85mm f1.4D or 85mm f1.8G or 105mm DC or 105mm VR or 80-200mm f2.8D for wedding and travel usage

<p>I am getting closer to my next lens purchase in coming Sept, I want to pick up a tele lens which currently lack of for wedding. <br>

For wedding:D700 + AFS 24-70mm f2.8 + 50mm f1.8D<br>

For travelling:D700 + AFS 16-35mm f4 + 50mm f1.8D + 70-210mm f4-5.6D [planning to sell it off]<br>

Which you can see, for wedding purpose, my max focal is 70mm [i mean for indoor and low light circumstances]. Hence I would lie to get a USED lens mentioned above [85mm f1.4D or 85mm f1.8G or 105mm DC or 105mm VR or 80-200mm f2.8D]<br>

My intention is to buy a tele lens which I can use for both occasions, hopefully. I have tried 80-200mm two-touch version, and its gave me a great outcome, but not try any for the rest. So now I am not sure which 1 should get and need some input for those lens owners. <br>

Thanks. </p>

<p>MM 4 totally differen lenses ( the 85mm's are most similar here..)<br>

First something else : You do not indicate whether yuo have 2 camera's, and as for weddings a bacjup camera is a must, i would advise to first invest in a backup camera....</p>

<p>Then : the 80-200mm and the 105mm VR Makro are the most versatile ( so multipurpose .) lenses in your list .<br>

For portreture the 85mm 1.4d would be my preference but for traveling the `105mm VR and 80-200mm are much more versatile.<br>

I do love the 135mm DC and 85mm 1.4d a lot, but those are very specialised lenses ( although the 85mm 1.4d is my favourit when "on the streets"because it can so nicely isolate a subject and blur everything in the background ( so can the 135DC but that one is much bigger..)<br>

So : no clear answer to this one, i guess you will have to try for yourself ( rent the lenses that seem to fill the bill for a day or two...) .</p>

 

<p>Assuming the wedding business is paid, I'd say you owe your paying customers to ensure you have the right tools for the job. Which brings you to a rather nasty compromise for travel - but the business really ought to come first, I think.<br>

For weddings, I would take the 80-200 f/2.8D, without a doubt. It has the flexibility you need, f/2.8 is usually fast enough. While all prime lenses you mention are very nice options (and very good lenses), they're worse compromises. Not as flexible, and most of them not as fast-focussing as the zoom, plus the difference between 70 and 85 mm is virtually nothing. Even the step to 105mm isn't all that big. Only the zoom really adds to the kit, in my view. The 105VR a distant second option because of its close focussing. Faster than f/2.8 would be nice, but that's the compromise you'll need to make.<br>

Shooting a wedding with primes with just one body is, in my view, not a good idea. I have done it, but had a second body with (a slower) zoom ready behind me to switch to something more flexible. Otherwise, too much risk of loosing important shots. So, for me, there is only one real answer, and that's the 80-200 f/2.8D. Or better, push the budget a bit and find a 70-200VR instead.</p>

<p>A pain for travel, because the 80-200 f/2.8 is too large and too heavy to be a nice travel companion. Maybe not sell the 70-210, or think about adding something like a small, light and very affordable 105 f/2.5 or 200 f/4 manual focus for this.</p>

<p>Myself and a few others had some issues with the 80-200 F2.8 with close focussing issues at all apertures. <br /> <br />I agree with the above - for paid for wedding work get a tele zoom F2.8. Flexibility and quality. For travel and personal use, I would get a 70-200 F4 I know it is expensive but that is what most people go for. Or else pick a prime like for myself personally I find that a 85 1.8 is long enough paired with maybe a WA prime - I don't use zooms that much on travel they are heavy and big and you stand out like a sore thumb. I've been using a 18-35 and a 85 1.8 with my travels. Thou I think a 28mm might be a good walk about since it's a lot smaller. </p>

<p>As a guest, I've shot a wedding with a 135 f/2 DC (attached image, unprocessed and not cropped, just showing bokeh!) - though I also used a 14-24 and 28-200 for flexibility (not a bad lens at f/8 on a D700 and tiny, if you want to consider it for travel; not so hot on the D800). The 135 was... less fun than I'd hoped, since it was one reason I switched to Nikon - mine, which was checked by Nikon UK and was "in spec", had horrendous longitudinal (axial) chromatic aberration, which means that at full size, the bride's hair is green and her jewelry is purple. Cue about an hour of editing. It's also hard to autofocus accurately, which makes the LoCA issues worse. Others seem to have had less trouble with this lens, and with the 105. At about f/5.6, most of the problems go away and the 135 is lovely. But the same is true of the 135 f/2.8 AI-S that I also own, for a tenth of the cost and a similar amount of the weight. It's also a bit painful to try to back up enough to pose a subject with this - I used it for candids. I gave up, sold mine, and bought a 200 f/2, which is even better at losing the background and has none of the other problems (but some cost and weight issues).<br />

<br />

The 80-200 AF-D is a very good lens at long range. At close range, especially at the long end, it's hard to focus (I believe the working internet theory is that its telecentricity varies, and this throws off the AF system) and not all that sharp. I actually bought one for a friend to use on my camera at my own wedding - I tried it alongside a 70-200 VR2 and the differences on a D700 were there, but not huge. Soon after getting a D800 and getting tired of shooting at f/5.6 and below, I gave up on that too, and traded it (and the 135, and a 150-500) for a 70-200 VR 2. It <i>does</i> offer a combination of subject isolation control and zoom range, but in my experience it's not a substitute for the current lens. By many accounts the AF-S version has better optics (the one I briefly tried was broken, and didn't), but there are parts availability issues. The 80-200 AF-D is probably fine for candids, but I'd be a bit wary of trying to get close-ups (e.g. of ring exchanges) with it - at least consider live view when doing that. The lack of VR is unfortunate for the "happy couple walking down the aisle in a dim church" type of shot, but then I've needed my 200 f/2 wide open with a monopod at ISO 6400 for wedding speeches in the past (I should really talk to my family about lighting), so maybe you can never have enough - though had I been the official photographer I'd just have used a flash, of course.<br />

<br />

I was always put off the 85 f/1.4 AF-D because the area away from the centre of frame is mushy at wider apertures. If you always put your subject in the middle, that's fine; if you like having an in-focus frame around the subject, I'd check some sample images. The Samyang 85 f/1.4 is probably a bit better, and has nicer bokeh than the 85 f/1.8 AF-D (which was the alternative when I got mine), but manual focus of an f/1.4 telephoto is a bit tedious. I recently picked up the f/1.8 AF-S, which keeps the sharpness of the AF-D while giving nicer bokeh. It <i>does</i> have quite visible LoCA, though, so be a little aware of the background, but so do most fast lenses. I'm selectively happy with mine for when I need 85mm and fast.<br />

<br />

So if you're guesting at a wedding and wanting to take snaps, I'd say the 80-200 isn't a bad choice for candids, and the 85 f/1.8 is optically very good, though I'd want some means of getting longer range at least in good light. (The 135 f/2.8 AI is very cheap and pocketable, if you want the same emergency back-up as me.) I would also consider the 150mm f/2.8 OS Sigma macro, which would let you get very close for details, and is fast enough to blur the background as a portrait lens (and is stabilised). It also has none of the chromatic aberration issues of the other lenses discussed here. However, there's obviously a big gap between 70mm and 150mm, which may or may not bother you. (But then there's also a big gap above 85mm...)<br />

<br />

If you're shooting the wedding as a pro, I'd just rent the 70-200 VR2 (if not the 120-300 Sigma) until you can afford to buy it. It's by far the least compromised of all these. But I'm an amateur (who spends way too much money on photography), so you'd have to make your own financial decision about whether it's worth it.</p>

<div></div>

<p>The 85/1.4D is an excellent lens for portraits and people photography, it is definitely worth considering for the look of the images and also its sharpness and colour. AF-S versions of the 85mm focus more precisely than the AF(-D), so if you intend to shoot a lot with the lens wide open it's worth purchasing an AF-S (either f/1.8 or f/1.4).</p>

<p>The VR 105 would allow you to get tight close-ups of details at weddings and also serve as a short tele for portraits. It is good as a general purpose travel lens as well. If you use lighting for your portraits and so don't need the f/1.4 or f/1.8 as dearly in weddings, then the VR 105 would be my first choice on your list, given your applications as stated. If you do like to photograph portraits in available light then choose one of the 85mm's. By the way I've frequently combined the 24-70 with the 85mm simply because the 24-70 is great for environmental portraits (too short for head and shoulders) and the 85mm is about right for head and shoulders, or requires less cropping to finalize the framing, and the 85mm's I've used were clearly sharper as well (at distances typical for portraits). For head and shoulders AF-S is especially useful as it lets one focus through eyeglasses more easily whereas the AF D would hunt a bit and be attracted to the frame of the glasses whereas it was simply easier to get the eye just in focus with the AF-S. However, this is a specific situation where it helps. It also supports easier switching between manual and autofocus if you use AF-ON to activate AF ( instead of pressing AF-ON, you just turn the focus ring, without having to switch between A/M).</p>

<p>An f/2.8 telezoom is useful for speeches and capturing family and guest reactions during the ceremony, but I find it too long for most restaurants where evening parties are usually held. It depends on the geometry of the location of course. It is a very useful lens to have but would not be at the top of my list in regards to the OP's situation. Also its close focus distance is quite long and performance at close focus is not the best so the 85mm's and VR 105 clearly have an edge for tight head and shoulders shots, not to mention that the f/2.8 telezooms can be quite intimidating.</p>

 

<blockquote>The 85/1.4D is an excellent lens for portraits and people photography, it is definitely worth considering for the look of the images and also its sharpness and colour.</blockquote>

 

<p>Um. The 85 f/1.4 D has good central sharpness, and is generally very sharp when stopped down (e.g. to f/5.6). Wide open, the area away from the centre of the frame is <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D700-versus-AF-Nikkor-85mm-f-1.4D-on-Nikon-D700-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-F18G-on-Nikon-D700___388_441_244_441_823_441">a smooshy horrible mess</a>. Which is fine if you're trying to focus attention on the centre, and not so hot if you have something on the periphery that's supposed to look nice. Form your own opinions based on some sample photos and shooting style, though - clearly many people love this lens, but I personally wouldn't touch it, especially at the price. The AF-S f/1.4 is much sharper at wide apertures, although it has really heavy LoCA - but it's also very expensive. The f/1.8 is a comparative bargain. Obviously, I don't own the f/1.4 Nikkors (although I've used them, briefly), so please take that under advisement. I do own the Samyang and f/1.8 AF-S Nikkor.<br />

<br />

The 105 VR is a very good lens. I've always considered it over-priced, partly because the VR isn't so useful for macro and partly because lenses like the old Tamron 90mm were much cheaper. The new Tamron and Sigma macros are nearer to it in price, but the 150 Sigma doesn't add that much premium and gives you a lot more reach and subject isolation. Unless it's too long for your needs, I'd give it serious consideration compared with the micro-Nikkor.<br />

<br />

As a guest, I've tried to stay well out of the way, which is why I erred towards big glass for weddings. I've used the long end of a 150-500 to capture the happy couple eating together, and the 200 f/2 wasn't really long enough for the speeches I was recording (anyone want to give me a 300 f/2?) Both these lenses tend to get attention from those nearby, but I'm usually shooting different people. An 80-200 (or 70-200) isn't that scary, by modern standards. If I was the paid photographer, on the other hand, I'd feel far more comfortable using shorter lenses and getting in close, so please colour my tendencies towards length given that information.</p>

<p>I wasn't impressed with the optical performance of my 70-210 AF f4-5.6 zoom Nikkor and quickly sold it many years ago when the trombone zoom became sloppy for the 3rd time after two repairs by Nikon under warranty. So, that lens would be first on my list to replace. The f/5.6 aperture is also quite limiting, especially since its wide-open performance is quite soft.</p>

<p>However, if you want to expand the picture possibilities available to you, then I'd go for the 105mm VR Micro-Nikkor. Personally I'm not really interested in fiddling with the so-called bokeh of images, but I am fascinated by getting really close and having really sharp detail in my pictures. The VR will help in getting sharp handheld shots too. Your photographic interests may well vary, but the Micro-Nikkor would be my pick out of your suggested lenses. For wedding use its ability to photograph rings, bouquets and other close detail, in addition to being a good portrait length, make it a great choice. Besides, you can simulate OOF effects in PhotoShop using a blurred layer.</p>

<p>(Before an argument breaks out over the subtle difference between what can be achieved with a DC lens and PS; for wedding use I think the main thing is to achieve a "dreamy" effect, and quite bluntly, most customers won't care how the effect was achieved, let alone be able to spot the difference between the two methods.) </p>

<p> </p>

<p>No way I would have just an 85mm as my longest lens. It just won't be long enough, especially on your camera. Assuming you are doing weddings in a church, your best bet is a used Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR, or the Sigma OS equivalent. No way I'd buy the cheaper 80-200mm f2.8 as it doesn't have VR, and that REALLY makes a difference in this kind of shooting. If you can't afford the right tools, don't take the jobs. You really only need two lenses for weddings: a 24-70 f2.8 type mid range zoom and a 70-200mm f2.8 VR type zoom. Weddings are all about being quick to compose and nail fleeting shots.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>+1 on the 70-200/2.8 AFS VR (either version I or II) for paid wedding (event) work. While all of lenses listed by the OP can produce great results and each has unique merits, none listed have the flexibility of the 2.8 VR zoom. And add a 2nd body.</p>

<p>I bought a 105/2.8 AFS VR thinking it would replace the 70-200 since it is smaller & lighter, but it has not worked out that way for me.</p>

<p>I would just keep the small zoom the OP has for travel and casual use, it is probably good enough for that.</p>

<p>I'm with Kent on the basic 2, one on each body. In a hip pack, I keep a 50, 85 G 1.4 and flash. I will often have the 135 dc with me, Andrew in truck or pelican. The 85 is close on bokeh to the 135 and more useful at close distances and has another stop. </p>

<p>Appreciate all invaluable input and giving a very good picture as well as good analyze. <br>

I'm not a full time wedding photographer but as a freelancer, and of course get paid. <br>

At the moment, I think I wish to get a tele lens instead of a backup camera. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Assuming the wedding business is paid, I'd say you owe your paying customers to ensure you have the right tools for the job.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I totally agreed with the above statement, thanks all! I get a stunned and have a better picture now what I should put into consideration. <br>

Talk about renting a lens, unfortunately, this service is not available in my lovely country Malaysia...so, forget about it...even warranty in Malaysia only given 1 year by Nikon...well...life isn't fair at all the time, and I know it well~<br>

Also, I can only afford the budget for the lenses mentioned above or equivalent price of other lenses which you may recommend. I just not really into 3rd party lens and stick to nikkor all I can...<br>

70-200 f2.8 vr1 or vr2 are way out of my budget, I may consider in next upgrade but not now definitely. </p>

<p>I still think there's very little a DC lens can achieve that can't in some ways be done better by Photoshop. This unfortunate choice of background (not of my choosing BTW) - below - almost made the poor girl disappear. A little blurred layer and eraser work rescued the shot. As well as allowing a little skin "surgery" at the same time.</p><div></div>

<p>For weddings and such I'd wote for 70-200. Last sunday I used the 80-200 for about 450 pictures. It was totally ok to me. Usually the 80-200 is sitting at home, but sometimes af (vr) zoom can not be beaten.</p>

<p>The reason leaving my 80-200 at home is that usually (travel kind of situations) I have a 100mm macro and ED 180 f2.8 manual Nikkor. With this setup I get shorter tele, a loger tele and macro. I might leave the 180mm away and have a 300 mm af lens instead. I prefer prime lenses over the 80-200 in that kind of use.</p>

<p>Attached example was a normal head and shoulder framing and the crop is around the left eye. D700, standard curves and ViewNX2 sharpening, focal length used was 170mm. So I was intentionally standing away form the weakest area of this lens (200 mm + f2.8 + distance less than 2 meters).</p><div></div>

<p>"..focal length used was 170mm." - Well, that's about the maximum real focal length of the new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR zoom Nikkor at portrait distances! Time was when the focal length(s) marked on a lens were pretty much what you got. Not any more it seems. It does feel like being short-changed and totally misled.</p>

<p>Edit: BTW, Elvis, Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 SP VC lens is every bit as good optically as the Nikon version, and at about 2/3rds of the price.</p>

<p>For weddings (and almost everything else) I use a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 (along with a 12-24 4.0). Since you've already got the 24-70, I would go with at least the 80-200 but if you can swing it would buy the 70-200, either the VRI or better the VRII. The 16-35 is also good for weddings but third in importance compared with the other two. Many people love primes, but to me the fast primes are icing on the cake for special uses after you already have the basic zooms. (I have several fast primes since I date back to the film days, but I don't carry all that weight around unless I specifically need them.)<br>

For traveling on assignment I use the same. For casual photography while on vacation I have a 24-200 "vacation" lens and recently picked up a Canon G15 point and shoot if I'm really just doing snapshots for the family.</p>

<p>I attended a seminar re: travel photography with this well known guy who have done trips with the CEO of Adobe etc .. Antarctica, Bhutan, Namibia, China, Alaska the list goes on ... including people and scapes etc. Also a few people at my camera club. The most streamlined setup would be 3 zooms - UWA F4, 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8 then maybe a TC but for you probably not needed. </p>

<p>Wedding work, I say the 70-200 F2.8. I did a friend's wedding over here when they had another event just for friends here as the wife is from a different city than the husband. For a free friends service you could get away from the 70-200 F2.8. If a not so dark church maybe F4, maybe you could just use primes too and just be selective about your style. I don't have a tele zoom so I couldn't get shots when they made speeches etc. </p>

<p>OTOH for personal stuff and travel just what suits you. One might just want a single 50mm or a 35mm, others might be ok with 2 primes or 2 or 3 or 4 zooms. </p>

<p>thanks all. I think probably highest change i will get a used tele-zoom 80-200mm. But before that, I would like to have the comment of 105mm DC, as this lens will probably suit for my travel usage and somehow can cover for wedding tele, i think.<br>

ok, I narrow down the option of the list to 2 lenses:<br>

- af-d 80-200mm [70-200mm vr1 may not take into count at the moment as i think vr doesn't helps much for fast moving object which i usually push my shutter to 1/100 or above]<br>

- af-d 105mm DC [never have chance to try this lens, and don't have any friends own this type of DC lens, so, i hope i can get a great feedback of the real feeling and review from the lens owner]<br>

Anyhow, I still have roughly 3 months to go and decide what to get. </p>

 

<p>The 105 DC is an excellent lens for portraits and people photography, but with recent autofocus systems it can be tricky to focus it. Personally I love the results it gives when the shot is in focus.</p>

<p>Hi Elvis. VR can still help if you're panning with the subject, but if you have sudden movements, you're right that it doesn't help much. (I find it does help with framing, for what it's worth.) However, I would think very carefully about whether to choose a 70-200 VR 1 on an FX camera, because the image borders really aren't sharp at 200mm with that lens (I tend to consider it to be a lens that was really designed with DX cameras in mind, and FX coverage was an afterthought). On DX it's a lovely lens; on FX, I'd always think the VR2 was worth the premium - or go third party. But then I care about corners, as you can tell by my comments about the 85 f/1.4 AF-D.<br />

<br />

If we treat the 135 f/2 DC as the big brother of the 105 (it is slightly better at removing the background, although I've heard the 105mm version might be slightly sharper), all I can say is that I owned both of these, and got rid of them. The 135 was one of the first lenses I got when I switched to Nikon, and it was one of the reasons that I made the switch (the 14-24 also being on the list). I did use it a few times, but I always had to do so much post-processing that I had to be really sure I wanted the effect. Some of the LoCA is designed in - it's how the defocus control works - but I can't deny that others have had less trouble with these lenses than I seem to have. There are some examples of the trouble I had with it <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZIso">here</a> - bear in mind that what might appear on the occasional edge does tend to show up on alternating stripes as well, hence my issues with blond hair going green.<br />

<br />

There is a lot of glass in the 135 f/2 DC - it's very heavy for its size (most lenses have a lot of air in them). I assume the 105 is similar. Just a warning if you're hoping for a light option.<br />

<br />

If you haven't seen it, you might like to have a read of the history of the DC lenses <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/32/index.htm">here</a>. (There's also a brief mention of the 105DC <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/105mmnikkor/index.htm">here</a>.) Photozone.de have also covered them.<br />

<br />

For all that, the DC lenses do produce lovely bokeh - I'd just be a little wary of relying on them.<br />

<br />

The 80-200 seemed much more convincing on the D700 than it did on the D800, mostly because the D700 is less demanding on lenses. I found myself mostly shooting it at f/5.6 to avoid the softness and focus issues; f/2.8 was only as an emergency, at least at short range. Again, it worked fine for many people for many years (with a slight proviso about how much detail tends to get resolved in 35mm film and therefore how the definition of a "sharp" lens has changed over time). I'd probably take one for a wedding over the 135, because I think the flexibility is useful, but I was much less impressed than I expected to be. If you can find and afford the Tamron version, I would seriously consider it. I almost regret going with the Nikkor, since that was launched.<br />

<br />

However, I'm aware that I've just criticised two of the most well-regarded lenses in Nikon's historical line-up. So you probably shouldn't dismiss them completely just because I didn't get on with them - just be a little wary of some of the more glowing reviews.<br />

<br />

I would be confident that the 105mm VR micro-Nikkor would behave better (although I still think I'd take the Sigma or 90mm Tamron for the price, or pay a small premium for the 150mm Sigma), but obviously a 105mm f/2.8 lens can't lose the background like a 200mm f/2.8 or a 105 f/2. Which only matters if you can actually use those apertures safely... (And, seriously, the 135 f/2.8 AI-S manual focus is a tiny bargain, if you can live with manual focus.)<br />

<br />

Incidentally...</p>

 

<blockquote>Talk about renting a lens, unfortunately, this service is not available in my lovely country Malaysia</blockquote>

 

<p>Um. I just tried googling for "lens rental Malaysia", and there definitely seem to be some options, at least one of which stocks the 70-200 (though it might be the first version - I can't tell). Are you sure you can't rent? It might be the best way to make up your own mind before buying, too.</p>

<p>or unless it's like NZ where I gather renting such a lens might cost $200US a day equivalent with the weekend for free if you hire for 5 days and for us we still have to organise our own insurance cos the rentee is liable.</p>

<p>Ah, yes, I don't claim to have checked costs (or exchange rates). :-) Just pointing out that it's technically possible. Given the option, I'd at least see whether it was possible to try one of these lenses out in a store before buying - the 105 DC is still a current lens, and should be in stock in some places. Or buy from somewhere with a return policy.</p>

<p>I don't have time to repost high resolution crops but here are some examples using some of the lenses mentioned.</p>

<p>105 DC at f/2:<br /> />

<p>These are with the 85/1.4D at f/1.8:</p>

<p> />

<p>85/1.4D at f/2.8:</p>

<p>

<p>85/1.4G at f/1.4:</p>

<p>

<p>70-200/2.8G II at f/2.8:</p>

<p>

<p>105 VR:</p>

<p>

<p>135 DC:</p>

<p> /> /> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/3564014010/sizes/o/<br /> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/7109862465/sizes/o/</p>

<p>Which lens you choose and which you end up liking, is up to individual taste.</p>

<p>Personally it is my opinion that good images of people at events are mostly made at relatively close proximity to the subject and these images better communicate the feeling of being in the midst of the action to the viewer, also the subjects appear more three-dimensional as the perspective is stronger. If the photographer is close to two subjects in conversation with each other, using a wide angle the camera sees more of the faces of the subjects communicating with each other in the photos rather than a side view or only one face as with a tele. Using a long lens in crowded venues is difficult as there may be people moving across the path of the light. However in the ceremony you must obey the rules of the place and stay in areas that you discuss with the officiant beforehand. This may mean you have to use a tele to get some close-ups, and the f/2.8 telezoom is very practical for this situation, so it is a lens worth having. However, even here it is often the wider view that tells the story better if one image needs to tell it, and tele shots often discriminate one person to get a better view of another. In the street, as you can see above, I often use medium telephoto lenses to simplify backgrounds. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>to get a USED lens mentioned above [85mm f1.4D or 85mm f1.8G or 105mm DC or 105mm VR or 80-200mm f2.8D] … My intention is to buy a tele lens which I can use for both occasions,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With regards to the 85mm lenses, I can give me my personal experience which agrees with reviews that you can find on these lenses. I had the 85/1.8 D, a lovely sharp lens, and I had no problem focusing it in dim dim light on a D90. Its bokeh, however, is ugly. The new 85/1.8 G has much better bokeh, is light, and the images are beautiful. Thus between the two lenses, I would go with the 85/1.8 G. One nice thing about the AFD version is that it does have an old fashion aperture ring. If you are planning to use an 85mm lens to shoot videos (see below) in the future when you have a body that can do that, this gives a you direct control to the aperture. (Most Nikon bodies cannot control the aperture on a G lens once you are in live view)<br /> <br /> For me personally, if I am traveling for fun, D700 is not the camera I will bring. This is where a lot of people are going into the mirrorless camera systems to save weight and bulk. I can bring an E-PL5+12-35/2.8+20/1.7+45/1.8 set which will weigh about the same (if not less than) as a D700 body alone! This may sound like you need to start buying another system, but you will appreciate the dramatic saving in weight and bulk to allow you to enjoy the trip more. The mirrorless cameras from SONY and Panasonic are outstanding in shooting videos (Olympus is not bad but Fuji is clearly behind them all) so you can later use these in your wedding job. You can mount your Nikon lenses with a simple cheap "adapter" (a metal ring, really).</p>

<p>CC - there is a bit of a <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters">caveat</a> about lens adaptors - but I'll admit to owning an F-to-micro-4/3 adaptor for occasional use (again, usually with the 135 f/2.8 that I mentioned). G lenses are a little more painful on an adaptor. But I can't argue with your portability claims, with the proviso that a smaller sensor gathers less light. The D700 is a generation or two behind in sensitivity, however, so it balances out with most DX-format mirrorless systems.<br />

<br />

I've never understood the phrase "travel light" (my D800 usually has an L-plate on it just in case, even though I'm not usually bringing a tripod...) so I didn't really have a problem carrying a D700. In fact, my travel kit was typically a D700 with the 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 G on it (as I mentioned, not a bad lens on the D700 stopped down, but not really up to the D800) in a toploader bag, with a 135 f/2.8 in the front pocket and a 50mm f/1.8 (AF-D, although I now have the larger AF-S) in a carry bag that came with a teleconverter, tied to the strap. That gave me range, a bit of low light, and a basic portrait option. I've been known to carry the Samyang 85mm tied to the same strap. These days I usually carry a big camera bag with a 14-24, 70-200 and some other stuff, if I'm serious about taking nice shots, but the toploader is useful "just in case"; I'm starting to look at the R100-III as a small travel option, though. In addition to my backpacks (I recommend Think Tank), I have a LowePro Stealth Reporter shoulder bag (big!) that's a bit easier to hide under a chair at weddings.<br />

<br />

I'd be inclined to stick to the SLR for wedding use, for now, mostly for the low light performance and ability to hire additional kit. If you can handle the weight of the body - and 1kg for a D700 is only a can of cola or two more than a mirrorless system - then there's no harm in using the same as a travel system, although one could argue about whether a D700 is an obvious landscape camera (depends on your definition of "travel"). But, despite having both micro 4/3 and Nikon 1-series cameras, I'm still pretty committed to my DSLR kit - and frankly, the weight of my camera kit is pretty negligible compared with the weight of my belly, which is no doubt a factor in what I find comfortable. (A heavy camera bag is, if anything, a counterweight.) You may have different priorities. :-) Anyway, just reporting that I've used a D700 as a travel camera, and my arms haven't fallen off...</p>