Please help me decide whether to keep these lenses.

[john_meyer13]

I've just bought two 'fast' lenses and I don't know whether to keep them. D'you

reckon I should?

 

They are the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Sigma 50-150 2.8. The Sigma's front

focussing so that would have to be corrected by exchange or calibration.

 

I bought them because I thought I should have them as I've recently started to

photograph weddings and I wasn't sure if my D200 and Nikon 18-200 VR was the

right combination to have.

 

The 18-200 is a great lens. What I love about it is its ability to capture just

about anything that's happening without having to change lenses or cameras. What

it's not so good at is low light ceremonies and, perhaps, shallow depth of field

shots.

 

The reason I'm not sure whether to keep them is that I think I'd need another

body (probably a D300) so I wouldn't have to keep changing lenses - something I

hate doing, especially with large lenses and when outdoors. With the few

weddings I've currently got booked, I don't know whether I could justify another

body purchase just yet.

 

I have got two other lenses - Nikon 50/1.8 & 85/1.8 but haven't used either that

much. I was thinking of trying the 85mm for low light ceremonies but I'm not

certain that it would have the reach.

 

So, in conclusion, do I send them back and think about getting them and another

body when I feel the purchase can be justified and perhaps better kit might be

available? Or do I keep them and use them with my D200 at specific, more

lens-convenient changing times during the day?

 

Just to reassure you, I do have a cheaper Pentax backup combo that I keep just

in case of emergencies. Fortunately I haven't had to use it.

 

If you can help me decide, I'd be really grateful.

 

Regards

 

John

[jimstrutz]

I always prefer to have a backup camera that can use the same lenses as my main camera, and to have the backup capable of equal quality images as well. So personally, I would opt for buying the 300D to go along with the new lenses.

 

The 18-200 VR is a fairly good lens with a small aperture and good stabilization. It often makes for a decent backup or secondary to your main wedding lenses, but it's not adequate to take the place of a main wedding lens. I know there are people out there using it for just that, but that still does not make it good. You need faster/sharper glass -- period. You might get away with using it, but what happens in a really dark ceremony with no flash allowed? The 50 and 85 are good, but if you're trusting your primes for darker venues, you need to add a couple wide primes to cover the range, and you need at least two bodies using them.

 

The other alternative is to decline anything but well lit venues.

 

I also gotta add that I really hate it when people buy stuff and return it just because they changed their mind. It unnecessarily drives up the cost of equipment for the rest of us. Make up your mind what you really want, and then buy it. Don't buy it just to try it out for a few weeks. That's not fair to the retailer, or the rest of the buying public. Returning/exchanging a front focusing lens is certainly acceptable though, and Sigma is notorious for those. That's why I don't buy Sigma anymore.

[john_meyer13]

Hi, Jim

 

Thanks for your quick response.

 

Just for the record, I take your point about returning gear, but on this occasion, there wasn't a local dealer that had both lenses for me to inspect and try. I really didn't have much option other than to buy online.

 

The dealer I bought the lenses from did say that if I wasn't happy with my purchase, there was a 'seven day rule' in the UK that allowed for a full refund if not satisfied when items are bought online. I wasn't aware of this beforehand. It was only him saying it that made me aware.

 

Regards

 

John

[jo_dinning]

What's your gut instinct John? You can always keep the lenses and if they end up never being used, sell them on at a later date. You are unable to afford a D300 just now, but what about several months down the road?

 

Clearly folk on this forum have different ways of working and so you are going to get different answers according to personal preference. I think you have to ask yourself again why you bought the lenses - and weigh that up against your current set up.

 

If on the other hand you have a set up you get good results with and are generally happy with, perhaps the grass on the other side isn't greener....

[pete_s.]

I would check the 50-150 first to confirm that it's truly the lens and not your D200 that is front focusing. Shoot it wide open at 85mm and compare it to your 85mm @ f/2.8.

 

The 18-200 is too slow for anything but outdoors weddings. If you're in the UK I doubt you'll have that many weddings outdoors :-)

 

Cheers,

 

Peter

[ned1]

Keep the Tamron. It's my backup lens, and when my arm gets tired it's my primary lens. I've shot entire weddings with it. Best bang for the buck.

 

Something you will find as you do weddings is that weight matters.

 

I tried shooting a wedding with the 18-200 and found it just didn't cut it.

[david_garcia10]

how about you get the nikon 17-55mm and use the 85mm for your second body? d300 is great-works a lot better than d200 in low light but IMO get the 17-55mm first...

[markonestudios]

Definitely keep the 17-50. On a crop-sensor body like the d200, I think you'll find this a most useful lens. Your 85 1.8 should stand you in good stead for low-light work, giving you plenty of reach unless you're shooting from the back of a church, in which case you might need the reach and aperture of a 70-200 2.8

<p>Your 50 would also likely be useful for low light in a more confined space.

[picturesque]

I don't think anyone can help you decide. It boils down to what YOU do, what YOU want to do. What satifies YOU. If it were me, I'd keep the Tamron 17-50mm, return the Sigma, use the 50mm and 85mm, maybe get a 1.4x extender, and force myself to get used to changing lenses, even if you buy another body.

[ned1]

I have a 70-200. I find I use it all the time as a second shooter but never as a first. And even as a second shooter it only comes out during the ceremony. Your 85 will be fine for portraits.

 

The 17-55 is a wonderful lens, but it costs three times the Tamron, and the Tamron is just fine for weddings. If you want to spend the bucks, upgrade to an 85/1.4.

 

But the thing I recommend most would be a second body. Put the 85 on one, the 17-50 on the other, and you are set for the evening.

 

You should always own a second flash as backup in case the flash overheats and melts. This is a serious concern. Happened to me once and I was very glad I had spent the bucks on a second one. You can put a flash on each body, or swap between the two. Not as cumbersome as it sounds. D200s are going cheap and you could probably live with a D80. Get an SB800 as your primary flash and an SB600 as backup. I don't work with a flash bracket, but that's because I bounce-flash everything. You'll probably want one to start with. Outdoor fill flash generally doesn't need one, which is when you'll will be using the double-camera setup the most. One will do.

 

Pretty soon you will need a backup lens. I did drop my camera once, busted my primary lens, and was very glad for the Tamron. Or you can hang on to your 18-200 and muddle your way through with it just in case.

 

And pretty soon you will want a battery pack for the SB800. It's not essential , until you forget to change the batteries every hour and blow the cake-shot. Happened to me when I was just starting out.

 

Throw in a sync cord and a light modifier.

 

And that's it. That's the absolute minimal photographer's setup. You won't be producing high-quality work with this, but it's adequate as a second shooter or for bargain clients (which is where you will be starting). And bit by bit you can upgrade: better lens first, better camera second, high-power battery pack so you can get an extra stop of power, etc.

[William Michael]

The Main working lens is your Tamron.

 

You have two, fast telephoto primes.

 

You MIGHT need 100, 135, 180, or 200, on the odd occasion. But when you do, you also need speed and IQ: and that will not be found in a 3x zoom, extended to 150mm.

 

So, IMO, the Sigma is superfluous, a tele zoom is the last item required for a Wedding kit, (for most styles).

 

If anything and apropos another zoom, I would be looking wider, rather than longer: like a 10 to 22 for example, for really large groups and creative shots, but of itself that zoom is NOT a necessity, either, IMO.

 

On the sidebar issue, by way of interest only: irrespective of what resellers may choose to offer customers, not all consumer laws allow for the return of goods for `change of mind`.

 

For example, even though many consumers here (in Australia) believe they have the right to return goods, if they change their mind: they do not.

 

I think the perception of such a `right` is exacerbated by the trade and advertising available to consumers, via the internet.

 

WW

[William Michael]

IMO, you NEED a fast, wider prime. That is where your lens cache is vulnerable. (as previously mentioned.)

 

[This first setentence was missing, from my post above, sorry]

 

 

 

WW

[adw]

Personally, in your boat, I would be much happier with just one main body and a backup, and

the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 instead of the two cheaper third parties.

 

It would save a lot of hassle and eventually (trust me) you will want to upgrade to the Nikon

anyway. The quality is about the same as the 50 and 85 primes you already have.

 

Its more expensive up front, but cheaper in the long run as you dont end up buying 2 lenses

to do the same job.

 

You could always use a second hand D70 to keep a long lens on if you do decide to keep it,

as I find I use a telephoto for less than 10% of a shoot anyway.