Weddings and Nikon telephotos?

dahn8

Hi! I'm looking for advice on decent telephoto lenses that won't break the bank. I'm on a reallly tight budget and think at this time $500 would be around my max budget. I've been asked to help take some photos at a friend's wedding. I'm not a professional but I do have a good amount of photography education and experience (enough to teach some classes and place in several non-online photo contests).

Do you guys have some recommendations for telephotos? I think I've narrowed it down to the following lens on a D700:

Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 (old version, no VR)
Nikon 70-210 f/4
Nikon 70-210 f/4-5.6 AFD
Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G (no VR)

I'm leaning toward the 80-200 because it's faster but I'm wondering since the D700 works great at high ISOs if the other lens would be strong alternatives as well.

Any thoughts (or other lens recs)?

Thanks! (please be nice...I'm new here and this is my first post outside of the flea market )

EOS_JD

dahn8 wrote:

Hi! I'm looking for advice on decent telephoto lenses that won't break the bank. I'm on a reallly tight budget and think at this time $500 would be around my max budget. I've been asked to help take some photos at a friend's wedding. I'm not a professional but I do have a good amount of photography education and experience (enough to teach some classes and place in several non-online photo contests).

Do you guys have some recommendations for telephotos? I think I've narrowed it down to the following lens on a D700:

Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 (old version, no VR)
Nikon 70-210 f/4
Nikon 70-210 f/4-5.6 AFD
Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G (no VR)

I'm leaning toward the 80-200 because it's faster but I'm wondering since the D700 works great at high ISOs if the other lens would be strong alternatives as well.

Any thoughts (or other lens recs)?

Thanks! (please be nice...I'm new here and this is my first post outside of the flea market )

THe D700 is great at high ISO. Get the f2.8 lens - that's it. Slow telephotos are not what you want in a dark church or hotel... You need to achieve fairly fast shutter speeds and anything slower will struggle. That 80-200 is the one to go for.

ARKreations

zoomer

+3

Qarik

I think you can proably get away with an f/4 lens with the d700 but the image quality on the 80-200mm is probably the best out of the bunch anyway.

Art Scott

I have worked with f3.5 and slower lenses shooting weddings on film and even tho I shoot at apertures slower than 2.8 at weddings, I still like to know if I want I can go faster than 4 or 3.6.......................

Dooginfif20

would you consider just renting a 70-200 2.8 for now until you can afford a VR I or maybe even the VR II? it is a totally awesome lens and the VR really helps if you are going to hand hold!

dahn8

Thanks for the tips everybody! I was leaning towards the 80-200 2.8 as well... my one source of hesitation is that the older versions (like the push-pull) apparently are slow to focus. I'm not sure how big of a deal-breaker that would be. I suppose I can try it out beforehand and see for myself.

Dooginfif20 wrote:

would you consider just renting a 70-200 2.8 for now until you can afford a VR I or maybe even the VR II? it is a totally awesome lens and the VR really helps if you are going to hand hold!

I thought about the VR lens and was/still am tempted by them....they look very nice! The only issue is that I don't know if it would be worth it to buy the VRI or VRII version because I use telephotos fairly infrequently; I tend to be more of a wide angle person. Maybe i should invest in some lottery tickets

I don't really want to rent because I still want a tele of some sort; I feel like it is always a good thing to have in one's bag so you have the option of using it whenever there is a need. I did that with a 55-200 VR and my D80 and it was handy at times. But now that I switched over to the D700, I want to find full-frame alternatives.

I prefer to stick with Nikon lenses but are there any reasonable third-party constant aperture zooms out there too that I should look into?

ARKreations

While there is definitely a noticeable difference in focus speed between the 80-200 and the 70-200VR (at least I can tell on my D300), the 80-200 is no slouch. For 99% of the shots you'll take at a wedding, the 80-200 will perform just fine - particularly on your D700.

I would, however strongly recommend the 2-ring version over the push-pull as the control over the zoom is much more accurate. If focus speed is really that much of a concern, then you could also step up to the 80-200 AF-S model with the internal focus motor. But then your getting into the $1000-1200 price range.

angevin1

ARKreations wrote:

While there is definitely a noticeable difference in focus speed between the 80-200 and the 70-200VR (at least I can tell on my D300), the 80-200 is no slouch. For 99% of the shots you'll take at a wedding, the 80-200 will perform just fine - particularly on your D700.

I would, however strongly recommend the 2-ring version over the push-pull as the control over the zoom is much more accurate. If focus speed is really that much of a concern, then you could also step up to the 80-200 AF-S model with the internal focus motor. But then your getting into the $1000-1200 price range.

I Own and use the 80-200mm f/2.8 . It is the older push/pull style and the cheaper of the lot of them. You're right in their slow rack-in/out AF speed, but lets say the couple is twenty feet away and you took a shot and they move a foot closer, and take another, the lens will not take long at all to focus on that next shot. I've used the lens to chase around kids doing outside shoots and from a focus standpoint, I'd say I missed only 1 or 2 shots out of ten. So really the slow focus speed is not much to worry over. It is a heavy lens though and after heaving it for a few hours, you'll feel it.

The image quality should be what you are after with this lens, and it will not disappoint.

The 70-300mm Vr I have owned and sold. It was lighter and faster to AF I think, but it wasn't near sharp enough for my taste, plus it needed more light.

The D700 does work well at high ISO, but I try to stay away from it on certain types of shoots. I can sense you are jonesen for a Zoom, but I will mention that a New Nikkor 85mm 1.8 is in your price range, as well as the Sigma 105mm macro f /2.8 Both of which are great lenses, in your price range and not near as heavy to lug around. And both are sharp!

Good Luck,

Zone99

angevin1 wrote:

I Own and use the 80-200mm f/2.8 . It is the older push/pull style and the cheaper of the lot of them. You're right in their slow rack-in/out AF speed <snip>

I also own and use the 80-200mm f/2.8 push/pull version. I've had the lens for over 15 years and it's a sweet piece of glass.

My use of the lens is also not, shall we say, ideal. I use it for sports shooting: soccer, softball and basketball.

Is it the fastest focusing lens? No. There are certainly faster (and quieter) focusing lenses. I've gotten my share of out of focus shots (where the lens couldn't keep up) but again, I'm not using it in an ideal situation. However, it works plenty fast for me.

The one thing I don't like about the lens, though, is the lack of a tripod mount. I've tried various solutions but when you have a D300, with the lens and the shooting grip on a monopod, there's nothing that will hold it in place for a vertical shot. I've thought about brackets (Kirk, etc.) but I just can't see carting that around as well.

</snip>It pains me to think about it but I'm actually considering getting a different (Tokina) lens because of the lack of a tripod mount.
<snip>
For wedding photography, though, I think it'd work out pretty well.

And I apologize for contaminating the Wedding forum with sports shots but here's a couple of shots with this lens that, to me, demonstrates that you can quickly get it to focus and get a good shot:
1.



2.

</snip>

dahn8

Zone99 wrote:

And I apologize for contaminating the Wedding forum with sports shots...

How dare you do such a thing! All kidding aside, thanks for those photos! They not only looked great, they actually helped a lot!

I dont think the lack of a tripod mount bothers me too much as I dont do much landscapes to begin with. Unless it is very helpful/important for people shots. But that shouldn't be the case right?

angevin1 wrote:

I can sense you are jonesen for a Zoom, but I will mention that a New Nikkor 85mm 1.8 is in your price range, as well as the Sigma 105mm macro f /2.8 Both of which are great lenses, in your price range and not near as heavy to lug around. And both are sharp!

The prime recommendation is interesting; i'll take a look into that too. I have a manual focus 50mm f/1.4 prime with my film camera and i love it (and use it with the D700 occasionally too). But my gut feeling is that i like the convenience of the zoom and would be willing to compromise a little sharpness for that feature (though the 80-200 looks pretty nice to my eyes!)

angevin1

dahn8 wrote:

........... my gut feeling is that i like the convenience of the zoom and would be willing to compromise a little sharpness for that feature (though the 80-200 looks pretty nice to my eyes!)

You won't be compromising sharpness with the 80-200, The above photos show (and my copy is) Sharp and wide open it is Sweet~

Art Scott

Don't forget the Sigma 70-200 now has stabilization, and it is a very sharp lens....I have the 70-210 mounted to a KM 7D (and yes I still use the KM's even thos I also have 2 D300's) my 70-210 is just an APO (was for film camera use) and it gives superb photos..........it will save you quite a bit over Nikon glass.......probably even used Nikon glass.

Zone99

Art Scott wrote:

Don't forget the Sigma 70-200 now has stabilization, and it is a very sharp lens....I have the 70-210 mounted to a KM 7D (and yes I still use the KM's even thos I also have 2 D300's) my 70-210 is just an APO (was for film camera use) and it gives superb photos..........it will save you quite a bit over Nikon glass.......probably even used Nikon glass.

Now, personally, I've never really had good luck with the Sigmas. Maybe the 70-200 is different but I've tried the 100-400 with OS and the picture quality just wasn't there. I found my pictures to be soft and have a 'digital' look to them.

Art Scott

Zone99 wrote:

I found my pictures to have a 'digital' look to them.

Not sure what a digital look is over the years I have only owned 70-210 and newer incarnations and 28070, 24-70 (All as fast as I could get when purchasing....so some of my very early glass was 2.8-3.5 or 4....but that was tops in the troglodyte days) and 50-500.....so mostly their pro lenses in the focal lengths I shoot for weddings and concerts.....the 50-500 is for wildlife........

Zone99

Art Scott wrote: »

Not sure what a digital look is over the years I have only owned 70-210 and newer incarnations and 28070, 24-70 (All as fast as I could get when purchasing....so some of my very early glass was 2.8-3.5 or 4....but that was tops in the troglodyte days) and 50-500.....so mostly their pro lenses in the focal lengths I shoot for weddings and concerts.....the 50-500 is for wildlife........

It's hard to describe without examples but by 'digital look' I would find that my a lot of my shots had artifacting or when I was looking at the background behind the subject, it would look 'cross-hatched'. Almost like the subject was pasted on to the background. In comparison to a Nikon 80-400 or my 80-200, I found the backgrounds were properly blurred when I was using it wide open (looked more like I would see it on film).

I attributed it to that particular lens I had rented.