I have still got a pretty comprehensive canon setup, with 40d/5d/1d3
bodies and various zooms/primes.
What i'm looking for are suggestions to the best minimal Nikon setup in
the wide/normal/mid-tele range.
I've pretty much ruled out the 70-200 as it's to big/duplicates my
70-200 IS on canon.
As to what i shoot, it's mainly weddings/events with a bit of
portraiture and sports thrown in.
My current thinking is to get a 24-85 AFS 3.5 and a 35/2 with a SB800.
I'm still unsure as to whether to splash out on the 14-24.
Any suggestions / comments?
"Pizda Staraya" <pizda@staraya.gov> wrote in message news:13svmfqq2i3skf0@news.supernews.com...
> I've got my D3 on the way together with a 85/1.8.
> What i'm looking for are suggestions to the best minimal Nikon setup in the wide/normal/mid-tele range.
>
> I've pretty much ruled out the 70-200 as it's to big/duplicates my 70-200 IS on canon.
>
> As to what i shoot, it's mainly weddings/events with a bit of portraiture and sports thrown in.
>
> My current thinking is to get a 24-85 AFS 3.5 and a 35/2 with a SB800. I'm still unsure as to whether to splash out on the 14-24.
> Any suggestions / comments?
I used to shoot weddings, and my favored set for indoor weddings
(and many outdoor ones, too) on FF film was the Nikkor 20mm
f2.8 MF (it seems to be a bit better than the AF version, for reasons
unknown - but I've owned a few of both, and it was easy to scale
focus it when a sight problem developed and I bought the F100 which
has both good MF and AF capabilities), the 35mm f2 AIS (replaced
with the 35mm f2 AF, though the MF was a tad better), and the
85mm f2 AIS (later replaced with the 85mm f1.8, a tad better close
in than the f2). In order of use for me: maybe 50% for the 20mm,
35% for the 35mm, and 15% for the 85mm - but I like wide angles.
For outdoors, I like a good zoom. The 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is excellent,
especially down a stop, maybe combined with the 20mm. (BTW,
for lens ratings, check out my Nikkor subjective evaluations list, at: www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html ). If I were choosing lenses
again for shooting weddings on FF, a 17-35mm f2.8 (the superb
14-24mm f2.8 is too wide and too short in its zoom range) would
likely be at the top of my list (see more on this surprising lens at: www.donferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm ). To this I would add
a 24-70mm f2.8 and be done with it (though it would be nice to have
this on a second body, and I suppose a D300 would work well,
giving a 36-105mm f2.8 equivalent). Heavy and expensive gear,
though. In practice, I would probably prefer a pair of D80s, with
a 16mm f2.8 fisheye on one (21-24mm equivalent, depending on
how you look at it, and with a perspective type that is very kind to
people) and a 24mm AF on the other (36mm equivalent), with a
spare 50mm f1.8 (or maybe better yet, an f1.4 - for a fast 75mm
equivalent) or the 85mm f1.8 (for a fast 127mm equivalent). Ah,
lens choices! One could go on and on trying to optimize the
choices...;-) Oh, BTW, I have an inexpensive excellent (VERY
sharp, and in very nice condition) Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 listed
(the last item) at: www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs-zooms.htm if
you want a good long FF lens for outdoor work (I also have a new
[except for testing] 24-85mm f3.5 Nikkor that you mentioned, best
of two and perfectly aligned, listed at the same location).
--
David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether
"Pizda Staraya" <pizda@staraya.gov> wrote in message
news:13svmfqq2i3skf0@news.supernews.com...
> As to what i shoot, it's mainly weddings/events with a bit of portraiture
> and sports thrown in.
> My current thinking is to get a 24-85 AFS 3.5 and a 35/2 with a SB800. I'm
> still unsure as to whether to splash out on the 14-24.
> Any suggestions / comments?
Do you actually need anything wider than 24mm? When you go that wide,
people's faces tend to assume weird shapes.
If not, you might consider the 24-120 AFS VR.
"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote in message news:%bWzj.284816$MJ6.274756@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Pizda Staraya" <pizda@staraya.gov> wrote in message news:13svmfqq2i3skf0@news.supernews.com...
>> As to what i shoot, it's mainly weddings/events with a bit of portraiture and sports thrown in.
>>
>> My current thinking is to get a 24-85 AFS 3.5 and a 35/2 with a SB800. I'm still unsure as to whether to splash out on the 14-24.
>> Any suggestions / comments?
> Do you actually need anything wider than 24mm? When you go that wide, people's faces tend to assume weird shapes.
> If not, you might consider the 24-120 AFS VR.
This seems like a good suggestion, especially with the VR feature,
but I bought three over time and none was good full frame, unlike
its non-VR predecessor. The 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is noticeably
sharper than either version, especially at its wider stops, and the
practical difference between the 120mm of the VR 24-120 and
the 85mm of the 24-85mm is surprisingly minor. I would go
with the better lens unless the VR feature is essential (and if the
VR is to be used on a DX format where its relatively poor
edges will not be not visible). As for using lenses wider than
24mm with people, one can learn to do this successfully, giving
more interesting perspective to images (and, of course, one does
not put heads in frame corners or bodies near frame edges
unless they are cut by the frame edge to conceal their "weight
gain"...8^). A 20mm permits quick reframing in situations like
wedding receptions, receiving lines, pro/recessionals, etc.
without needing to run around madly to get the pictures, and
where you may be in crowded quarters. ;-) Of course, longer
lenses are also useful (for me, the 35mm for some, and an 85mm
for a smaller number of the wedding photos...).
--
David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether
Help a poor canon user with D3 
Linear Mode
