ben_hutcherson

Thanks! Figured it was worth asking. I too saw the F100 listing you suggested and debated about it, but decided I didn't want it THAT BADLY since I have Meta35. I know this is getting into the realm of seriously impractical, but the Coolscan II(I think-don't hold me to that) was sold in a version that will mount in a 5 1/4" drive bay. I have the external version of this same scanner and at one point opened it up hoping I might be able to convert mine to that version, but no luck. I know it would be impractical and that's not a great scanner compared to even the Coolscan III(much less the IV or V) but there's something weirdly appealing to me about having one mounted in a PowerMac G3 case, especially given that it and all other Mac towers of that age have an internal SCSI bus(the G3 didn't ship with SCSI hard drives or a ribbon cable but the header is there along with an external DB-25 on the same bus) and of course the long and short of that is that having Photosecretary paired with that would be a fun combo. Would you mind contacting me though and sending me the Windows version of PhotoSecretary? I figure it might not hurt to have it in my "arsenal" and should have a computer around I could make it work on if I ever run across an MC-33.

Not any remote chance you have the Mac versions of the software is there? I was able to get the Mac cable(MC-34?) maybe 4 years ago, but I have searched high and low for the software with no luck. I have "Photo Secretary" and "MC-34" as saved searches on Ebay for probably 5 years and the PC version pops up occasionally, the Mac cord has one or two other times since I bought mine, but I've yet to see the software.n (and yes I have a computer, or more properly multiple computers, to run it on. I have more Macs than I'd like to admit with 9 pin serial ports and most of them either with a floppy drive to install the software or the ability to accept one if not currently installed). It's a shame too that they never updated Meta35 to 64 bit for the Mac users out out there. It's not a huge deal to me as I do most of my scanning in 10.6.8 where I can run Nikon Scan, but it still would be nice to run it on a newer computer. One last thing, EXIF recording aside-at least Meta35 allows you to set custom functions in plain text rather than cryptic numbers. If you have more than one of the same camera, it also allows you to save a set-up and export it to additional bodies. Not sure if Photosecretary does this or not... For anyone using this, though, just remember that the F100 and N90s do NOT have data recording turned on by default. You need to use Meta35 or presumably Photosecretary to turn it on. BTW, this is one of those elusive "hidden" custom functions people often reference-the other two are related to data handling. My F5 came with it turned on, although of course it was used.

I got my T90 out not too long ago after not using it for years. I promptly pulled the batteries out, which thankfully had not corroded, but before doing so tested it and found that it still worked perfectly thankfully. My T90 was my big upgrade from the A-1 back in 2005 when I was still new to all of this, and it was quite a splurge at the time as a high school student. Even though now I rave about cameras with physical control dials(like the Fuji X-T5 and Nikon Df I use quite often these days) I took to hold the button and spin the dial pretty quickly. I don't think we can ignore how significant it was that the T90, when it was made, worked like this(the T70 sort of did too but had the up/down buttons rather than the wheel). I went through a couple from KEH to get one that actually worked, but the one I ended up with came with the(not that common) C plain matte screen and had been leader out modified. I bought an E screen(split/microprism) somewhere along the way but found the C screen so easy to focus on anyway that I just ended up using it. There's a lot to like about the T90. I don't think of it as taking control away, but rather giving the photographer access to more tools. The only thing I dislike about it-and this is a big one but is common to all the multi-mode FD mount cameras(save for New F-1) and that is that manual mode is convoluted and not easy to use.

Thanks for the thoughts and all the information! Unfortunately, this shop is not so local to me anymore after moving 3 years ago, but I still stay in touch and deal with them. I may have shared this before, but here's a wonderful article that really captures the spirit of the shop. It's not JUST all the treasures within, but Chuck himself who makes the place magical, for lack of a better term. https://archive.louisville.com/content/chuck-rubin-photographics-film-photography-store-louisville Unfortunately too, "the plague" as Chuck was/is fond of calling it, caused a shake-up and he ended up having to move from his equally legendary location which is where the above story was written. His new shop is nice(I've only been there once) but a bit hidden as it's in an office building rather than being a stand-alone with a giant mural painted on the side on one of the busiest streets in town. The new shop is smaller, and unfortunately too in the move a whole lot of stuff just ended up in the dumpster. In fact, this whole purchase started with me calling to look for one specific cable for a Metz 60 CT-4, something that in the old store I'd likely have been pointed to a box buried in a dark corner of the back room to go find myself(and possibly been told that I could buy the whole box if I wanted) to "I dumped all the old Metz 45 and 60 stuff when I moved." As luck would have it, though, a complete 60 CT-4 outfit with exactly what I was looking for walked in the store the next day, Chuck bought it and called me, and gave me a great price on the whole thing(as if I needed another). In any case, I think you all have convinced me that I need to shoot this camera. What I'll likely do is load up one of my backs, shoot half of it on the 1000F, and do the other on the 500C with similar photos so that I can have a reasonable comparison. All of this talk of the Ektars has me really itching to try one, but I guess it's also telling that I paid $600 for this camera and the Ektar alone seems to run ~$1500 on Ebay. Maybe I'll keep an eye open for an untested or not working 1600F kit with one and roll the dice that it will be clean(since I understand that was the standard lens with those). I MIGHT get lucky at a much more reasonable price doing that...

As best as I can tell it does. 1 second is about 1 1/2, but otherwise shutter speeds are probably close enough to try print film. Everything else seems to work. I've read that the Ektars are VERY highly regarded, and Ebay prices seem to reflect that. It was a bit of sticker shock to see 80mm Ektars for more than double what I paid for this one! From my reading there's some speculation that Hasselblad switched from Kodak to Zeiss because the Zeiss lenses were less expensive, which in 2023 is a crazy thing to think about. I bought this camera sight-unseen from my favorite camera store back in Kentucky. I actually called the shop about something else, and the owner says "Oh, I just got this in and I know you want it." I was non-committal but he said something like "I'm just going to to set it back here behind the counter and you call me when you decide you do." I sent a Paypal payment to him an hour later... I actually hadn't realized, though, until I really started researching these that they use a Tessar and not a Planar. I've used the Tessar-type Nikon lenses a fair bit(45mm f/2.8 GN and 45mm f/2.8 AI-P), have had Rolleicords and Rolleiflexes with 75mm f/3.5 Xenars, and at one point did have an Automat III(I think) with the f/3.5 Tessar. When I first got into large format, a lot of my lenses were 4/3 Tessar-type lenses, including the Ektar on my Speed Graphic, but of course a lot slower. I've heard mixed things about the f/2.8 Zeiss Tessars in medium format, but we'll see. One thing that did really surprise me on this is how close it focuses compared to the 80mm "C" Planar I have on my 500C. I need to get a set of extension tubes, which I've managed to go 5 years without owning(I bought my 500C in 2018) but I know a lot of folks consider them a practical necessity for things like portraits with the 150mm f/4 C Sonnar. I've managed to get by without, especially since I tend to compose portraits wide for cropping to 4:5 from square, but there have been times where even one of the skinny ones would have been really useful. In any case, as far as using this one goes, I think I'll probably use one of my other film backs on it to keep this one nice. If I understand correctly, not all 1600F/1000F backs are compatible with V cameras for a specific reason I'm forgetting at the moment(missing a provision for one of the interlocks), but any V system 12 or A12 back(or even an A24 I'd guess, but I'm not burning a roll of 220 in an unknown camera) should work fine.

I couldn't pass this one up when offered it the other day. I honestly can't find many if any signs it was ever used. The shutter curtains are perfect, and the take up spool in the magazine is unbranded metal. There is essentially no wear on the back hooks or catch. The dark slide bail is super tight(unlike my more heavily used Hassy magazines), it's tight fitting in the slot(tighter than some of my well used ones even after fresh light seals) and the darkslide shows what look more like machining marks than scratches from repeated insertion/removal. I will probably have to run a roll of film through this at some point, but it's just a darn nice looking camera to have on the shelf. BTW too, the manual for the 1000F makes a big deal about how bright the focusing screen is. It's not as bright as the Rick Oleson Britescreen that I have in my 500C and 500 EL/M, but it's much brighter and more even than I remember the original 500C screen being or the /M type replaceable plain ground glass screen I have around here. IIRC the 500C had a condensor lens under the screen, and they are brighter in the center than at the edges. They're certainly useable but are dim. I wish I could have the 1000F screen in all my bodies. It uses a fresnel lens(visible, but the manual also mentions it) and is not as bright as, again, a Britescreen or factory Acute-matte, but has really nice "pop" in focus and seems a lot less prone to an aerial image than the newer screens. The 500C and the earlier /M set-up seems a step backwards to me. Those screens do "pop" really nicely, but heaven help you if you're in less than great light.

I owned a D700 for about a year a couple of years back. They were inexpensive then and even more so now. I still love how that generation sensor looks. I do still use a D3s as the situation calls for it(although I'm more likely to use my D5 and D4 combo these days). Nikon has not bade a full frame pro sensor that I've not loved(well I've never used a D3X so can't speak for that one). I can get the basic D4 "look" out of the Df. I appreciate having the D3 sensor in the much smaller body, although the D3s gives about a stop better noise performance and Nikon unfortunately never made a D700s. My D3s is now mostly retired since if I need a speed camera the D4 is cleaner, has better AF, and a control layout more in line with current Nikons. The D5 is just better all around-there again I wish we'd been able to get a "mini D5". I didn't appreciate until I actually had and used one just how great the results from it are.

When in doubt in a situation like this, you can always revert to stop down exposure to double check. On an FTb(or F-1...or TXb/TLb) it's dead simple to do so and doesn't even require you taking your eye from the viewfinder. Push the self timer lover toward the lens mount. The lens should stop down, the "lollipop" will fall out of the metering range, and "correct" exposure is when the needle falls within the red index in the lower right of the metering scale. BTW, this is exactly how the meter on the FT and Pellix operate-they just have a permanently etched circle on the focus screen. Also, I wouldn't call the FTb(or FT, Pellix, F-1, TX, or TLb) "heavily center weighted." They are strictly 12% partial meters with the metering area indicated by the gray box in the center of the frame. This gray box is actually a semi-silvered area on the focusing screen that is bouncing light to the metering cell just behind the focusing screen. On F-1 focusing screens you can see a cut-out in the frame of the screen for the metering cell to see through. This is actually quite a capable meter, and I have a lot of perfectly exposed slides to back up my saying that. I was using my F-1 and FTb most heavily in the 2006-2008 time period. The key is fully understanding how the meter works and especially being aware that if it's not in the gray box, the meter doesn't see it. Also, remember that linear polarizers can throw off this meter badly and unpredictably.

Oh no! So sad to hear this. I had meant to send him my kit but that won't happen. My interactions with him in the past showed him a true gentleman, and he certainly knew Hasselblads.

Ouch! Thanks...I'll try it on 4V from a bench PSU and see what happens Of course now I'm struggling to come up with a source for 4V. The best I can think of is maybe a pair of Cyclon cells, although those are pricey. If it will work on 3x NiMH I might call that good enough As for the caps, this is what I have

I finally had a chance to play with this one again last night, and here's what I found: First of all, not sure I mentioned this but there is a switch that controls the power output. I hadn't really looked too closely at it, but I had it set to the lower power setting("22") and was getting no voltage off the capacitor I was trying to read. Finally it hit me that what the switch does is just switch one of the two capacitors in and out of the circuit. So, that out of the way, I checked the OTHER capacitor and it charged to ~560V and fell to around ~430V in a minute. With both capacitors in the circuit(switch flipped to the "45" high power setting) I saw it charge to ~515V and it would drop to ~390V after a minute. At the end of the minute, I could still fire the flash, although obviously not as bright as when fully charged(I should get out my flash meter...). After firing, with the power switched off, the capacitors will sit around 100V. They seem to want to stay here for a good little while. I waited 10 minutes and then finally used a 1KΩ resistor to discharge them. I didn't monitor voltage drop longer than a minute without firing the flash, which might be good information. I know that this is around a 25% drop in 1 minute, which of course is a lot higher than 10%, but it's also not at the extreme of 90% in a few seconds. Of note too-when I connect it to 120V, the caps will only charge to ~440V or so. I'll add that with the caveat that I didn't think to measure actual line voltage, which who knows between the amount of stuff I'm running off a single 15A circuit in my office and the overall grid stress now with overnight temperatures over 90ºF(32ºC). I took the dog out last night around 1:00AM, and felt like I was walking into a sauna with the heat index still over 100ºF... And yes I know all said and done that this isn't practical, but to me it's still interesting and fun to have it working. Once I find my other box of flash bits and bobs that should have a Safe Sync in it, I'll try it on one of my DSLRs with the 45mm f/2.8 GN

Thanks Joe and glad you're still with us! I don't know the value of the caps in it but will look and check. I also suspect that after 50+ years they may have lost some of their original oomph and if I get really brave I may try reforming them. I like your idea of bypassing the vibrator with an SD8 or equivalent. I guess maybe powering it up at all was a bit reckless, but I go slow and watch the current on the bench PSU.

And...I think I can call it working as designed(more or less). I put together a 5xAA 2400mAh battery that seems to power it just fine. Of course charging will need to be by a bench PSU but shouldn't be too big of a deal. I'm not sure how many shots it will power, but I can't imagine that the original battery would have had this kind of capacity.

Just to report back a bit on this-I actually have it working pretty much fully. First of all, yes the vibrator buzzing is a bit disconcerting but I suppose it's just doing its job. Also, the flash gun looks like it should have a "ready" light behind the test button(it's clear plastic) but either it isn't working or the capacitors just aren't charging as much as they're supposed to. On 6V, the current starts off at 7A but levels off to 4A, which sounds to me like capacitors charging. I'm wondering it these just are very leaky and could possibly benefit from reforming(that's a different discussion and topic for a different day). Once I see 4A on my bench PSU, pushing the test button on the flash gun will give a nice bright flash. Current will momentarily spike back up then level off, and it will give an equivalent flash. Surprisingly enough, plugging it in to 120V worked fine also and would fire the flash gun with fast recharges. I have a 6V lead acid gel cell that I bought thinking it could be made to work in the Metz 60 flashes. Unfortunately that one's a no-go-as best as I can tell Exide made the original Metz batteries and if they still make them I can no longer find them. This one was from a different manufacturer, was specified as a UPS battery, and has tabs rather than flat terminals. I could work with the different terminal type, but the Exide catalog says this should be the same size as the Metz battery(which for reference should be a Sonneschein A506/4.2K, and the tabbed version otherwise the same size is A506/4.2S). In any case, I had this one here and fully charged so went ahead and connected it. Sure enough, it worked fine and gave full recycle times of ~1 second. Of course there's not a chance this will fit inside the case, but I'm glad to see it work. I'm wondering about powering it on 5x NiMH batteries, just as some will do inside old Metz dry fit cases for the 60 series flashes. 5 AA should just fit. Of course I have no idea how long they would last-probably not long.

I'm not quite ready to make the switch to Z mount yet. I know that the lenses are better. The F mount has always had to deal with two constraints-one of the smallest throat diameters and one of the longest backfocus distances of the common 24x36mm SLR mounts. The Z mount went the other direction of making both the shortest backfocus and largest diameter of the mounts I'm aware of on the market. The backfocus distance isn't a big deal for long lenses, but everything benefits from the larger throat. There's also just being able to ditch the legacy "baggage" of he F mount, although the last new F mount lenses pretty much did that since E aperture lenses don't have any mechanical connections to the body. With that said, the D850 was a darn good camera in 2017, and 5 years later it is still every bit as good as it was. AFAIK, the Z7/Z7ii sensor is essentially the same and the Z8/Z9 stacked sensor is derived from it. The D5 high ISO continues to amaze me, and I'd assume the D6 is at least as good if not better. I suspect the D6 is probably end of the line for the 20mp full frame sensor, which is a shame. As lenses go, in particular the Z mount f/2.8 and especially the f/4 zooms seem a big step up from even the newest F mount versions. With high ISOs and VR, f/4 zooms are a reasonable compromise in a lot of situations. The F mount 70-200 f/4 seems well regarded, but the only real standard zoom option Nikon offers/offered is the 24-120 which is just okay. At this point, I don't feel like sticking with the F mount is holding me back. There may come a point where that changes, but for now I'm just enjoying the "fire sale" prices on a lot of F mount glass. I added a long time want not too long ago, the 135mm f/2 DC, which was not inexpensive but was nearly half what it was selling for used a few years ago. I suspect lenses like that have lost some of their luster since they lose AF on Z mount cameras.

I don't guess I realized that the 300mm f/2.8 had sort of fallen out of favor, especially given how much of a staple lens it use to be. I know there was some chatter a few years ago lamenting that Nikon had not released an FL version of the 300 f/2.8, and it seemed to me as though the 120-300 was the answer to that. I have no doubt that it's a fantastic lens, but it also adds ~300g over the 300mm f/2.8 VRII(where both primes and zooms have tended to lose weight with the FL versions) and is double the price. Maybe I'm a wimp, but I already find my 300mm f/2.8 VR(i) to be a lot to handhold and I don't like using it without at least a monopod, although I certainly can carry and use it handheld if need be. In fact my dislike of using it handheld was how I talked myself into not getting the VRii version since, as best as I can tell, the major difference is the improved VR and half the time it's off on my lens anyway. Of course too when I do use it I'm reminded of how loud the first generation VR is-it's not a huge shock to me as I do use my 70-200 VR(i) all the time, and almost always with VR on, but it's very jarring especially when, as I often do, use it next to the nearly silent 24-70 f/2.8E VR.

If the $10K 120-300 is seriously under consideration, I'd instead look at buying something like a 300 2.8 VR1($1500-2000 used) and a second D850 or possibly D5(around $2K-2.5K used) to put it on. That to me would give a lot more utility than the excellent but heavy and expensive 120-300.

The 55mm f/3.5(especially the earliest version) is one of the finest and sharpest lenses Nikon has ever made for true macro use, but falls apart a bit as you get into the non-macro range. If you're inclined to continue using a manual focus macro in this focal length, this is one of the few-maybe only-times you'll see me say that I'd consider the 55mm f/2.8 Micro is probably a better choice. It uses a floating element that gives it more consistent performance from infinity down to 1:2. I'm not a fan of it as a macro lens(despite the heaps of praise often put on it) because the floating element introduces complications when you start adding anything longer than the PK-13 extension tube(which is the 27.5mm tube made to take the lens to 1:1) and find the conventional unit-focusing f/3.5 versions much better, but the f/2.8 version should perform much better for you if you're working at say 5ft-20ft, which where I'm guessing you are.

What do you mean your 50mm "does not auto focus well at all"? If it's an AF-S lens it should be fine on your D3200 and if it's not, the lens has problems. Otherwise, are you sure it's the AF-S version and not AF or AF-D? Is this the f/1.4 or f/1.8? The 35mm f/1.8DX is an excellent and budget friendly. I like it enough that I actually used it on my Fuji X-T5(via an adapter) until I bought Fuji's equivalent(which is a superb lens but of course not of any relevance unless you shoot Fuji cameras). You asked in 2014 about working as a second shooter at a wedding with the same kit as you have now. What did you learn from that experience? What equipment did you use then? BTW, I agree with @mike_halliwellthat not having redundancy is a terrible idea. I have backups for my backups even when I'm not getting paid or doing something much lower stakes. I don't have exact duplicates of anything, but I'm using my D850 as my primary camera I doubt anyone would notice in the results if I suddenly switched to my D810 or D800. If I were using my D5, I doubt anyone would notice if I had to switch to the D4 or gripped D850(which of those I choose as a D850 backup depends on the exact circumstances). Generally my backups, other than maybe my deep, deep backup(say my D800 when I'm using the D850 and D810) don't just stay in the camera bag. If I'm primarily using the 24-70 at one particular moment, that will be on my D850 but the 70-200 or a wide zoom(14-24 or one of a couple others) will be on the D810 and slung over my other shoulder so that if I need another lens I just reach down and grab it already on a ready-to-go camera rather than having to waste precious time changing. The D7xxx bodies are fairly affordable second hand. I seriously considered both a D7500 and D7200 when I went down the path that lead me to the X-T5 a few months. I'd not personally go lower than a D7200. It's been a few years since I seriously considered the specs, but IIRC the D7500 has the superb 20mp sensor that's also in the D5, while the D7200 has higher resolution but overall more noisy 24mp sensor Nikon was using for a while. I do remember that the D7200 has an aperture tab and the D7500 doesn't, which is something those of us who like to shoot old manual focus lenses care about but for 99% of the D7500's target customers it's not something they would ever notice missing. All the D7xxx cameras have internal focus motors to allow autofocus with AF and AF-D lenses, AKA "screwdriver" lenses.

Thanks for the info. Joe is one of the people I had in mind who would probably know about this or have some idea if anyone. I was poking around a bit at it today and the buzzing comes from a vibrator although I can't really pick out the function of it. It's marked 4V, so I'm wondering if that's the operating voltage(or maybe a 6V battery). Both the capacitors definitely hold charge-I didn't go out of my way to find that out but I think I can still feel it from one of them. It does look good stuck on a Nikon F. If nothing else it can go next to one with a "fan" flashbulb reflector mount, but it would still be interesting to see it working.

As I stated, this is nothing at all like a 45CT4...

I've just picked up something that's more a curiosity than anything, but I'd still love to give it a try and see how it works. Basically this is what, as best as I can tell, was one of the first portable flashes Metz made. It's called the Meca Blitz(yes two words, unlike later stuff) 45 Twin Flash. Other kits I've seen have two separate strobes(hence twin flash) but I only have one. The one I have looks not unlike a shoe-mount flash bulb flash with a bare flash tube backed by a big reflector. This all ties into a case that looks not unlike a ladies handbag from the 50s. It's a shiny black plastic(bakelite?) case that hinges open. Opening it up shows a couple of huge flash capacitors-bigger than what's in something like a 60CT4 case-and honestly not much else. There is an empty area with some rubber padding and a pair of spade-terminated wires that presumably would hold a battery. There's also a standard US two prong 120V cord curled up in there(there is a place inside the box to set for 120V or 240V). I'd really like to at least see this work. I don't know how much I'd use it, but it seems like it would be right at home on something like a Nikon F or especially my Hassy 500C(the latter of which I do use all the time, although usually with studio lights if I'm doing flash at all or occasionally a 60CT4). I can't find a manual or really even a lot of discussion on this online-there's another just like it on Ebay now(although the one up now has a second strobe head) but other than that everything I find references the older 45CT series handle mount flashes. I did a bit of playing with it a little while ago. I have no idea what the specs would be on the battery, and if it's rechargeable-I'm not sure if the plug is meant to recharge a battery or actually power the unit. When I plug it in, I get no signs of life-hoping I'd get some idea of a battery, I did put a voltmeter across the two spade leads and didn't measure anything. I got a bit brave and hooked a bench PSU up to the two spade leads. As I turned up the voltage, with the on switch on, I started getting a ferocious buzzing. At 6V-I figured a reasonable guess for voltage since that's what the SLA/gel cells for later Metz flashes are-it will pull around 7A. I watched it for a minute hoping I'd see current drop as the capacitors charged, and it seemed to a bit but I guess I got a bit scared. That seemed a lot of current to pump through an old piece of electrical equipment I don't totally understand. Has anyone encountered/used one of these? If you have, do you at least know the battery voltage? If I could find a manual it would be really wonderful. Butkus has a manual for the "Babyblitz", which seems to use a similar flash head to the one I have, but with a smaller/less powerful pack that seems different enough to not make me want to try and carry the information over. This flash specifies the use of two "90V Microdyne Anodes", which I'm guessing may be small 90V radio batteries but at the same time I feel like I've seen 90V batteries in old camera flashes before. If it truly needs 90V, that might need some creativity. I've run old battery radios with 10x 9V batteries in series, which works great for that and lasts a long time, but that's also in a low current application. A lot of old radio batteries were dual voltage-6V/9V and 90V, with the 9V for the tube filaments and they can really suck power(I would often use C or D cells for that). I can't imagine a 90V radio battery lasting long in a flash....

I'm not a wedding photographer, although I do dabble in events and the like. First of all, find out your venue restrictions. See if flash is okay or not. I have zero experience with the D3200 so have no idea what a realistic ISO limit is on it. If you can use flash, or if the D3200 is still useable at 3200 or 6400, you MIGHT get away with not having an f/2.8 zoom. Also, VR can help you on some occasions, but if your subjects are moving you still need a high enough shutter speed to stop them(assuming you're not going for any kind of special effect...that's a different discussion). I love a 70-200 for certain applications in event use, but I also primarily shoot full frame Nikons(and stick to Fuji for APS-C...). Even on a full frame body, 70mm can be tight for the wide end for more than one person unless you have a lot of space to work. I'd worry even more about that when it's on a crop sensor body. I almost always have my 70-200 mounted on a camera for event use, but if I'm using it 99.9% of the time I have a second body with a 24-70 or something else. You might also find your 50mm a little too long for a lot of uses. On a crop sensor body, that's a nice focal length for couple portraits or 3/4 body, but IMO it's a bit long for a lot else. I'll add the caveat that I've not handled a 17-55 f/2.8, but a lot of the reviews for it seem a bit less than optimistic. That's a shame, IMO, but Nikon seems to mostly neglect the market for high end/high quality APS-C glass(that's how I ended up in Fuji for my small, more portable kit since Nikon is doing the same with the Z mount). I'll throw out a left field lens suggestion and suggest maybe a 24-120 f/4. It's not optically the greatest, but is not bad either. It will cover you for a lot of situations you'll encounter at a wedding, has VR that can help when things are reasonable stationary, and f/4 is a decent compromise as long as you can trust your high ISOs. I'd not want that as my only lens, and might supplement with one of the various APS-C wide zooms(I love the built quality of the 12-24, but it's definitely a dated lens. The 10-24 seems well regarded. I like the cheap and plasticy 10-20 VR, but make sure it will work with your D3200). Your 50mm can come along, and you might also enjoy Nikon's excellent 35mm f/1.8 DX. Or, it might be time to think about upgrading your body along with your lenses. The D800 is still excellent despite being a decade old, and IMO still holds its own against newer cameras. Coming from a D3200, you will be impressed at how responsive it feels and especially how fast and sure the autofocus is(The D800 was not exactly class leading when new, but the AF module from the D4 used in it works respectably). The D750 is still a great option too, as is the D600/D610. Even though I'd want two and would probably work most of it with both the 24-70 and 70-200, once again the 24-120 f/4 would cover a lot of useable range for you.

Okay, this is in Thom Hogan's D5 guide. I'm GUESSING it might work for anything with a removable clock battery(D2 series and newer? I feel like I've replaced one in one of those somewhere along the way) but don't know. I also don't remember seeing removable batteries on the D8xx or other less-than-flagship bodies, so not sure it would work there either

Thanks Dieter! I wish that they'd given us an easy way to do this...