leericks

December 24, 2010

The 17-55 F/2.8 is the right one for the wedding. It will give you the wide angle you need where the 24 may be a bit confining. The missing 15 mm will be no big deal at all. Since you will not be carrying the UWA you will certainly want the wider lens for the wedding.

December 24, 2010

Nina. I know what you mean. I had a Tokina 15 - 30 and I still dream about carrying a tree trunk through a pillow-shaped world of warm colors and birds that sound like cuisinarts. We must asceed to a higher power though. Ken Rockwell.+ He says of the 11-16:

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X is the best ultrawide zoom available for, Nikon DX cameras better than even Nikon's more expensive 12-24 AF-S DX.

</blockquote>

Of course he goes on to say of the two Nikon lenses:

Compared to the 12-24mm which it replaces, the 10-24mm is more cheaply built. The 12-24mm was built to semi-pro standards, but this new 10-24mm feels more dinky and I suspect will break if you bang the front of it into anything hard enough.

</blockquote>

I don't know what semi-pro standards are but I own a 12-24 Nikkor so I fear my editor might. I will ask her after my next performance review. It occurs to me that my 17-35 F/2.8 must be built to semi-pro standards too because it broke when it was banged by a bull horn. I can't believe Nikon did not affix a little 'things in this lens might be closer than they appear' sticker to it but that is probably just carelessness on their part.

I understand just how demeaning using third party equipment can be. I have a disgusting Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 that I use while my Nikkor is at El Segundo for its bi-annual spa treatment. Rather than modify my wardrobe to compliment the lens I have taken to looking defiant and saying "Hey, a girl gave it to me because I guess she felt like guilty for making me get dressed and go outside to smoke, alright?". Or. "Leave me alone Mr. 'I have a vest and brand new Canon gear'. I am working here. Besides you can't fool me. No real photographer uses one of those little zip-up CF card holders." Or the always effective: "Nice D700. Which club do you shoot for?"

Lest we are unfair to the little (I mean BIG) Tokina lens, Ken+ also says of it:

Here's a secret: take off the filter and hood and and this Tokina 11-16mm works reasonably well as wide as 15mm, if you don't mind softer corners wide-open, on film and FX.

</blockquote>

That is good to know. Buy this lens and you have the always popular 15-16mm, soft focus FX lens. Of course the fixed-focus fanboys here will still say the $900.00 Nikkor 16mm is better but they forget it costs $300.00 more. (eyeroll).

But lest we stray to far from the subject here I want to echo what you said about range. The extra 18-24 is probably where one wants to be most of the time anyway. And that is a really big deal if you think about it.

December 24, 2010

HMMM. Assuming that you bought your D200 the instant it was released, you take, on average, over 10 frames a day. That is some serious shooting for a non-professional photographer. If you shoot primarily on the weekends you are really banging them out.

You can do whatever you want of course and have chosen to return a very good camera. It does not overexpose nor is it tonally different from your D200. There should be little observable differences between the two cameras unless you are pushing the edges of their capabilities. A case could have been made for trading your D200 or selling it before the shutter fails but that could be a very long time.

You want full frame. Got it. In order to do that you have to have the glass. That is the bottom line. Without it...... You also are concerned about money. You said:

I just love photography... It always provides me with peace and happiness. (Except when it involves money)

</blockquote>

Hardly the words of a 'money is no object' guy. Right? So can we take the D3 off the table? it costs $2850.00 more than the D700 and does not return the investment for you. The D3s is a professional camera. It is built like a tank for sure but the additional feature-set it would offer you would probably not justify the additional money. If you were shooting 300-500 frames a day in lousy weather maybe you could justify it but, if, as you say, money is an issue, then it is not the camera for you. Besides. The D700 is tough enough and there is no photo quality difference between the two. So you can either buy the D3s body or you can buy a D700 with the 24-70 AFS G ED, the 80-200 F/2.8d and a SB-700 flash with enough left to put quality filters on your new lenses for the same price. Which sounds better to you? And with this combination you will have a lovely camera and wonderful glass. What more could anyone ask for?

So why did your "bridge" camera plan fail? Because you walked right past the only camera that might have made sense. The D7000. If you could get one it would not only be a wash (or perhaps a bit improved) over the D300s, but as a new model would retain more of its resale value. And no matter what comes, you will need a backup camera. What's wrong with one that is the latest technology?

There are three fundimental problems with these threads.

First we don't set a budget with our questions. If money were no object you would have bought a D3s long ago and had a D3X for a backup. Your care would be loaded down with top shelf glass and you would not be asking us for advice. So what is the budget today? That should be integral to the discussion.

The second problem is to clearly articulate what one intends to do with the camera. Is carrying a lightweight yet fairly capable camera on vacation the deal or are we going to shoot ballet dancers from the balcony?

Third and in my opinion the most importatant question is, what do you really want. I wear a rolex watch. It was too expensive, tells time poorly compared to a quartz watch, costs $600.00 every couple of years for cleaning and adjusting and everyone who sees it thinks it is a fake. But I like it. I like how it is made. I like the look. I sometimes like the statement it makes. For some people cameras are the same. I have a friend who just bought a D3X. He may use it once or twice a month. He loves the feel of it and he appreciates owning what is arguably the best Digital SLR out there. He owns nothing but the best glass too. He is a died in the wool gearhead aand fairly good amateur photographer. There is no way he can justify needing the camera but the money is not an issue to him and he really wanted it. Who is to say he is wrong for buying it? (He did borrow my D300 to take on vacation because of the weight and the fact that I loaned him an 18-200 to go with it but there you have it.)

One thing is certainly clear. The differences between cameras as far as picture quality is concerned really only appears as we push their capabilities. And the fact is that we rarely do that. So my conclusion is that you should load up the MasterCard, get the d700 and nice glass and get to using it. As to what Nikon might do tomorrow? Who cares? So you can shoot your new D3XsMarkIIDModB at 25,200 Iso and 20 frames per second in zero gravity. Let me know the next time you need to do that. The real question is, do you need to exceed the capabilities of a D300 or D700 now? If not the for God's sake get your beautiful new D700 and go have as much fun as you have obviously been having for years.

December 23, 2010

I agree with Shun and Peter Hamm. I have the 12-24 Nikon and have used the 10-24. Optically it is a wash but the two millimeters makes a huge difference in creativity. Perhaps the 12-24 is build a bit better but not enough to matter. In the final analysis you are talking 2/3 stop between F2.8 and F3.5. Frankly not enough to matter. Even a full stop is a quibble. You mentioned your flash. Assuming you can use it (and you certainly can for posed shots in the dressing room) the apeture question is moot.

I also agree with Peter in that I doubt you will use anything wider than 17-18 in the church. And that probably not that much. I think the same will apply to the dressing room. It would be a shame to look for opportunities to use a lens when you should be paying attention to the ceremony.

If you have not done many weddings before I think it would be best to keep it as simple as possible. Two bodies and two lenses. (and two flashes by the way) You will be busy enough without having to consider swaping lenses frequently. Further. You will be in the way, under foot, annoying and otherwise unwelcome to people who are as preoccupied as two people can be who are not on the gallows. Changing lenses, flashes and doing nifty poses may be possible but just may not be. If I were you I would use two lenses on two bodies. One 17-50 AFS F/2.8 and one 70-200 AFS VR. (You have the 16-85 so I assume you will use that in place of the 17-50 in my kit.) That is it. If you want the other lens in your pocket just in case you get a chance to use it then any of the ones you mentioned will be just fine.

December 23, 2010

Ok. Here goes.

You need a standard fast zoom. Tamron SP AF 17-50 f/2.8 XR Di-II VC

This lens gets you fast for not too much money and will be fine as a backup for your D300s when you get the new camera. It has VC (VR) and is pretty sharp. Well made and 1/3 the price of the Nikkor. $549.00 (after $100.00 rebate)

Then the indispensible lens for a PJ:

NIKKOR 80-200 F/2.8D

Tack sharp. Built like a tank. Marvelous portrait lens too. Short of the $2500.00 70-200 VRII perhaps maybe the best zoom lens Nikon makes. (Some say optically the best.) I have the VR and I keep this one and still use it periodically. $1099.00

Because you have money left over:

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Very fast and pretty sharp wide open (for the rare times you will use it wide open). Silent. Nice Bokeh. You can carry it in your pocket and it (along with the 80-200) will make the transition to full frame in a year. $449.00

You can get by with the SB-600. It is almost as powerful as the SB-800, recycles quicker and the batteries last longer.

So there is a pretty good PJ kit. With the camera it comes to $3532.90 from B & H after the rebate.

You have been getting by with far less for sometime now. You will be stunned at the possibilities the 80-200 will open for you. You may well use it more than the 17-50. You will probably not use the 50mm f/1.4 though the fixed-focus fanboys on this site will insist it is the only good lens in this kit. (They will not, for the most part, be working PJs.) You could save money buying used but you will not get better lenses for the same price.

Enjoy.

December 22, 2010

This seems to be an unanswerable question. Tif said:

When the time comes and they upgrade me to the D3X, I'll have my choice in an array of lenses.

</blockquote>

So what to do? How do you advise lenses that, it would appear, she only has to use for a year and then has the treasure chest opened to her? So is money no object? If so then I would advise, as a minimum the 70-200 AFS VR II and the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S. She might add the 50mm F1.4 just to have that middle spot handled. She has not mentioned flash either. If she does not have one she will need at least one SB-900. How can you cover news conferences and other events without a good flash?

So there is a nice kit to "tide her over":

D300s

70-200 AFS VRII Nikkor

17-35 AFS F2.8 Nikkor

50mm F1.4 nikkor

SB-900 Nikon Speedlight

There you go Tiffany. Pony up the $5686.90 and you can squeak by until next year when you will have some REAL equipment;)

If money IS an object then let us know what the budget is and we can take a real stab at it.

December 21, 2010

I see what you mean. I was thinking about using the camera in the field not the historical data. You are correct. Canon was ascendent at the time but so much of the camera choice for an organization revolved around existing equipment that I don't know many organizations that changed from Nikon to Canon. When you have a workroom full of fast glass it is hard to dump it all for a few features. In the area where I work there is only one news operation that shot and continues to shoot Canon. Nikon was behind a bit but I think not dominated by Canon.

It is curious that they would want to use a 24 mp camera for sure. Her workflow will be a challenge unless she dials-down a bunch. Her workflow is going to be fun. If she shoots raw or 14 bit and throws in a jpeg for good measure she will be working with over 30 MB files. Even if she dials down to JPEG fine she would be handling about 7 MB files. What a pain in the behind. With the largest files she will be shooting at just under 2FPS though she could again dial her camera down and get the FPS up to 7 but what is the point of carrying such an expensive piece of equipment if you are not going to use its capabilities? She would be far better off with a D300 and grip as far as workflow is concerned. She had better hope her organization is not using old computers or she will spend many extra hours at the computer trying to sort through her work. As for storing it.......

I suppose it is hard for any photographer to turn down such a beautiful camera as the D3x. It is truly a great camera and on a very rare occasion she might use some of its more advanced features including those massive files. My point is that if we assume a limited budget of some kind she needs to look at the whole package. If spending the $8K on the body means, for example, that she doesn't not have a 70-200 AFS Vr and 24 - 70 F2.8 lens then she would be making a very bad spending choice.

There are people for whom the most expensive camera is beyond a waste. It can be the wrong tool for the job. Sure she can dial up DX in the camera but then her 24 - 70 becomes a 36 - 105 and she will have to carry another wider lens to get wide enough for many of her stories for example. An awful lot of decision about which camera to carry as a PJ is convenience. Two bodies and two lenses on your person is ideal. For short assignments it does not matter much but for long events these things can get pretty heavy. And there are situations where you do not want to be seen carrying a ton of gear.

And Shun I have been a working newspaper and magazine photojournalist for a very long time. You can take that to the bank.

December 21, 2010

John Crosley's information on the D2Hs is NOT off. He is quite correct that 4 MP is more than enough for a newspaper shooter. I publish D2Hs shots all of the time and have for years. It is also correct that it can be had for $500.00. I made that case earlier.

For the newspaper shooter there are few cameras that are better. Add to the discussion that this $500.00 camera is so strong you can pound nails with it, so tight you can shoot in the rain and has the utterly indispensible convenience of voice annotation and I would like someone to make the case that either the D300 or D7000 could hold a candle to it for newspaper work. In fact. The lack of voice annotation is so inconvenient that I rarely use the D300s unless I am shooting in very low light. I prefer the D2H or sometimes the D2X. The D3x, while a fine camera is far to expensive for most news hacks.

Until you have lost your notebook and rendered your entire shoot useless, or fumbled for a pen and paper in the rain or an angry crowd, you will never truly appreciate the convenience of voice memo.

If I were her I would own a D2Hs. If for no other reason than the shear joy of using it.

December 20, 2010

For what it is worth, learning the D300 controls will make you more familiar with the D3? later on. I would go with the D300 for weather sealing and overall durability. It is heavier which will help balance the camera when you strap big glass on it.

I use one for PJ work along with some other cameras and I love it.

December 19, 2010

Well Kent the D700 sensor is in a D300 type body now. That is except that the D300 has 100% viewfinder coverage and shoots a a frame or so per second faster;)

For Graham. Just for fun let me ask a silly question. You say you have the money now but might not in the future? Do you mean you can't put the money you have in savings and wait?

If you were a professional you would buy a new piece of equipment because something has worn out, to allow you to do something you can't do now or to do something you need to do better so that you could make more money. Unless you are a professional photographer your choice of kit is based on wanting to have more fun with your hobby. So I would concentrate on the fun if I were you. If you didn't want the D700 you would not have posted the question. As to whether it will be obsolete in 2015? Who cares? It will be in absolute terms but it might still be just the ticket for what you want to do.

I have a D2x, D2H, D300 and D3x. I was preparing to shoot a rodeo. Which two bodies would you have taken? How about the D2H and D2X? They are both silly fast. The workflow with the D2H is a photojournalists dream. The assignment was in the daytime. And frankly who wants their D3X, slowpoke that it is anyway, out in the mud of a rodeo arena? So much for obsolete technology. None of the people who say the pictures in print ever knew that they were taken by a Nikon not to mention that they were taken with 7 year old technology. Neither of the newer cameras would have offered anything over the older ones for this assignment.

The other day I was photographing a regional track meet. (Daylight.) There was another photographer there who was using a pair of D90's. I let him use my D2H for an hour and he was hot to own one. The 4 MP was just fine for the work he was doing, the weight of the body balanced his 70-200 f2.8 beautifully and the 8 FPS knocked his socks off. So, for him, the 7 year old D2H could be an "upgrade" over his two year old technology. (And they can be had used for FAR less than the D300 with a grip for example.)

So take your pick. Decide like a pro or decide like a hobbiest. I suspect you will come up with the same decision either way but I would decide like a hobbiest. Buy your D700 and start enjoying it. You can afford it now. It is a great camera and will let you start enjoying full frame shooting. If its replacement comes out in a year you will have had a year of enjoying your new camera. In the final analysis we will all be damnably moldy in a few decades anyway.

December 18, 2010

The D300 IS a professional body. I know because I am a professional and I use one.:) I know plenty of pros who use D700's and D70's as well. I also still use my old-favorite D2H every once in a while. It is still a newspaper photographer's best friend. Of these most would only refer to the D2H as a "professional" body. (I also have a D3X and D2X for when I am showing off. Know what I mean?)

Sorry. Pet peave. When I am working people endlessly bombard me with 'what should I buy' questions. Here is the answer. If money is no object whatsoever buy a D3x. It will cost about $7600.00. It is very slow when you are shooting the 30 MB Raw 14 bit and jpeg small combination but who cares. You can always switch to the DX mode and shoot about 10.5 MP IIR at 7 FPS. This should be great for your wildlife photography.

Of course if style points are of no concern to you, you could always buy the D300s with grip, AND the AF-S VR NIKKOR 200-400 F/4 IF ED Lens which should fill the bill for wildlife admirably. It will also leave about $400.00 in your pocket which you can use to put up a "professional" web site, buy a vest get some business cards printed. Then your D300s will BE a professional body.

Nothin' but love for you though. Just having a bit of fun.

December 14, 2010

Just to throw an idea out there.....Although I have been using Photoshop since about ver 5 or so and have CS5 and use it everyday, I have recently acquired Paintshop Photo Pro X3. I have to say that it has some features that I prefer to photoshop. If I was just getting started I could see myself using it over the Adobe products, particularly since it is $79.00. It is far more sophisticated than Elements and not far off of photoshop. Its loader program is not bad either.

It just might deserve a look if one is starting from scratch. Besides. Adobe is just charging too much for their products and upgrading too often with too little. I will still use CS5 but if I didn't have it already I doubt I would invest $700.00 in the product and then add another $300.00 for Lightroom. I would rather use the Corel product and buy a Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR with the difference.

flame on

December 12, 2010

I have to correct myself. I totally agree with John Crowe. The 80-200 F2.8 is made for what you do. It is a great compromise. I mentioned that you did not need the VR for your snow shots but completely forgot my old favorite. And there is one sitting on my desk.

Snag an 80-200 F2.8D. B & H has them for $1099. You will need a rip-off Nikon lens hood for $39.99 and a filter (snow reminder for the purists) but you will still be in the lens for around $1200.00. Another $400 for the TC and you are in for a grand less than the VRII. And you will love it.

December 12, 2010

I am sorry about your 18-200. If it is still in warranty I would not hesitate to send it to El Segundo to see what they think.

I use the 70-200 AFS-VR and not the VRII. Let me say that this is an especially sharp lens. I do not know many professional Nikon shooters who do not own one of the two. Clearly these are expensive lenses. They are worth every penny IF you are going to use them frequently and for that which they are designed. Right now Adorama has my version as a Nikon refurbished lens with a 90 day warranty for $1699.00. That might be an option.

I really think that you should go with sending your lens to Nikon to see what is up with it. You should not see soft photos. Also have someone check out your technique. I know you remember that the VR will help with camera shake but you still need fast shutter speeds to freeze motion such as that you will see with your snowboarding and skiing.

December 12, 2010

I have a MAC I5 at work and the old 9505 at home running WIN 7-64. I disagree that the operating system of the MAC is much faster. That is just silly. My 9505 desktop at home is as fast as the MAC at work and my Sony I5 laptop is perhaps a bit faster.

One malware cleanup will offset any time you gained over the life of the notebook with a CPU that was a few seconds faster at a few tasks.

</blockquote>

Here we go again. Another falacy. I spend all day on the net. I run McAfee antivirus and periodically run Windows defender. I do not get viruses and in 15 years have never had to do significant work to my computer due to malware. And yes I am all over the place on the net.

One more note: the first thing I would do with either notebook is strip out the 5400 rpm drive and put in a 7200 rpm one.

</blockquote>

You wouldn't if you had ever used a SSD. Look at the specs on the Sony Z series. I have an SSD in my desktop for workspace. The computer boots in about 30 seconds including the splash screen and shuts down in less than 10 seconds.

December 12, 2010

Someone has to say it. It seems silly to operate on two platforms. It is just as silly to pay the big bucks for the MAC and then run it as a windows platform. The OS is the only real difference between the two now that MAC no longer uses their own processors.

From bestbuy the Macbook pro core I5 with a 15" monitor costs two thousand dollars. This machine has 256 mb of video ram. For $700.00 less you can get a Sony, with more ram, a larger screen, 4 times the video ram and a much faster Core I7 processor. Sonys are very reliable. I have had two of them and both are running very strong. Sony displays are every bit as good as the MAC. Your photoshop will become a non problem and run faster on the Sony.

With the $700.00 you can by a little apple sticker and put it on your Sony if it will help you self esteem;)

December 10, 2010

I have owned one of these for a decade or so and it is a super lens. Though I use the 70-200 most of the time now I keep this one as a backup and to use in the studio. So I am a fan.

I do not like your use of the term 'sand'. I have one that has been used from the arena of a few dozen rodeos and it does not have sand in it. (Though I still am picking some out of myself.) These lenses are very well sealed so I would be very concerned to find out how the sand got inside. I am not a fan of letting local camera shops work on this lens. Your results may vary but I would be very surprised if they had the parts, gaskets, etc. that the Nikon tech will have right on his/her bench.

For CLA I would highly recommend Nikon El Segundo. These folks are wonderful. They will clean it, lube it and allign it for a reasonable fee (probably closer to $200.00 but that is a guess) and you will know that your lens is perfect when they finish. So then you would have just over 800.00 in this used lens. Check this out though. Before you buy this lens get the serial number and call Nikon. If it is a grey market lens Nikon will not work on it and even if your local shop will, should you need parts in the future, you are in for a serious hassle.

I did a quick Ebay check and there were none that were quite that high, Most were in the $500 - $600 range with the flawless ones hitting just over $700.00. So I guess, if it were me, I would think hard about this particular lens. They guy needs to come down about a hundred bucks.

December 9, 2010

I can't comment on the tripods. I would like to comment on one of your proposed uses for these lenses though. You said you want to do astrophotography of deep-sky objects. With the 400 at F2.8 you will need exposures in excess of 30 seconds to get anything decent. Even at 10 seconds and 400 mm you will get little more than a field of comma shaped stars. To photograph deep-sky you will need a mount that has equatorial tracking. And for a 400 mm lens and camera that heavy a pretty good one.

There is software that will stack images taken at shorter exposures but field rotation will still be a problem. So you need an equatorial mount to do that. You can piggyback the lens on a substantial telescope or buy a mount only. You can take some great wide field shots with the D700 but to get the faint-fuzzys you need a good mount. There is a product called a hyperstar and I believe a mount so you can use your d700 through celestron SCTs if you want to hear about it. You will also want to read up on long exposure noise reduction. There are three kinds in the D700. One of these you can't shut off.

Good luck with your search.

Just thought you would like to consider this.

December 7, 2010

John. With IF you can put all Paris in a bottle. I know it galls a lawyer to see a good deed go unpunished (;)) but my personal call would to have been to trust in the university to recognize his efforts whenever they cashed the checks. The issue of copyright should be the last concern.

Of course he may get paid for his work. If so, good for him. If he continues to do well it will benefit him. Since it may now be in his job description he damned better do it well. It is a gradable area rather than a nice thing to do.

December 7, 2010

Bryan. I wish you had paid attention to what Louis Meluso had said. For a few dollars you have missed the opportunity to greatly enhance your position with the school. Instead of being an assistant who is 'both' you could have been seen as a contributor to the school and a guy who goes 'above and beyond the call'.

Jobs are hard to come by these days. Your philanthropy would have made you stand out among your peers. I see all to many people who do not sign up for the notion that they ought to give their employer a greater return on investment that that employer has the right to expect. But that is often the tipping point when cuts are to be made.

Anyway. You seem to have dodged a bullet. I would love to own the copyrights for all of the pac-10 shots I made while staff on the newspaper. But I don't. Nevertheless. Were it not for our jobs and their permissions to photograph we would have been shooting from the grandstands.

December 7, 2010

Correction. Call it twice the reciprical of the lens. There is the crop factor (which is the source of endless debate in which I will not participate) and the fact that you may well want to enlarge the photos considerably which makes camera shake an even bigger problem.

December 6, 2010

My thought about the 85 was that I could shoot at f/2.8, 1/160 ( perhaps ) and still get a sharp picture without flash. I don't know if the 70-200 used at the wide open will be as sharp as the 85 and I don't know if the 70-200 at f/4, will allow me to go up to ( perhaps ) 1/125 on this camera ( D300 ) using ISO 800-1600. Can you share what have been the max speed that you have got with f/2.8 indoor on the 70-200 ? Or using f/4 ?

</blockquote>

You know the old rule. The best you can hand-hold is the recriprocal of the focal length of the lens. So the best you should consider is about 1/200 with the 85. I routinely hand-hold the 70-200 AFS VR at about 100th with good results. On occasion I have shot at 1/25th at 200 when I needed a dramatic PJ shot. And published the results. Your practice will show you what you can do. Remember you will be nervous. Who knows you might be able to shoot faster than you think anyway.

As for sharpness. First consider your subject. You are not shooting bugs. You are shooting the bride and groom in a romantic setting. You probably do not need to see individual hairs in the grooms moustache. (Or, God forbid, the brides moustache.) So perhaps you are putting too much store on absolute sharpness. Nevertheless.....

The 70-200 has legendary sharpness, even wide open. Here is what Hogan said:

Performance typically boils down to two things: autofocus speed and sharpness. So let's just cut to the chase: this is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses, and the AF-S system works just as fast and as quietly on this lens as it does on any other.

Target testing shows that not only is this lens sharper wide open than its predecessors, it has excellent corner sharpness and slightly better than expected sharpness at small apertures (where diffraction starts to take a bit of sharpness away). I can't say it often enough: this is a sharp lens.

</blockquote>

What he said... If you have this lens you will not need the 85 F1.4. It will be a handicap as a matter of fact. So make sure you are covered on the wide end. Your 35 mm normal lens might not be wide enough. So get the wide one and the 70-200 and you will have the equipment to hit it out of the park.

Please go to a church where you can practice. Hopefully the one in which you will shoot the wedding. It is not enough to talk to the priest. Once you have done that go to the spots where you will be shooting and make your shot list. It would be best if you could have someone with you to act as a model for your practice session. Please do not be offended if I ask you to think about your metering in advance. When you set up your shots keep in mind the brides white dress and maybe the grooms black tux. Or whatever. I know that if you have this practice session you will feel great about the wedding and it will pay huge dividends. The priest is not your enemy. He has done this a buch of times. Ask for his suggestions. Ask him how he would like you dressed so that you don't intrude. Make him part of the process. He could be your best friend. He just might move you upstage a bit.

Great luck and PLEASE let us know how it goes.

December 5, 2010

I too am confused as to why you are so comitted to the 85 F1.4. You are renting a 70-200 F2.8. If you rent the AFS VR you will have the range of the 85 covered. With the stabilization you will be better off with the 70-200 particularly if you hand-hold. And, of course, you may well need the extra range. So I am in agreement with Benjamin on nixing the 85 F1.4. It is indeed a marvelous lens but

What you do not have is a wide angle lens. You need one. If not for the ceremony certainly, for the preparation shots and reception. This seems fairly obvious to me. Then there is 'real-life'. If you don't have a fast wide angle zoom lens you need one. I see your preference for primes and I do not share it. Unless you are going to peep at pixels they are inconvenient to say the least. High quality zooms like the Nikkor 17 - 55 or even better the 12 -24 F4 should be in every bag.

Anyway. You need to get wider, rent the long lens and spend your time practicing with them. Don't even think of picking up the 70-200 today and shoot a wedding with it tomorrow. You need to use it until you know what to expect from it.

Good luck with your wedding.

November 30, 2010

I can't say enough good things about Nikon repair service in El Segundo. Not only do they work quickly and professionally but they go far beyond what your local repairfacility will. They repaired this very problem in my 80-200 F2.8. At the same time they replaced the tripod mount and CLA'd the lens. They did it and returned it to me in two weeks very carefully packed and insured.

I will not comment on charges because I do not know if your lens is more or less but I believe your local estimate is in the ball park. Nikon also warrantees the repair which is nice.

You bought this lens for its Nikon quality. Why trust that to some local repair guy? He may be super but with Nikon you KNOW they know how to do it properly.

November 28, 2010

I chose the GSkill 120GB drive. I have my programs loaded on the SSD and my archives on a 1TB internal drive (WD Black). I also have auto backup to a Seagate 1.5TB external hard drive. I work up the photos on the SSD and transfer them to the Hard Drive. I know that some folks maintain that this 'wears' the SSD prematurely but I think not.

The SSD is just silly fast. I use an old AOL account for some stuff and the AOL program loads so fast I can't see the spash screen. If your motherboard supports SATA III the Crucial 300 gets super reviews. Mine doesn't sadly.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by leericks