Nikon 105mm 2.8 For Wedding - Anyone have input?

<p>Does anyone have experience using a Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR for wedding photography? I am considering buying the 80-200mm 2.8 but have found a used 105mm and would love to save some cash if possible. Thank you for any input you can offer.</p>

<p>The Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR lens is a great lens. I use a Nikon D700, so it is exactly 105mm; however on a crop sensor, it would be 157mm lens. Other then the weight, my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR does the same thing, however it does give me more zoom in and zoom out capabilities.</p>

<p>Here is the other issue with using a fix lens at that length, if you need to bring your shutter speed down to under 1/150 to compensate for the low light, you will have to change your lens or increase your ISO. </p>

<p>Hi George. Thanks for the input. I assume you are stating the need to change based upon camera movement/blur at under 1/150....The 105mm has VR so that should not be an issue. Am I misunderstanding what you meant?</p>

<p>Well, I have the 105mm VR and like it. If I had to choose between the two it would really depend on my shooting style and where I would be using the lens most. As example, the 80-200 could be used at a reception by just putting up some off camera strobes. I find the 105 on a small dance floor to be less useful since it's harder to get around, zoom with your feet. Outdoors, I rather like the 105 since I have some freedom to move a bit. I like the 105 in a church, that is where the VR is helpful. But quite often, I am not allowed to move around in church as much, so a tripod with the 80-200 is hard to beat! Did that help!?</p>

<p>Bit short for back of the church, bit long on a crop body for portraits, only F2.8 and not the best bokeh in the world IMO.</p>

<p>I would go for the 80-200 before that one.</p>

<p>If you use a crop body, the Tokina 50-135/2.8 is reasonably priced and produces images about as good as my 70-200 Vr.</p>

<p>I do not use Nikon now, but, IMO 105mm was a great Portrait Length Prime, (on 135 Format camera). <br>

But even for (mainly studio) portraits the F2.8 was limiting for my use, and, as DW wrote <em >“</em><em >Bit short for back of the church, bit long on a crop body for portraits”</em> - thus a faster 85mm or 135mm, or both, are my choice of Prime for a <em>Wedding Kit<strong>. </strong></em><br>

I really cannot see much value by saving money with the F2.8 VR Prime, as opposed to buying the F2.8 zoom. Personally, for a Wedding Kit, I would save and get the 70 to 200 VR zoom, <br>

<strong ><em >We are still in the dark as to what camera(s) [i.e. format] you have?</em></strong><br>

WW</p>

 

<p>Thank you for all of the input thus far. I shoot with a D300....</p>

<p>Christopher, when hand holding your camera, the rule of thumb is to set your shutter speed to the inverse of your focal lens or vise versa. Even with the VR function, which it not perfect, I would still use that rule to ensure a tack sharp image. I often have to shoot at shutter speeds as low as 1/50th or 1/60th. With the Nikon 105mm lens on your D300, even with VR on, you will still experience a certain degree of motion blur at shutter speeds that are required in low light situations.</p>

<p>I have the Nikon 70-200mm VR Lens and other VR lenses, and when I have to shoot in low light situations, I use a lens with a shorter focal lens in order to reduce motion blur. I hope this explains a little better.</p>

<p><em><strong>"I shoot with a D300</strong></em><br>

<br>

The 105 lens will be a useful portrait lens as I outlined above, but IMO not fast enough to buy it as a flexible "Wedding Prime". On that slant, I suggest you look at what you actually have, in fast Primes, because as you are considering the105, as mentioned the 85 and 135 must come into contention, and both are faster.<br>

<br>

So, if you have a hole in that area of your you kit, DO NOT use much beyond 105mm, have adequate coverage around 50mm to 80mm, and are happy with the F2.8 then I would say the 105 is a go. <br>

<br>

If on the other hand, you use (or wish to use) the 100 to 200 range often, want (or need) the flexibility of a zoom - well that kinda answers the question for you.<br>

<br>

WW </p>

 

<p>If you want the 105 length, the DC version is an F2 and has vastly better OOF areas.</p>

<p>I have a few D300's and love to use 50's and 85's with them for portraits. However, my goto lens for e-sessions and couples portraiture is the Tokina 50-135/2.8. Great glass and has great character IMO. I provides solid performance that is better or at least on par with the FF version (Nikkor 80-200/2.8)</p>

<p>If you want the VR, perhaps saving for the 70-200vr, used, would be wiser. ??</p>

<p>Actually the 105 VR has excellent bokeh.<br>

I think it's a good lens for taking close-ups of people and details in situations where you can not use a tripod and where the depth of field possible with a conventional lens (at safely hand-holdable speeds) is insufficient. It's not particularly sharp at f/2.8 though, which might be an issue if you want to shoot in low light.</p>

<p>Ilkka Nissila wrote: "Actually the 105 VR has excellent bokeh."</p>

<p>I don't agree. I found it to have a strange sort of circular distortion in OOF areas that were closer to the frame edge. YMMV as far as taste goes.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone! I will post my next question in a new thread....</p>