Help Me Pick the Right Nikkor Lens!

Pixel Popper

Hey Everyone,

I am currently shooting with my latest acquisition, the Nikon D80, which I love. I only have one lens, that which came with the kit, the Nikkor 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED zoom. It's a good general purpose lens, but is not nearly fast enough for the type of work I need to do.

I have requests to do a lot of special event photography for companies which provide specialty lighting, which typically means night time shots outdoors, or inside very large venues such as concert halls and museums, and many dimly lit locations like night clubs, reception halls, etc. I might well branch into wedding photography, as well.

See these galleries for examples of typical settings I shoot:

A Night time Event - Outdoors

A Charity Event

The Amazingly good news is that I have a special benefactor who is going to put up $2000 for me to get my next lens to help me expand my business potential. After shooting with the kit lens, I very quickly realized that faster glass was the first thing I needed to purchase.

I am torn between two choices. I am looking at either the Nikkor 28-70 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S zoom, or the Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR zoom.

I was wondering if any of you could help me compare and contrast the pros and cons of these two lenses. They have some very different characteristic, yet are remarkably similar in price.

Personally, I am leaning toward the 70-200, largely because of the vibration reduction feature which the other lens does not have. I'm thinking that it might be the better choice for the venues in which I shoot, but I could be completely wrong about that. I like the idea of having the farther reaching zoom for those large venues, but the thing will add over three pounds of weight to my camera.

Even in those large venues, I also like to capture candid portraiture, and perhaps the 28-70 is the better choice for that kind of work. The problem is, I can only afford to get one of them. Both of the lenses are fast, which I like and need. The one has VR, but seems quite heavy. The other is light, but doesn't have the focal range to get close from far away.

What an enigma!

What's your best guess for the lens that would serve me best? Or would you look at something completely different which I have not yet considered? Any advice you can offer will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Howard

Seymore

Howard... I would like suggest 3 different lenses for low light situations. The 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8. These are great in the situations you have described. If you need wider for the closer shots, there is the 35/2. Another stellar lowlight performer. An f/2.8 lens is fast, but the 3 I've pointed to are better suited to lowlight shots and would still leave you room for the 70-200 VR.

Just something for you to think about...

ziggy53

Seymore wrote:

Howard... I would like suggest 3 different lenses for low light situations. The 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8. These are great in the situations you have described. If you need wider for the closer shots, there is the 35/2. Another stellar lowlight performer. An f/2.8 lens is fast, but the 3 I've pointed to are better suited to lowlight shots and would still leave you room for the 70-200 VR.

Just something for you to think about...

Get the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF VR, because there is nothing better for a larger venue when you have to cover a larger area effectively.

Then I recommend the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D for the really low light grabs. Alternately, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) in Nikon AF-D mount is very close in quality to the Nikkor 28-70 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S you mentioned before, but a much more amenable price. There are a number of DGrinners that have and like the Tamron.

You still need a flash, if only a Sunpak 383 Super Auto Shoe Mount Flash. Ideally, you need a couple of Nikon SB-800 Speedlights, but the Sunpak will do for now. Couple this flash with a couple of DIY light modifiers, and you can "make" very pleasing light.

Best,

wxwax

ziggy53 wrote:

Get the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF VR, because there is nothing better for a larger venue when you have to cover a larger area effectively.

Wow. More than one-third of the alphabet for just one lens.

Pixel Popper

Seymore wrote:

Howard... I would like suggest 3 different lenses for low light situations. The 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8. These are great in the situations you have described. If you need wider for the closer shots, there is the 35/2. Another stellar lowlight performer. An f/2.8 lens is fast, but the 3 I've pointed to are better suited to lowlight shots and would still leave you room for the 70-200 VR.

Just something for you to think about...

Thanks, Seymore.

I followed all of the links you provided for me and read every single customer review about each of the products you mentioned. It's still a debate, but definitely good information to ponder.

Pixel Popper

ziggy53 wrote:

Get the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF VR, because there is nothing better for a larger venue when you have to cover a larger area effectively.

Then I recommend the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D for the really low light grabs. Alternately, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) in Nikon AF-D mount is very close in quality to the Nikkor 28-70 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S you mentioned before, but a much more amenable price. There are a number of DGrinners that have and like the Tamron.

You still need a flash, if only a Sunpak 383 Super Auto Shoe Mount Flash. Ideally, you need a couple of Nikon SB-800 Speedlights, but the Sunpak will do for now. Couple this flash with a couple of DIY light modifiers, and you can "make" very pleasing light.

Best,

Thanks, Ziggy. I'll definitely look up the Tamron.

In reading all the reviews, there seems to be some debate between owners of the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.4. Some say not worth the price difference for the 1.4 because the 1.8 can do practically the same job, others saying the 1.8 is cheaply constructed, and some have suggested not as sharp as the 1.4.

I see you recommend the 1.4. Is there a huge difference in the light grabbing abilities of these lenses? Or huge performance difference, in your experience?

I do have some light, already. I have an SB-600 for the hot-shoe mount. Ultimately, I will get the SB-800 and use the 600 as a slave, but that's a few gigs down the line. Just another struggle...hmmm.. food on the table, or more gear this week....let me think...:D

billg71

Why not look at your photos, see what focal lengths you use most and go from there? Then you'll have some idea which range you'll be using most.

My favorite lens for events is definitely the 28-70. The range works well for me and most of my shots are in the 60-70mm range, just past what I could get from the 17-55. The IQ from this lens is absolutely wonderful. VR would be nice at the long end but I don't really miss it.

For more range, the 70-200 is hard to beat. The VR is very useful with this range and, again, IQ is beyond excellent.

I'm a little "old school" and don't really consider f2.8 to be fast for any lens under 180mm. If you're really set on using available light in low-light conditions, you can choose from the 28/2 AIS, the 35/1.4 AIS or 35/2 AF-D, the 50/1.4 AF-D, the 85/1.4 AF-D, and the 105/2DC AF-D or the 135/2DC AF-D. But this combo blows your budget right out of the water.

Looking at your galleries, you're mostly shooting at the shorter end of the 18-135 range. You're obviously comfortable shooting at high ISOs so ultimate lens speed isn't really an absolute determining consideration.

I'd say the 28-70 is a "no-brainer" for your situation. If you need a longer length, you can add a used 180/2.8 AF-D and still stay within your budget.

Hope this helps,

Bill

Pixel Popper

Thanks, everyone, I really appreciate all your input.

Looking at your galleries, you're mostly shooting at the shorter end of the 18-135 range. You're obviously comfortable shooting at high ISOs so ultimate lens speed isn't really an absolute determining consideration.

I'd say the 28-70 is a "no-brainer" for your situation. If you need a longer length, you can add a used 180/2.8 AF-D and still stay within your budget.

Thanks, Bill. You make some good points. As for the low light situation, it's not so much that I am "comfortable" shooting with high ISO, more like that was the only choice I had with the aperature limitations in my current lens. I would actually prefer to shoot at a lower ISO. Grain in an image can be your friend at times, but I am looking for ways to get a more buttery smooth image resolution in the shooting situations I face.

While I'm still lusting after the 70-200, you make a good case for the 28-70. The challenge I am facing now is finding a retailer who actually has either of these lenses in stock! Most are sold out or considerably back-ordered.

So, for all of you, here is another question to ponder. Considering the availability issues, and the fact that I need to get more gear soon to allow me to confidently approach a wider range of job opportunities, do you think it might benefit me more to simply purchase a 50mm f/1.4 for candids and portraits in low light, and invest the rest of the bucks into some off-camera lighting packages, which will undoubtedly boost the viability of the 18-135mm I already own? Keep in mind that I also want to develop a wedding photography business, as well. What would you find more critical to have in your bag of tricks - a variety of lenses, or a workable off-camera lighting package?

Thanks so much for any insight you might be able to offer.

ziggy53

Pixel Popper wrote:

...

So, for all of you, here is another question to ponder. Considering the availability issues, and the fact that I need to get more gear soon to allow me to confidently approach a wider range of job opportunities, do you think it might benefit me more to simply purchase a 50mm f/1.4 for candids and portraits in low light, and invest the rest of the bucks into some off-camera lighting packages, which will undoubtedly boost the viability of the 18-135mm I already own? Keep in mind that I also want to develop a wedding photography business, as well. What would you find more critical to have in your bag of tricks - a variety of lenses, or a workable off-camera lighting package?

Thanks so much for any insight you might be able to offer.

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D appears to be a bit more prone to flare than the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, but it does have a 2/3 stop light gathering advantage wide open. Then again, the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is so very inexpensive and yet very high quality optics. I gather both have similar focus speed.

I do believe in proper lighting, but you may not always be able to use it, like at weddings during the ceremony or at an event during some types of presentations or during an actual concert.

Fast glass is almost always a benefit, but if you can add your own light, appropriate use of lighting can make more of a difference than does glass or camera. It all depends upon the venue.

Some of these items can be rented, which is a good way to go while you build your business.

billg71

I keep forgetting...
That the 28-70 is no longer with us, or at least available new. Nikon still lists it as current but, as you've noticed, new copies are about as available as hen's teeth. I think that as soon as the new 24-70 hits the shelves the Beast will fade away into the sunset. So just substitute the 24-70. I'd suggest getting on a waiting list or two right away 'cause the first ones are going to go fast. Nikon says it'll be available in November, I'm not holding my breath but I would expect they'll do all they can to get it out before Christmas.

I'm not sure your customers who hired you to photograph their specialized lighting would appreciate you dragging out a full-blown lighting setup on their jobs.... And from what I've seen in your galleries, it'd take a lot more than $2K/worth of lights to make an appreciable effect(if you were allowed to use them). But you could benefit from an SB-800 on a good bracket for fill lighting on the candids. Use a small bounce card on the flash, TTL-BL mode, and slow sync, you'll be able to keep the backgrounds but get a better look on the faces. You'll need the flash and bracket for weddings, anyway.

As others have pointed out, you'll get another stop or stop-and-a-half by going with primes compared to the pro zooms. If you go that route, the 35/2-50/1.4-85/1.4 combo will cover most of the range you seem to favor and run you somewhere in the $1650 range, new. Used, pricing from KEH, will maybe save you another $110, more if you shop around on the various forums and eBay. Either way, you'll have enough left for an SB-800 and some batteries.

Personally, I've toted a sack of primes around too long not to appreciate the pro zooms. In really low-light situations where I can't use flash, I still drag out the 35/1.4-50/1.2-105/1.8 MF package, along with the 180/2.8AF.I'm planning on adding either the 105/2DC or the 135/2DC(or both ) when financing allows, but it's fairly far down on my priority list.

When you get into weddings, you'll need the flash/bracket combo for candids and at least a 2-light setup(strobes, umbrellas, controllers, etc.) for formals. So that's a whole other ball of wax......

BTW, I forgot to comment on the first reply, but you have some VERY nice frames in the galleries you linked to. Except for one or two instances, I didn't notice the noise at all and I looked at a lot of them at original size. I'm amazed at some of the shots at shutter speeds I no longer even dream about using.......:cry

This is my first Smugmug gallery(password is NGTO) http://billg71.smugmug.com/gallery/3541236#200449568 , an event I recently shot for the State Parks Dep't. Nothing fancy, just a lot of candids, but that's what the customer wanted. Shot with a D200, 17-35/28-70/70-200 lenses, most shots with the SB-800 and a better bounce card in TTL-BL mode.

Anyway, think about what you need for the work you're doing now and how it will mesh in with future plans. And consider used glass, it's a lot cheaper and it's hard to hurt an AF lens.

Best of luck,

Bill

Pixel Popper

Thanks again, Bill!

I was out a bit earlier this evening and did manage to pick up the 50mm f/1.8. It was a demo model (in perfect condition) that I snagged for $99. So that still leaves me a lot to play with when I finally decide how to spend the rest.

I'm really pleased with the performance of the 50/1.8. It was quite an eye opener to see just how much I could shoot in low light without the flash. Of course, with this being my first prime, it took a moment or two of mental adjustment to get used to the idea of my feet being the only zoom mechanism I had.

The bokeh looks much better than I have previously been able to achieve, as well. But MAN, that's one shallow depth of field when it's wide open. That will take some adjustment in my shot planning, to be sure.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the 28-70 or 24-70 is the way to go with my larger investment. While I got a lot of candids of people and tighter compositions which I thought were artistically pleasing, I am realizing that the lighting companies don't really care about any of that stuff. I mean, they appreciate that the shots within themselves might have some aesthetic merit, but in terms of what they need for archival purposes and publishing, they want a single shot or two that can tell the story of the entire event. That translates into wide shots that capture the look of the entire room. They want the viewer to look at one image and be able to say, "Oh, I get it. That's what your company can do!"

So, while the 70-200 VR might be more fun for me, it might not be the best tool for the job. I think the 28-70 will also translate well for wedding work. Of course, if I am shooting performers in a concert hall, I'll just have to make sure I get a position close enough with the 28-70 for it to do it's thing with the activities on stage.

In terms of lighting for candids, you mentioned geting a bracket for the SB-800. I have the SB-600, which may have to suffice for now, but are you saying that a simple bracket will get the flash head far enough off of the camera to make a significant difference? I have a diffusion dome on order for the SB-600 which I am hoping will help give a little more 3-D look to the lighting. I can get a bracket if it will make a difference, but does it? Can just that few inches of off-set be that critical to the outcome? Would bouncing the flash in combination with the diffusion dome accomplish the same thing, or no?

I'm sure I'll have a thousand more questions before all of this is settled, but I do feel like I am narrowing it down. Thanks so much for your input.

-Howard

ziggy53

Pixel Popper wrote:

...

In terms of lighting for candids, you mentioned geting a bracket for the SB-800. I have the SB-600, which may have to suffice for now, but are you saying that a simple bracket will get the flash head far enough off of the camera to make a significant difference? I have a diffusion dome on order for the SB-600 which I am hoping will help give a little more 3-D look to the lighting. I can get a bracket if it will make a difference, but does it? Can just that few inches of off-set be that critical to the outcome? Would bouncing the flash in combination with the diffusion dome accomplish the same thing, or no?

...

-Howard

Before you invest in a bracket and off camera cord, try building 2 DIY light modifiers:

A better bounce card:

http://abetterbouncecard.com/

... and a "scoop":

http://www.fototime.com/inv/908195739C4C0D3

You can build both for about $6USD and each has some unique advantages.

The Joe Demb Flip-It is also pretty nice as an alternative to the "better bounce" and a bit more adjustable.

http://www.dembflashproducts.com/flipit/

I have 2 flip brackets, with 2 off-camera cords, and I hardly ever use them. I mostly use the scoop or the Demb Flip-It instead. They are much faster to use and I like the light when they are used properly.

Pixel Popper

ziggy53 wrote:

Before you invest in a bracket and off camera cord, try building 2 DIY light modifiers:

A better bounce card:

http://abetterbouncecard.com/

... and a "scoop":

http://www.fototime.com/inv/908195739C4C0D3

You can build both for about $6USD and each has some unique advantages.

The Joe Demb Flip-It is also pretty nice as an alternative to the "better bounce" and a bit more adjustable.

http://www.dembflashproducts.com/flipit/

I have 2 flip brackets, with 2 off-camera cords, and I hardly ever use them. I mostly use the scoop or the Demb Flip-It instead. They are much faster to use and I like the light when they are used properly.

Thanks, Ziggy, for sending along those great resources. I rather quickly put together an impromptu "better bounce card" out of items at hand and took it out for a test spin. Wow, what a difference. I just used notebook paper and a twist tie to test the effect. Tomorrow, I am going out to get the foamies and strapping material to create a more substantial version. GREAT tip!!! I'll make this gadget for immediate use, and also order the Demb Flip-It for the next gig.

Watching the guy on the video was, at times, a little like having to sit through an episode of "Barney and Friends" (no offense intended ) but the demo was very informative and extremely useful.

Thanks so much. I love this forum.

ziggy53

The "scoop" type reflector is great when you have high ceilings, off-color ceilings or have to shoot up or down and can't use bounce. It gives very consistant light and folds flat for storage.

Here are some examples:

Pixel Popper

OK, so once I decided that my initial investment would be a 28-70mm f/2.8 lens for my Nikon D80, I started looking around for pricing and noticed a huge difference between brands.

The Nikkor is in the range of $1,400.

The Sigma in the the range of $350.

Is it safe to assume that the higher price reflects a higher quality? Or is this a matter of supply and demand, with fewer of the Nikkors being available on the open market.

I have never shot with a Sigma lens, so I have no means of comparing the two.

Basically, I'm asking what would I get for spending the extra thousand dollars for the Nikkor vs. the Sigma? And is it worth it?

Thanks!

ziggy53

Pixel Popper wrote:

OK, so once I decided that my initial investment would be a 28-70mm f/2.8 lens for my Nikon D80, I started looking around for pricing and noticed a huge difference between brands.

The Nikkor is in the range of $1,400.

The Sigma in the the range of $350.

Is it safe to assume that the higher price reflects a higher quality? Or is this a matter of supply and demand, with fewer of the Nikkors being available on the open market.

I have never shot with a Sigma lens, so I have no means of comparing the two.

Basically, I'm asking what would I get for spending the extra thousand dollars for the Nikkor vs. the Sigma? And is it worth it?

Thanks!

My recommendation is for the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) in Nikon AF-D mount. The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro is reported to be a very nice lens, when you get a good copy. This is a lens that many folks seem to have problems with relating to quality control. If you buy the Sigma, buy it from a source that makes it easy to exchange, if necessary.

Tamron review:
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/tamron/2875-f28/2875-1.html
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_2875_28_nikon/index.htm

Nikon review:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_2870_28/index.htm

Also be aware that the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro does not autofocus on the Nikon D40/D40x or any future bodies that lack the focus-screw mechanism on the camera.

ziggy53

OK, I see that Sigma "does" make a 28-70mm, f2.8 lens. My apologies. I am unfamiliar with that lens, although I do note that it likewise will not autofocus on the Nikon D40/D40x, if that is ever a consideration.

ziggy53

ziggy53 wrote:

OK, I see that Sigma "does" make a 28-70mm, f2.8 lens. My apologies. I am unfamiliar with that lens, although I do note that it likewise will not autofocus on the Nikon D40/D40x, if that is ever a consideration.

Rats, the Tamron also will not work properly with the Nikon D40/D40x. Better keep the D80. It works with everything.

Seymore

ziggy53 wrote:

My recommendation is for the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) in Nikon AF-D mount. The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro is reported to be a very nice lens, when you get a good copy. This is a lens that many folks seem to have problems with relating to quality control. If you buy the Sigma, buy it from a source that makes it easy to exchange, if necessary.

w/the Tamron aspect as I have this lens and find it renders a very good image.
My copy was purchased new from a private seller for $250. (still believing in "right place, right time" ) I believe these sell for (roughly) $350-400.

I can't speak to the Sigma aspect from experience... other than hearing of people having problems and needing to have Sigma lenses re-chipped for newer Nikon bodies. (but I have no input on which lenses and which bodies, sorry)

So please give some serious thought to the Tamron...

Pixel Popper

Thanks Ziggy and Seymore.

After I had posted the question about Nikkor vs. Sigma, I re-read one of your previous replies and saw the mention of the Tamron. I looked it up and I like the price. Since I do have the D80 and auto focus should not be a problem with that body, I'm pretty sure this is the direction I will go. I mean, who doesn't want to save a thousand bucks, right?

But the question still remains in my mind: Is there any disadvantage with the Tamron vs. Nikkor? What does all that extra money for the Nikkor actually buy?

Thanks again,

-Howard

ziggy53

Pixel Popper wrote:

...

But the question still remains in my mind: Is there any disadvantage with the Tamron vs. Nikkor? What does all that extra money for the Nikkor actually buy?

Thanks again,

-Howard

The Nikkor is a great lens. The 28-70mm is called a "classic". It produces wonderful results, probably a little better than the Tamron, but not much. The newer 24-70mm may even be a bit faster to focus, in fact I would bet on it.

The fact remains that the Tamron stands on its own as a great lens, capable of professional results. It is one of the great "values" in lenses with very nice color and contrast and good sharpness wide open to superb sharpness one stop down.

I strongly suggest you go for the Tamron. I doubt that you feel slighted or hindered when you see the results.

Harryb

Pixel Popper wrote:

Thanks Ziggy and Seymore.

After I had posted the question about Nikkor vs. Sigma, I re-read one of your previous replies and saw the mention of the Tamron. I looked it up and I like the price. Since I do have the D80 and auto focus should not be a problem with that body, I'm pretty sure this is the direction I will go. I mean, who doesn't want to save a thousand bucks, right?

But the question still remains in my mind: Is there any disadvantage with the Tamron vs. Nikkor? What does all that extra money for the Nikkor actually buy?

Thanks again,

-Howard

The big difference is build and handling. I doubt if anyone would be able to tell which lens took which picture. Here's a review of the Nikon 28-70 and the Tamron 28-75.

Seymore

Harryb wrote:

The big difference is build and handling. I doubt if anyone would be able to tell which lens took which picture. Here's a review of the Nikon 28-70 and the Tamron 28-75.

Yep... Nikon has always been known to over-engineer their gear, which is usually a good thing... but this doesn't mean that the Tamron will not hold its own in a head to head comparison. The manufacturer knows that quality must be up to snuff or word will get out and they will be going down for the count. Don't forget, the WWW (World Wide Word) travels at the speed of electrons... which is pretty danm fast these days!

Pixel Popper

Thanks once again. I just popped over to the local camera shop and purchased the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) in Nikon AF-D mount.

Such a bargain!

With your valued assistance, I now have the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, the Tamron 28-75, and still have enough money left over to get the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 with vibration reduction.

I'm so very pleased. To think I started this thread with the idea that I would only be able to get one really good lens. Now, I will have four in my bag, including the lens that came with the camera kit.

You guys are great, and I'm so thankful for your generous sharing of your knowledge and experience. Now, I feel like I am well on my way.

I also purchased the materials to build my own "a better bounce card" and scoop, as relayed in an earlier response (thanks again, Ziggy!) so I feel really confident about being able to produce some good results for the clients that are coming my way.

Can't say it enough. I just LOVE Dgrin.

ziggy53

Pixel Popper wrote:

...

Can't say it enough. I just LOVE Dgrin.

Way cool and congratulations! Now test, test, test. You don't want any problems during a gig.

If you do start doing weddings, do try to have a second camera available. If you have a friend with a Nikon dSLR, recruit them as an assistant so you can have their hands and their camera, even if you don't use it. Cameras fail at the most awkward times and nothing can kill your reputation like being unprepared.

You can also contact another local pro to see if they need another shooter. It's a great way to learn and earn, even if only a little pay is offered.

Pixel Popper

Ziggy,

Always raising good points, aren't you? Hmmm. Now me starts to wonder if'n I should take the remaining cash and get another D80 body (and a bigger camera bag), to go with the three lenses I now own, rather than going for the fancier glass. Maybe I will look and see what kind of deal I can find on a used D80 for a second.

Or, do you think there is any reason to get a different camera model to use as a second?

The decisions just never end, do they?

Seymore

Pixel Popper wrote:

Or, do you think there is any reason to get a different camera model to use as a second?

Price?

Pixel Popper wrote:

The decisions just never end, do they?

Nope...


Check your PM...

KRFamiliar

Pixel Popper wrote:

Hey Everyone,

I am currently shooting with my latest acquisition, the Nikon D80, which I love. I only have one lens, that which came with the kit, the Nikkor 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED zoom. It's a good general purpose lens, but is not nearly fast enough for the type of work I need to do.

I have requests to do a lot of special event photography for companies which provide specialty lighting, which typically means night time shots outdoors, or inside very large venues such as concert halls and museums, and many dimly lit locations like night clubs, reception halls, etc. I might well branch into wedding photography, as well.

See these galleries for examples of typical settings I shoot:

A Night time Event - Outdoors

A Charity Event

The Amazingly good news is that I have a special benefactor who is going to put up $2000 for me to get my next lens to help me expand my business potential. After shooting with the kit lens, I very quickly realized that faster glass was the first thing I needed to purchase.

I am torn between two choices. I am looking at either the Nikkor 28-70 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S zoom, or the Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR zoom.

I was wondering if any of you could help me compare and contrast the pros and cons of these two lenses. They have some very different characteristic, yet are remarkably similar in price.

Personally, I am leaning toward the 70-200, largely because of the vibration reduction feature which the other lens does not have. I'm thinking that it might be the better choice for the venues in which I shoot, but I could be completely wrong about that. I like the idea of having the farther reaching zoom for those large venues, but the thing will add over three pounds of weight to my camera.

Even in those large venues, I also like to capture candid portraiture, and perhaps the 28-70 is the better choice for that kind of work. The problem is, I can only afford to get one of them. Both of the lenses are fast, which I like and need. The one has VR, but seems quite heavy. The other is light, but doesn't have the focal range to get close from far away.

What an enigma!

What's your best guess for the lens that would serve me best? Or would you look at something completely different which I have not yet considered? Any advice you can offer will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Howard

Keep in mind Howard, if you think the 70-200 is big, the 28-70 weighs 2/3rds as much. If I were you, I wouldnt rely on certain other websites for reviews on lenses, as smugmug is generally a better source of knowledge for lenses.

If I were you, I'd go for the primes, especially since you think the 70-200 is heavy :P.

On the other hand, you do not have to go for a 70200 if you are set in that direction, you could buy a nikkor 80-200 with a monopod, and still have enough for a used 28-70
or a variety of primes. In fact, a 105mm dc Nikkor might fit your shooting style fairly well.

just my o.

KRFamiliar

Pixel Popper wrote:

Ziggy,

Now me starts to wonder if'n I should take the remaining cash and get another D80 body (and a bigger camera bag), to go with the three lenses I now own, rather than going for the fancier glass.

Or, do you think there is any reason to get a different camera model to use as a second?

The decisions just never end, do they?

If you want to buy another body, go ahead. Its probabl;y not necessary, but its your call.

I doubt its going to help your photography as much as some faster primes, but its your money.

(They do end, if you make smart choices at the start :P.)

clive r simpson

If In had that to spend I would seriosly consider buying another body and looking on ebay for some old fast non af lenses which can be had for peanuts, Fit a fast semi wide to one body and a fast tele to the other. Work at the largest aperture and focus manually which is better in low light conditions. You could probably upgrade to a D200 and purchase three optics in the budget, I pruchased a 1.4 50mm recently for £3 on ebay recently and it is superb in low light.

ziggy53

Pixel Popper wrote:

Ziggy,

Always raising good points, aren't you? Hmmm. Now me starts to wonder if'n I should take the remaining cash and get another D80 body (and a bigger camera bag), to go with the three lenses I now own, rather than going for the fancier glass. Maybe I will look and see what kind of deal I can find on a used D80 for a second.

Or, do you think there is any reason to get a different camera model to use as a second?

The decisions just never end, do they?

If you follow my previous advice, you can couple with another shooter, whether they work for you or you for them, and avoid the need for "purchasing" another camera until you generate enough business to afford the purchase.

The second camera could also be a Nikon D50 or D70/D70s, it doesn't have to be the same exact body, just something capable in case you need it.

I've seen people who used a film camera as a backup (not recommended) or even a digicam (only some digicams would qualify).

Lens rental might be a better way to go for a while until you develop the business to a point where you "need" a particular lens in your stable of tools. Rental is also a pretty good way for you to insure that your business is supporting itself.