Zoom recommendations - Advice please

I am currently as assistant/2nd shooter and I've got a couple of small solo weddings booked for next year following

word of mouth from friends. I am looking to ensure I have the best kit possible (within my budget!) and wanted a little

advice. At the moment I have the following

 

D90 and D40 (as backup)

Tamron 17-50 2.8

Nikon 50mm 1.8

Nikon Nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6 VR

SB600

Lightsphere

 

I will be buying another SB600 speedlight after Xmas as a backup and was also wanting to sell my 55-200 and get a

better zoom. The Nikon 70-200 2.8 is out of my price bracket unfortunately so I've been looking at alternatives.

 

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG MACRO HSM II

 

SIGMA 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM II

 

Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO

 

Does anyone use any of these lenses and which one would you recommend?

I've been using the SIGMA 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM II on a Canon 40D - i find that it has great range for a crop

sensor body and can be absolutely brilliant for portraits and candid shots when you need to keep your distance from

the events.

The one thing that I will say against it is that if you don't nail the focus, you will not get usable results. This might

seem like an obvious thing to say, but the reason I mention it is that I find that my particular one cannot always be

relied upon to lock in on the subject as quickly as is required.

Having said that, it is a great lens to use when things are more static during a ceremony.

I would strongly reco. The Tokina 50-135/2.8. I use it on one of my bodies most of the day (till it gets a bit dark). I have it practically glued to the D90 which is a great body (ha, I finally got a great body ;-) )

 

I do have the Nikon 70-200/Vr but only use it on pretty rare occasions. I prefer the Tokina for 99% of the time this FL is used. It does not have the Vr, but is light, small and sharp/contrasty. Great piece of glass for this use. I would do that first. In fact, had I not already got a 70-200/Vr, I may not have bought one at all.

 

OTOH, when you need the 2.8 at 200 with Vr, the 70-200 is the one to have. 1% of the time.

 

I tried the Sigma 50-150, but it was not up to the same standard as the Tokina, IMO.

 

I would trade the D40 when you can and get a D70s instead (if you can), price being part of that equation. That way you will have two bodies that can drive any lens. The D40 can make nice images but is not in the same class as the D70/80/90's.

 

I would sell that 55-200/Vr only when you can afford the 70-200/Vr. It could save you that 1% of the time you will need long with Vr. Combine that with your D90 at 3200iso and even at F5.6 you can get something during a slow moving ceremony in a dark church. Besides, it is supposed to be a decent lens for that kind of lens, by all accounts.

 

Best, D.

...and the Tokina WILL nail focus at least as well as ANY Nikon lens I own.

Thanks guys - I hadn't considered the Tokina so will look at that one too. I just have concerns about the reach which is obviously less than the others.

 

I hadn't considered trading my D40 in for the D70 but it makes sense. I friend of mine (who isn't a photographer) has the D70 and never uses it. Maybe I can strike a deal!

 

Anyone else with an opinion on this subject?

Get the Nikon two-ring non-afs 80-200. You can pick one up a good used one for one third the price of the 70-200.

Thanks Dan - I'm just reading up on that lens too.

I just finally moved to the 70-200 (I shoot a lot of sports, too) and sold my 80-200. The 80-200 is a fantastic lens, especially when used on a DX body (no vignetting). Buy a good used one from KEH. For wedding work, it'll do everything you need it to do.

Is it very heavy Dan?

It isn't light, but it's really a must-have lens. Great for so many things. Go to B&H's site and look at the specs to see the exact weight.

 

Lugging it around will be good for you ;-p.

Like a workout lol.

 

Where I live (North UK) there isn't anywhere I can get my hands on this lens which is annoying. I would like to try it out first before parting with my hard earned cash.

D40 and D70 have the same sensor, same IQ. As a backup to the D90 the D50 (also same sensor as D40/70) is probably better, because it uses the same memory cards. And it can still AF with your non-afs lenses.

Karen, I understand your wariness. The 80-200 won't disappoint. I don't know if KEH ships overseas, but if so, they offer a two week return period for any reason.

The direct answer to the OP is 'no' - I've never used any of the lenses you quote, but I've put one or two on my

D3 to get the 'feel' of how they'd handle, and I have to say the I wouldn't use any of them if there were an

equivalent Nikkor available. Not to mention the fact that I owned two Sigmas a number of years ago that were

simply god-awful lenses in terms of build quality. Now understandably that was 25 years ago and things may

have changed, but I can't get past that, and while this may sound like Nikon snobbery, I've never had an issue

with any Nikkor I've ever owned and expect to keep it that way. If you're on a tight budget then they may be the

way to go, but my experiences with off-brand lenses have not been stellar. Just as an FYI - my wedding kit is a

D3/D300, 3 SB800s, LightSpheres, 12-24 f/4, 28-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 VR f/2.8 - and appropriate backups. --Rich

I would love the 70-200 2.8 but its currently retailing at £1200 or there abouts. The Nikon 80-200 looks far more attractive as it comes in at about the same price as the Sigma and Tamron lenses I mentioned.

 

I dont need it until April next year so going to give it more thought. (and maybe see what Father Christmas brings me)

 

Thanks again everyone!