Zoom vs. Standard Lenses

After reading so many great things about the Nikon D-200 I am

seriously considering purchasing a couple of them to replace my

Nikon FM2 35mm film cameras for use at weddings (this will be my

very first experience with a digital camera). A couple of questions

come to mind: 1) Zoom vs. Fixed Focal Length lenses? I really

need 35mm film camera equivalent to a 35mm lens, 50mm lens, and a

portrait lens. So which is better, one zoom or three standard

lenses, and which one(s)? I am very willing to spend more money for

high quality "glass" especially since the D-200 is so reasonably

priced. Please keep in mind that I will want to use the auto focus

feature and that all of my pre-existing Nikon lenses are pre 1977

vintage, so I am willing to buy all new lenses specifically for the

D-200s. Also with the D-200 can you manually set the iso, f-stop,

and shutter speed and still use the auto focus feature?

 

My second question is about strobe units. I have never used a

camera with TTL; is it far superior? Whether photographing with my

Mamiya or Nikon equipment, I typically use a Metz 60 CT-4 (in auto

mode), set the appropriate f-stop and ISO setting, matching that of

the camera, focus and shoot. I mount the camera and Metz to a

Stroboframe bracket so that whether shooting landscape or portrait I

can position the flash above the lens (when shooting 35mm at a

wedding using the Metz 60 CT-4 and the Stroboframe bracket make the

Nikon look far more "professional" and different than the 35mm

cameras that guests are using). I also really like the color and

the power offered by the Metz 60 CT-4 under difficult lighting

situations and for lighting large groups of people. What is the

VERY BEST strobe or flash unit I can buy for the D-200 that offers

the appropriate TTL capability? I checked out the Metz web site and

they have the Metz 76 MZ-5 digital strobe; has anyone used one with

the D-200 (I read somewhere that Metz is comming out with a flash

unit specifically for the D-200)? Or, is the Nikon sb-800 the best

choice? I really like the durability of the Metz; in crowded

situations bumping or jarring the flash and/or camera will not

result in a flash unit breaking off the Stroboframe bracket. Or is

there a strobe better than either the Metz or the Nikon? Sorry for

the length and number of questions, but if I am going to dump $7500

or more in new equipment I definitely want to do it right the first

time. The lenses and flash units are more important to me because I

am relatively sure that I will be able to use them with

future "generations" or upgrades of the D-200. Thanks for any

suggestions and advice.

I do event photography and, on the recommendations of members here, bought the Nikon 17-55 2.8 lens. It is excellent. The images have exceptional clarity and contrast. I have done side-by-side tests with other Nikon lenses I own and, as good as they are, this is a big step better. There are other Nikon lenses that offer similar zoom ranges and equal or even superior clarity (I don't know if that is even possible). You will be pleased with any of them. Stick with Nikon's pro-series lenses. Their 'normal' lenses are excellent, but for wedding photography, you will need their best.

 

I just purchased and will be using the 70-200 2.8 VR on my 2nd D200. I am waiting for it to arrive but everyone here says it is one of their best lenses.

 

The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is fantastic all around, is only $100, is light but may be a little too strong for wedding photography. You probably would want to look at a 24mm or 28mm lens. I sold my 28mm when I got the 17-55.

 

You have likely read people saying pictures from the D200 can be soft. I leave all my settings on automatic and have never experienced this. In general though, digital images on most cameras tend to come out a bit 'soft' out of the camera unless you set the camera otherwise. You use image processing software to sharpen them to your liking on your computer. Nikon has an excellent program called Nikon View (free from the Nikon website). It is a basic program, but can handle most images quickly). For advanced image processing, you will need a program like Photoshop.

 

As far as flash goes, the SB-800 works perfectly with the D200. Put it on the camera and everything is automatic. You will get perfectly exposed pictures just about every time.

 

Two more bits of advice: You are better off under exposing slightly and lightening the images afterwards than risking an overexposed images. There are excellent batch image processing programs you can use. The best one I have found is DXO (www.dxo.com). It batch processes images, adjust contrast/brightness, brightens backgrounds, reduces noise, increases sharpness and eliminates lens distortion and a whole lot more. They have a 1 month free demo. I never print an image without first using the DXO software.

 

And yes, the camera can be used fully automatic or fully manual.

The best basic lens for wedding work is the 17-55/2.8. It has the same field of view as a 26-82mm lens on a film (full frame) body. What other lenses you get will depend on your style of shooting. A fast prime or two come in handy for available light work. One long lens (180/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 zoom) is a must have when you have to shoot from the back of a church.

 

Flash for digital isn't flash for film. If you expose digital like many wedding shooters shoot negative film (anything from +2 to -1 stop will look fine) you will die. With digital, figure +/- .5 stop, and I don't care if you shoot RAW. The Nikon SB800 is the way to go for flash right now. You will still need to get a feel for the flash, what it does as ambient light levels change and how much compensation needs to be dialed in.

I agree with the comments above. The combo of th 17-55 and 70-200VR is my dream team, shooting with D2X and D200. I've never used a Metz before, but one of Nikon's strongest points is their iTTL flash system so go with the sb800.

PS: Shoot RAW!

If your photography is primarily wedding, I suggest you to get one D200, one 17-55mm/f2.8 DX and one SB-800 flash. That will be over $3000 and you'll need some memory cards and hopefully you already have a good computer. Shoot with that combo in more casual situations (rather than actual weddings) for a month or two before switching to all digital and buy another DSLR and more lenses.

 

The risk is that just in case you don't like this set up or digital, selling it will incur some moderate loss.

 

It pays to get quite familiar with digital photography before relying it in actual, once in a lifetime shooting situations.

I shoot weddings and the 17-55/2.8DX is THE lens to get. After that the 70-200/2.8VR will add to the range if you are looking for candids and shooting from the back of the church. Add a couple of fast primes such as the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8/1.4 then you have pretty much everything you need in terms of lenses.

 

When you shoot digital, especially when you shoot weddings where you have a large number of images to be processed at once under tight deadlines, your "workflow" (you'll hear the term being thrown around a lot) is more important than anything else. Developing an efficient workflow will saves you hours of frustration due to sitting in front of the computer all day.

 

A digital workflow might include the following, but not limited to what I mention below:

1. having a good backup strategy;

2. having a colour managed system, from monitor to print;

3. having good post-processing techniques, from RAW to final product;

4. having a good presentation package for the client (i.e. inkjet proofs, or web display.)

 

You'll find that the more you can automate your workflow, the more time you can save. Shooting digital is more complicated than film because you also become the developer, and the learning curve can be quite steep if you are not already computer literate. The upside is, of course you are in total control of everything, rather than relying on the lab for the outcome.

 

Have fun.

While both the 17-55 and 70-200mm lenses are very good, neither will give you that shallow DOF with pleasing out of focus background "look" that the 85/1.4 AFD gives you.

 

I think those three 3 lenses should cover your needs, unless of course you think you need something wider.

 

KL

I used nothing but primes for many years. When I found some zooms that were as good as primes I suddenly got over my allergy to zooms. They're very convenient and help ensure getting a shot we might otherwise miss.

 

Ditto TTL metering and TTL flash. It's not the answer for everything but in a pinch it can make the difference between getting the shot and missing it because we took a few extra moments to fiddle with manual settings on the camera.

 

Since TTL metering, TTL flash, Auto White Balance, etc., are handy but can produce inconsistencies from shot to shot, it's a good idea to shoot RAW (NEF, in Nikon parlance), which gives more latitude when trying to work with shots that are overexposed, underexposed, poorly white balanced, etc. I use TTL and all-auto-everything a lot when rushed. Most of the time it works pretty well. Sometimes I have to fix it in the mix later. But it's a useful tool.

 

The SB-800 is the best camera brand dedicated flash unit available, bar none. A top notch Nikon SLR like the D70s, D2H, D2Hs, D2X, D200 or F6 without the SB-800 is like a sports car without headlights. They'll drive just fine when there's plenty of light but there's nothing better when the sun sets.

 

To get a "better" flash you'd have to settle for somewhat compromised TTL operation in exchange for greater output, such as with the Quantums - and pay a helluva lot more.

I don't shoot weddings. I do shoot events now and then, and I don't mind swapping lenses, but that's me. Nothing can beat the versatility of a zoom lens, but for a wedding, I would rather have two bodies, with two primes-- since I normally use the extreme ends of a zoom anyway, I'd choose whatever body is needed. This way, you have an automatic backup, AND it's even faster than zooming.

(and to add some beefy content to my post above):

 

D200 + 28/1.4 AFD and a D200 + 85/1.4 AFD; I would keep an 17-55 close at hand for those group shots (which I subjectively distaste).

One of the major paradigm shifts in digital is that ISO 800 and perhaps even higher is now practical, while ISO 800 film in 35mm format produces largely unacceptable results. Therefore, the significance of fast f1.4 lenses has greatly been reduced. That also explains why Nikon is in no hurry to produce fast DX primes; that market is very narrow and (if such lenses are eventually available) prices will be high for those niche lenses. Today, it is the 18-200 DX type lenses that are selling like hot cakes.

 

Another issue to keep in mind is that 28mm is not exactly a wide angle on the D200. During receptions, I use the wide end of my 17-55 very frequently.

Shun, would you rather shoot at ISO 800 or ISO 200?

<I>One of the major paradigm shifts in digital is that ISO 800 and perhaps even higher is now practical, while ISO 800 film in 35mm format produces largely unacceptable results. Therefore, the significance of fast f1.4 lenses has greatly been reduced.</I><p>

I will disagree with that since there are other benefits to fast f1.4 apertures, such as shallow DOF. And then there are venues that prohibit flash and you have no choice but to shoot at ISO1600, f2.0 or faster to have any hope of getting a decent shutter speed to freeze action.<p>

 

<I>That also explains why Nikon is in no hurry to produce fast DX primes; that market is very narrow and (if such lenses are eventually available) prices will be high for those niche lenses. Today, it is the 18-200 DX type lenses that are selling like hot cakes. </I><p>

 

One can't argue with Nikon's business case as most people like lenses that are cheap and can be the jack of all trades. Back in the film days 3rd party manufacturers have been cranking out 28-300 plastic zooms that cost $200 (ok, maybe a bit too low) and Nikon themselves are also guilty of this. But OTOH, that didn't stop Nikon from producing classics such as the 85/1.4 AFD, the f2 DC lenses and certain fast primes we are all familiar with. Let's just hope the fast DX primes will come. I won't go into the possibility of Nikon developing FF as the reason for the reluctance, because this is pure speculation at this point. But if Nikon fails to bring any attractive fast primes to the table, especially in wide angles, there is certainly the hope on ZF :-) <p>

With the D2X, I get perfectly acceptable results shooting at ISO 800. Thus most people will have little incentive to purchase those expensive 20mm/f1.4 DX type lenses AND give up the convenience of zoom at the same time. I, for one, would much rather shoot at ISO 800 with a 17-55mm/f2.8 DX than at ISO 200 with some 20mm/f1.4.

 

Another issue with digital is that background blur can now be easily simulated in PhotoShop. Thus part of the argument to use fast lenses for shallow depth of field also goes away. I know it'll never be the same in the eyes of purists, but that is a practical alternative for most people.

 

Because of the digital revolution, photography is a rapidly changing field. You need to get used to a lot of paradigm shifts and a somewhat unpredictable future. A lot of yesterday's arguments don't make as much sense any more.

Shun, I do agree that digital is changing professional work, but simulating DOF? for each and every shot? no thank you! You're not only losing fstops by going DX (no fast DX primes), you're losing DOF due to the DX cropped-format itself. As to ISO 800-- My D200 performs adequately enough at 800, but I would definitely take 400 over 800 any day, let alone 200.

 

Now, nothing can come close to the versatility of a zoom-- but I believe that two fast primes can easily defeat any zoom, especially when you're doing low light photography-- and EVERY FSTOP COUNTS when you're exploiting either available light or those GN-limited strobes.

"Another issue with digital is that background blur can now be easily simulated in PhotoShop. Thus part of the argument to use fast lenses for shallow depth of field also goes away. I know it'll never be the same in the eyes of purists, but that is a practical alternative for most people."

 

Well, I guess it depends on how "easy" someone may consider going about adding gaussian blur to digital photos. I for one don't want to waste the time (and I also don't really consider it that "easy") It's not an anti-digital thing at all (however, I do know the source of your comment above because I know how loudly you support digital on this forum, Shun) but for me it's just a matter of not wanting to spend the time on it. There is a great contingent of photographers who frankly want to minimize photoshop workflow.

"I, for one, would much rather shoot at ISO 800 with a 17-55mm/f2.8 DX than at ISO 200 with some 20mm/f1.4."

 

couldn't disagree more. ISO 100-320 is where the D200 really shines, but it also has to do with personal tastes/preferences. I personally prefer fast primes to zoom lenses.

 

I think you'll really like going digital but just to set the expectations right:

- shooting digital is like shooting slide film, the exposure, esp at higher ISOs, needs to dead on

- you'll need to factor in a the cost of a powerful PC, external back-up solutions, Photoshop CS2, a couple of 2-4GB CF cards

- be prepared to drastically change your workflow and the time you spend in front of a computer doing post-processing, archiving, digital asset mgtm etc.

- lens suggestions: 20/2.8D, 50/1.4D if you go primes. 17-55/2.8 is you want a zoom. if you win the lottery add a 85/1.4D - awesome portrait glass.

 

 

Going from film to a D200 will be a big adjustment

I can not understand how fast primes can be dismissed as unnecessary in digital photography. My favorite film lens was a 85mm f1.4. Now I love my 50mm f1.4. But I still turn to my 85mm when I want the focus point to jump off the print.

 

Yes I use zooms when necessary, but I defy anyone to prefer a 2.8 monster. When you can have a smaller, lighter, and faster 1.4 with the benefit's of a Much Brighter viewfinder. And greater control of the captured image (DOF).

 

I would not like to live without my pro zooms, but if you took my F1.4 fixed lenses, I'd probably kill you! :-)

SHUN; I cannot understand your remark that Photoshop can be used to apply a blur(bokeh) on to images.Whilst it can be done it's a sorry excuse for the many substandard lenses we are being offered.Nothing beats good glass.

JACK A;As has been said; Nikons flash units are wonderfull.Metz also has a good reputation. Perhaps you should wait untill the new Metz has a track record!

ATMs (automatic teller machines) were introduced about 30 years ago. Back then, my late grandfater was in his 70's and he was a businessman dealing with banks all his life. He simply could not accept the idea that a machine instead of a human would handle his money.

 

My point is that sometimes we need to update our thinking in a changing world, and some people will never do so. Distortion and vignetting used to be serious problems with low-end lenses. Today, a lot of that can be corrected in post-processing. In another year or two, the correction could be quite perfect.

 

Fast primes used to be very important. In addition to the points I made earlier, IS/VR also hurts them big time. I have no idea whether Nikon will introduce some 20mm/f1.4 DX or not, but if they do, it will be a low-volume, niche-market product. In other words, be prepared for some sticker (price) shock and even so, Nikon may easily lose money on that product. E.g., the 28mm/f1.4 has been ~$1500 and has finally been discontinued.

 

If Jack is coming from a background of using FM2's, the change to digital may indeed to overwhelming. That was why I suggested getting one DSLR and one lens first; get used to the digital workflow before depending on it. I certainly would not jump into it with both feet. I bought my low-end D100 back in 2002 mainly to learn about digital, and it took me a year or so to gradually get used to it.

SHUN; re post processing.I don't think that our ability to post process is a good enough reason for camera/lens manufacturers to put out 'so so' products.I would rather have a better lens & less processing.

The usage of the phase <i>One of the major paradigm shifts</i> seems like a tired phase from another era, post Disco, pre Britney Spears, early Reagan era, pre tiger team. In SoCal this phrase was like gospel in the early and mid 1980's in engineering and manufacturing. Folks were "getting a paradigm shift in their pareto mentality" according to the Preacher :) Conway who got 100k for vists to companies, with 100's of VHS or Beta tapes and kits to get brainwashed with. <BR><BR>Folks were using the phrase <i>paradigm shift</i> in memos, in reports, in faxes, saying it in their sleep, on resumes. Folks got bumper stickers, caps, and coffee cups with the phrases. Even headhunters and vendors were using the phrases. "There are forms of waste everywhere". "It is the way you think, work, talk, and act; FOREVER, and thats along time" In the Conway paradigm shift and pareto chart dogma VHS courses, there had this chap named TED, that just agreed with everything Conway said. "Thats right TED, there are forms of waste everywhere" "TED, tommorow there will be a paradigm shift in your pareto mentality" <BR><BR>About every 3 years a new fad would get adopted, a new religion, another 100k to get the kits for brainwashing. When the "paradigm shift" dogma got stale and overworked in the later 1980's, often one would remove these phrases in company recruiting literature when they were beaten to death and overworked. I have not heard these phrases used much today, so maybe they are going to make another comeback!

Ionically, it is Yaron who shows us what the D200 can achieve at ISO 3200 after post-processing:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G8J1

 

If you prefer to spend, for example, $2000 in fast primes instead of $50 in software to achieve similar results, you are free to do so. But Nikon cannot count on selling very many expensive primes in this environment.

 

And that is merely today. We can only imagine how much further those software can push the envelope in a few more years. Along that same line, I wonder what my grandfather would think of on-line electronic banking and PayPal ....