Help Please =)

[davidjames]

<p>Hey guys well its another one of those what should i get questions. I know there is already enough of that on here so im gonna keep it simple and quick, or at least try to. <br>

<strong>What I Shoot/ Want to Shoot:</strong> Mainly portraits such as senior outdoor portraits, event photography (anniversaries, quincenareas, baptisms, etc no weddings tho), interior photography for advertising for example interiors of model homes, Basically i want to be very versatile as the market and requests i get are very broad in scope but concentrated in senior portraits and events.<br>

<strong>Current Setup:</strong> Nikon D80, 18-135mm kit lens, Sb-600 w/ stand and umbrella, also have a 55-200mm but would rather not use it because it is a Quaternary.<br>

<strong>Question:</strong> What is the minimum upgrade in equipment i need to accomplish the things stated above?<br>

<strong>My Thoughts:</strong> <em><strong>Nikon D200 w/ grip</strong></em> (cheap but great camera that way i have main and backup bodies), <strong><em>Nikon 17-55mm f 2.8</em></strong> ( very versatile, covers interiors, low light events, as well as portraits), and a <strong><em>Nikon SB-900</em></strong> ( one flash for each camera, also gives more creative possibilities in terms of lighting setup). And i have been toying with adding a <strong><em>Nikon</em></strong> <strong><em>85mm 1.8</em></strong> to that mix as it is a great portrait lens and fits my photojournalistic style of event photography.</p>

<p>Those are my thoughts if you see any gaping holes in that please feel free to suggest also if you see and more cost effective ways or different route please don't hesitate to leave a comment. I would really like to keep it in that range in terms of price (<$2000) but if there is something very important thats needs to be added then I can make changes main thing is I would like this potential setup to last a couple years or longer with very few if any additions.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>17-55 with an 85 would be great. No way would I get a D200 now, though. It's too old. And you might be able to save some money by getting SB600s instead of 900s.</p>

[mark_mandell]

<p>David,</p>

<p>I'll let others speak to the portraits etc., but if you're looking to do architectural interiors, especially smaller spaces like model homes, I think you should be considering some real coin on the wide angle end of things. Look seriously at the Zeiss Distagons, either the 18mm 3.5 of the 21mm 2.8. Better yet, take your body into the store and test shoot, then go home and print.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>If you get a D200 body, nothing (the battery is OK) will work on the camera from a D80. As a backup, you would need a couple of CF cards to get by. Have you looked at the Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 lens? That might give you better perspective for portraits over 55mm.</p>

<p> </p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>I'd go for a D90 and instead the very expensive 17-55 I'd buy Tamron 17-50mm/f2.8 VC and several primes with good reputation like Sigma 50mm/f1.4, Nikon 85mm/f1.4, etc. </p>

[bourboncowboy]

<p>On a budget?</p>

<p>D90<br>

Tamron 17-50<br>

80-200 AF-D<br>

35 1.8<br>

85 1.8<br>

SB-600</p>

<p>Not on a budget?</p>

<p>D300/D300s (the D200 is one of Nikon's worst performers in low light)<br>

17-55<br>

70-200<br>

Sigma 30 1.4<br>

85 1.4<br>

SB-600 (I've heard too many horror stories of the SB-900 overheating, so I'd skip it.)</p>

[adam zyto]

<p>I'd go with any combination as long as it includes the the spectacular 17-55mm f2.8. The 17-55 a great start to build around. </p>

[adam zyto]

<p>I'd go with any combination as long as it includes the the spectacular 17-55mm f2.8. The 17-55 a great start to build around. </p>

[davidjames]

<p>Wow thank you all for the responses. </p>

<ul>

<li>It seems to me, from what i gathered from all your posts is a resounding "don't do it" on the D200, which quite frankly i was debating myself. Just curious Mark P., how is the low light performance compared to the D80 i have gotten quite usable results up to ISO 1600 with the D80 of course i had to work it over in photo shop pretty good haha. </li>

<li>Also i see a lot of people against the SB-900, would you recommend an 800 because i would really like and could use the extra power compared to a 600, but dont want to go the studio strobe route just yet. </li>

<li>Lastly i would like to stay away from the plastic body of the D90, which is why i looked at a D200 because weather proofing and durability is high on the list so maybe ill try and find a used D300.</li>

</ul>

<p>Overall thank you guys again for the advice.</p>

[penwaggener]

<p>I'll add another vote for 17-55. It's a terrific events lens, and built like a tank. Ditto the 85 1.8 for portraits, unless you can spring for an 80-200, which is even better, in my opinion. As for the body, the d200/d300's are different enough from the d80 for adjusting ISO and WB that I think a d90 might be far more productive. The newer sensor in the d90 is a definite plus over the d80 and d200 in lower light situations, with noticeably cleaner results at ISO 800 and 1600.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I would go with a D90 or D300s over a D200. The newer sensor is much better at high ISO's. I wouldn't worry about the D90's plastic body unless you plan on driving nails with it. The Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is a great lens, but very expensive. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with or w/o VC or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM with or w/o OS are excellent lenses and far less expensive.</p>

<p>For interiors you need something wider. The Nikon 10-24 and 12-24 are great lenses but also very expensive. The Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24 and 11-16 are also very good and far less expensive. You may also want to consider a Nikon 10.5mm full-frame fish eye. I've used a FF FE for many years and it's often the only lens to "get it all in". If you watch these home fix up shows on TV you'll see a lot of FF FE shots.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>david, sorry to inform you but your budget isnt enough to get all that stuff. 17-55 = $1350 new; d200 (used) = $600. that leaves $50 (enough for a couple of memory cards or a gary fong diffuser). so forget the 85 and the 900. another problem with that is with the d200, anything over ISO 1000 is still gonna be noisy, and you're overspending on the lens by almost 3x.</p>

<p>for $2k, i would get;</p>

<p>d90 ($800)</p>

<p>tamron 17-50/2.8 ($450-$650, depending on VC or non-VC -- optically very little difference if at all from 17-55; sharper in the center at 2.8)</p>

<p>2xsb-600 ($450 -- welcome to CLS!)</p>

<p>if you can go a few hundred more:</p>

<p>tokina 11-16/2.8 ($600--you did say low-light interiors, right?)</p>

<p>or tokina 50-135/2.8 ($550--for portraits, more versatile--especially on DX--than 85/1.8, with comparable sharpness and bokeh)</p>

<p>(tokina AT-X series have excellent build quality and can deliver pro results on an amateur budget.)</p>

<p>in general, it makes sense to make zooms your workhorse lenses, especially if you shoot DX or do event/pj stuff. for example, for portraits, the 50-135 covers the 50/60/70/85/105/135 ranges, so that's like getting six lenses for the price of one.</p>

<p>once you start making money from portraits and/or are getting a lot of studio assignments, then you might want to consider specific-purpose primes like the 85--which is perfect for portraits on FX but a fairly long tele (127.5mm) on DX--or the voigtlander 58/1.4 MF.</p>

<p>if you go for multiple speedlights, you may also want to invest in stands/reflectors/backdrops rather than just lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[davidjames]

<p>Eric thanks for your input. Lets just say due to special circumstances I have come across a 17-55mm used but in as good as new condition for $1000 (you were once able to find them for $800-900, but times change) and also a used D200 (low actuations) with grip and SB-900 for another grand, deals can be had if you look hard enough haha. <br>

I appreciate the advice tho and I will definitely look into the tokina lenses you mentioned maybe save myself some money.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Everyone seems to be keying in on lenses, and normally I'd agree those are the most important things. However, your main deal is shooting portraits. That instantly makes a solid lighting system the top priority. Look at portraits from full time pros; analyze them carefully. What makes them good? What gives them the "pro" look"? It's not the lens, it's not the camera. It's the lighting. Period. You didn't say if you shoot in a studio or running around somewhere, and that makes a HUGE difference as to what you should get. If in a studio, I would suggest one Alien Bees B800 as your main light, with a soft box. Use SB-600 as fill, and maybe add a good reflector. The bigger softboxes will give you the pro light quality, and it takes a decent monolight to power it. There is an alternative though. Buy a pile of older Nikon SB-25 flash for ~$60 each from e Bay etc., or new Yong Gnuo flash for about $100 each. I would suggest buying about five of them maybe. Also buy some RF-602 triggers to fire them. Buy a bracket that allows you to place three flash together in a softbox. That will give you some power and faster recycle (since you can put the three flash to half power setting.) These are not TTL but that's no big deal since you will be metering with a flash meter anyway to get the precision you need and to save time. Here's the best part. With five of the little 4AA flash you can gang them together for more power in the studio, or since they are small and battery powered they are quick and easy to set up if out somewhere you could not run an AC line to power a B800 monolight. If shooting interiors you would have x5 lights to spread around and evenly light the place. I would budget about $800 for lights, and that's getting by cheap. It will give you the pro capability you clearly need though. I wouldn't fool around buying SB-900. They are a BIG pile of money for no more light than you get from them. You could easily buy a B800 monolight + used Vagabond battery pack for what those things cost and have five times the power. SB-900 would be a waste of money, I think. Keep the SB-600 for an on-camera iTTL flash for your event stuff.<br />I've spent the most space talking about lights since that is the most critical thing. Next is lenses. I've just spent $800 of your money and you have $1,200 left. That rules out a Nikon 17-55mm, even if used. Buy a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for about $500. It's optically very good and is fast enough for portraits. I agree you need a back up camera. Keep your D80 and buy a second one, used & cheap. You now have a few hundred dollars left. I normally don't suggest the Nikon 85mm f1.8 because it's older and suffers from CA. It was also the worst lens I've ever owned when it comes to flare. However, I was using it as a general purpose lens and not for portraits. THis might be the only time I feel good about suggesting someone buy the lens. Buy it used as they are plentiful. <br />You would now have a very flexible system that will do what you need it to. You will have a very capable lighting system with enough power to shoot outdoors during daytime. You will have softboxes and enough power to use them well. You'll have a fast zoom capable of giving you good images for your events, plus your SB-600 flash for fast iTTL. You will also have a back up D80 which are already familiar with. The lights will give you the MOST capability for your money, lenses second. I don't think a more expensive camera will give you much. At any rate it is no where NEAR as important as lights. You don't have a lighting system and really could use one for all that you plan to do. Think SYSTEM, not pieces. Again, I would NOT spend the money for SB-900 as you won't have enough power to really do much. I would not spend $1,000 for a Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 either, and I own one myself. You are trying to do professional work and your budget is really confining you. The SYSTEM that I've suggested above will do what you want and give you much more professional results than anything else suggested, I believe.</p>

<p>--->Buy lights.<br />--->Buy lights.<br />--->Buy lights.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>david, a 17-55 might be worth $1000 used but that's still not going to change the fact that a d200 will be inadequate for low-light work. you lose a stop over newer cameras, which is significant.</p>

<p>so you still need to get a d90 (or d300) IMO.</p>

<p>if you're sticking to your 2k budget, that leaves approx. $200--enough for a 50/1.8 or 35/1.8 or sb-600 for 2nd flash.</p>

<p>certainly not enough for an 85/1.8--however, if you get the d200, you will need soemthing faster than 2.8 for available light to make up for the stop you're losing over the d90.</p>

<p>it's your money and do what makes you happy, but if you're thinking long-term, i'm not sure the d200 is the way to go unless, you mainly shoot studio or landscape at base ISO.</p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>D80 weather proofing. I am mostly an outdoor photographer and have been using a D80 first as my primary and then as a secondary camera for over three years now. I am out in the very worst conditions the Dakotas can give, and have also used the D80 in a great number of other locations such as wettest spot on earth in Hawaii. My D80 has been through many many blizzards, sleet storms, and downpours. It's the camera I take out in my kayak, where everything gets wet. Remember how last May set a record in Florida for rainfall? The D80 was the camera I had with me while in Disney World for 8 days, during 2 inch per hour rains. D80 was fine. I used reasonable precautions such as carrying it in a plastic grocery bag when I went on the water park rides. In my own experience the sealing on the D80 seems to be as good as the sealing on my D300. Unless you are taking your shots in a rain forest, I wouldn't worry about it.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[davidjames]

<ul>

<li><strong>Kent S.</strong>-Thank you for your advice i seriously appreciate it. I hadn't even considered that option and your right that is the key is a good light system and i realize now that your right an SB-900 is a waste when i could get an AB800 and used vagabond for same price.</li>

<li><strong>Eric A.-</strong> Thank you as well for taking the time and your completely right that if I am to think long term and want the most bang for my buck i need to stay away from a D200. </li>

<li>Lastly just as a response to everyone, in order to really cover everything I am expanding the budget to around $2500-$3000 because i am shooting for longevity here and that extra cash spent is the difference between a year or two and constant need for upgrade, vs 5+ years without needing to upgrade. Thanks everyone</li>

</ul>

[mark_drutz]

<p>How about this (prices from Adorama):</p>

<p>D90 $900 new 750 refurbished by Nikon<br>

Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 $479<br>

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 $459<br>

Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 $530 or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX II $749<br>

Nikon SB-600 $220<br>

That's $2807 with a new D90 and a Sigma 50-150, or $2438 with refurbished D90 and Tokina 50-135.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the d90 is $800 new at amazon.</p>

<p>with a 17-50 (or 17-55), i'd skip the 10-20 and go for the 11-16, mainly for that 2.8.</p>

<p>also,i have the 50-150 II. great lens, but the only reason to get that over the 50-135 is HSM. if you dont need ultra-fast AF (i.e. for portraits), the tokina is an excellent value.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Since your main subjects are people, I'm sticking with lighting as your #1 priority. You will be crippled trying to do senior portraits without it.<br />Lighting: x1 Alien Bees B1600 (used, $300,) x1 B800 (used, $250,) RF-602 triggers ($70/3 + tx,) x3 8 ft. lightstands (used, $45,) umbrellas or softboxes for each ($100,) Vagabond battery pack (used $150,) flash meter (used $100.) Keep SB-600 for events, hair light. This gives you a basic system capable of giving pro results, even outdoors. Total: $910.<br />Lenses: Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (refurbished, $400,) Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 or Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 (used, $500?), Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 ($500.) This gives you pro quality plus f2.8 speed for shallow portrait DoF and indoor shooting. You do need f2.8, and zooms are very economical and good for fast paced events especially. Total: $1,400.<br />Camera: Nikon D90 (refurb $750,) keep D80 for back up, spare battery or three. Total: $750.<br />This SYSTEM will give you pro results at a price you will pay. It has great flexibility to photo portraits indoors or out, with quality portrait light. Buying used or refurb means you can sell something if needed and not suffer much if any loss. Grand Total: $3,060. I will add one other thing I suspect you really need. A book. "Light: Science & Magic."</p>

<p>If you have to omit something from above, don't buy the Tokina 11-16mm lens. Not needed for portraits. Everything else definitely is.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[davidjames]

<p>Again thank you everyone for responses. Last thing anyone have any experience with the sigma 24-70mm HSM IF f 2.8 (not the macro versions) and the sigma 70-200mm HSM II? I hear the 70-200mm gets great reviews but what about the 24-70mm?</p>