Weddings & Portraiture: 105mm f/2 or 80-200mm 2.8?

[michael_r._conder]

I have $750 to spend. I have anguished much of the decision. I have

an average 28-105mm right now. Unfortunately it is f/4-5.6. I don't

care about wieght. I want quality. Can I shoot a whole wedding of

mainly a 105mm or should I get the 80-200? Will the 80-200 do well

at portraits as well as photojournalistic wedding photography?

Please help me make my decision.

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

I think you will find that a wider range of focal length will come in handy. I use an 80-200 2.8 for 80% of wedding candids. I don't think the 105 would allow one to get close enough for candid images. where you want to isolate a subject.

[peza]

I agree 100% with Jonathan.

[Jerry_]

If you think you have a 'weight' to carry with your 28-105mm now, wait until you have three-hours of carrying time your 80-200mm (f2.8?) lens.

 

 

If you want to reduce weight:

(with the AF Nikkor line)

 

1. AF 28mm f2.8D for wide-angle use.

 

2. AF 85mm f1.8D for medium-tele shots.

 

 

My pair of cents worth of advice.

[fotografz]

I'm not clear on the question. Are you saying one lens alone for

portrait and wedding candids? Just a telephoto with no wider

lens at all?

 

Anyway, I believe ( based on tons of wedding experience ) that

you could shoot everything you've outlined with 2 prime lenses. A

fast 35mm and a 85/1.4. A huge 80-200 is hardly condusive to

candids at a crowded reception. It's not a matter of weight, it's a

matter of conspicuous presence. If you want to fill the frame get

closer. The faster lenses will allow you to use less flash in the

dark reception hall, and make it easier and faster to focus. The

pictures will look more natural, and the larger aperture lenses

will help isolate your subject from the inevitably cluttered

backgrounds. Professional primes will assure the quality you

are looking for. I've shot entire candid weddings with a tiny Leica

M camera with 35/1.4 & 75/1.4 lenses alone. I've also shot with

a Nikon 80-200/2.8 with much less success ( At 200mm it made

the Bride look fat, so I sold it, and bought a 28/1.4 ASPH and

85/1.4 which I use to this day ). I'll post a couple of images to

show you what I'm talking about.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Here's another strictly candid shot with a 35/1.4<div></div>

[fotografz]

And one more very candid shot with a 35mm.<div></div>

[jdkindy]

Still can't decide, huh? As I said in your question before (already expired on Unarchived), I love my 85/1.8. A 105/2 is going to be great and very similar to the 85. However, only you can decide which lens is better for you.

<P>I agree with Gerald and Marc. The 85/1.8 is quite small and lightweight and very easy to handhold if you want to do available light. I assume the 105 is pretty similar in that regard. If you want excellent image quality and hand-holdability for available light, then the 105 is the way to go. If you want more range and seriously don't mind about the weight (have you gone to a store and carried around an 80-200/2.8 for 10 minutes, let alone several hours?), then the zoom is going to be better.

<P>Some Examples:

<P align=center><img src="/photodb/image-display?photo_id=812904&size=md" height=375 width=270>

<br><br><i>85/1.8, available light w/ISO 400 film (flash not allowed)</i>

<p align=center><img src="/photodb/image-display?photo_id=812914&size=md" height=375 width=270>

<br><br><i>85/1.8, flash w/ISO 400 film</i></P>

[elliot_n]

I use a 28-70 f2.8 most of the time, and an 80-200 f2.8 occassionally (when I

need the reach - ceremony/speeches). The 80-200 is a bitch to handhold - I

normally use it on a tripod.