excellent camera body, get the glass.

Ok to clarify I am indeed cheap as I only started properly a year ago. Over the past year my biggest annoyances have been blurry photos due to lack of light (need better ISO) and blurry photos due to slow auto focus. The D800 will solve both of these problems and as I use the VERY sharp 35mm 1.8g most of the time anyway I am sure the camera upgrade will out way whatever glass I could have put on a dx. I agree that I need to upgrade the rest of my glass, hence why I am here and I will be as soon as I can afford it.

Soooo the general consensus is swap the 18-200 for the 85mm and upgrade to an FX zoom when I can?

Faithfully fulfill your contract? That's ridiculous, the 18-200 isn't even bad. I get my bookings from photos taken with it so they know exactly what to expect and are without exception very happy with what they receive. If your daughter booked me because of my photos, she wants my photos whether they are razor sharp or not.

People get too obsessed with pixel peeping over taking good photos and your argument proves it, I can afford the 85mm if I sell the 18-200 but many agree it's a close call because the flexibility may mean I actually get better photos with the 18-200.

Before everyone admonishes him for using an 18-200, it's also important to remember there are all sorts of different levels in wedding photography. If he is shooting more budget weddings, I don't think an 18-200 is that sacrilegious (though I agree there are better zooms). If they are paying for the delux weddings, then I agree with you that a bride might be annoyed.

Still, the glass upgrade is going ti get you much better wedding shots than the body upgrade ever will.

One thought.... if I were shooting weddings, I might think about two cameras. One a 24mm on DX or 28mm on FX, and another with an 85mm on DX or 105mm on FX. Something like this. And because I kinda got ht clean up shot on PAD (March 34th) I am posting this again with a link to the larger file. Look at it and see if this is what you want out of your short telephoto shots. An inexpensive 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor G for $500.00

Large File:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/6898186416/sizes/o/in/photostream/

warprints said:
If someone showed up to shoot one of my daughters' weddings with an 18-200, I think I'd have words with him.

My thoughts exactly. If you cannot afford the lenses you need right now, either let your client know you cannot faithfully fulfil your contract or rent lenses as needed.

As I noted above, I would not purposely use my 18-200 for any critical work. It is just too soft. Maybe your lens came out better than mine. If someone showed up to shoot one of my daughters' weddings with an 18-200, I think I'd have words with him. But that's me and my experience with the 1st gen 18-200 (which I bought shortly after it was released).

ScottNLaguna - DX is not dead. Maybe for weddings and such, but I still love it for nature/wildlife, motorsports, etc., where the lighter weight and the smaller lense for the same "reach" is really worthwhile.

ScottNLaguna said:
I have the 18-200mm VR original and the D800. I put the lens on the D800 to see what it looks like. It's pretty sharp in DX mode but a waste of the camera at 15mp. No contest. Get the 85 for FX. To me DX is dead now. Saving up for better lenses. I have 2 FF that will hold me until I get better. 18-200mm is fine for DX but the "reach" on D800 is silly. Post above about renting quality lenses is the way to go. That's what I do. In this way you see the difference in your shots instead of guessing.

I have the 18-200mm VR original and the D800. I put the lens on the D800 to see what it looks like. It's pretty sharp in DX mode but a waste of the camera at 15mp. No contest. Get the 85 for FX. To me DX is dead now. Saving up for better lenses. I have 2 FF that will hold me until I get better. 18-200mm is fine for DX but the "reach" on D800 is silly.

To me there would be two parts of the weddings. I would use a zoom during the ceremony and the reception, but use a prime during the portrait sessions when everyone is setup and positioned. The zoom would give you flexibility to get the different shots when everyone is moving and things are constantly changing, but the prime would give you better portraits and nice bokeh and sharp images.

Hi, thanks everyone for the replies, it looks like I need to decide which is right for me, I'll keep the 18-200 for this next wedding and consider how much of it I could have got away with with an 85mm, thanks.

If you are really strapped for cash, I would go used lenses. This is a great time for some good glass at fire sell prices as many have been updated recently. To stay with DX seems like a real waste. The 11-16 may actually cover the FX frame and although you will have to crop it may not be as much.

FX wedding set-up on the real cheap - A 24-120mm 3.5-5.6 VR (version 1 used about $250) and add the older 50mm 1.8 AFD ($80), and you may have enough left over for the older 85mm 1.8 AFD ($300).

24-120 VR I - Not reviewed well and is not as tack sharp as others, but for portraits, group shots it does really well and for people, what it lacks on tack sharpness actually helps smooth skin out. With a flash and stopped down to F8 it is just as sharp on prints as anything else. I have had a love hate relationship with this lens from the get go. Another option is the 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 ED. Old Upgraded kit lens, it is really good and works well for a stand in macro.

Older 50 & 85 1.8 AFDs - they were not redesigned for almost 20 years for good reason - they are great lenses! And still are.

When it comes down to it, and if you have been using a 18-200 for weddings, older lenses VS new releases - brides will not be able to tell the difference.