where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
You must log in to post.
