shydroxide

<p>:D I didn't realize that my response never got through to all of this. We're perfectly happy to feed the photographers, and given the outpouring of commentary here, it's going to be <em>my</em> top priority; I'll let the little lady worry about all the other things. I don't have a head for details. ;)</p>

<p>Curt:</p>

<p>Me and my husband? Lol, I wasn't aware that Steve was now a girl's name. :P</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>So I'm getting married in early 2010, and one question that's come up that I don't have the answer to is what the etiquette is on feeding the wedding photographers.<br>

<br />The girls that I'm hiring didn't mention it either during our meeting or in their literature, and from reading some of the other posts here in the Wedding forum it looks like most people do treat the photographers to a meal, but not always.<br>

<br />Is there a hard and fast rule about this? Do you guys think mean, scornful thoughts about the people who <em>didn't</em> feed you?<br>

<br />Thanks! :D</p>

<p>Has anyone picked this new 50mm up yet? How does it compare with the old ones (the 1.8 or the 1.4)?</p>

<p>I'm interested in getting one for my D300, as I like the grab-and-go A/M autofocus rather than the old get-your-hands-off-me sort of operation.</p>

The problem I have with the 17-55 is that it's DX only, which means I couldn't use it later on an FX body

(well, I could, but probably only at 55mm).

Oops! Duh, I meant the 35mm. Hurr.

Hi,

 

My kit right now includes a Tokina 11-16 and a Nikkor 105 VR on a D300.

 

I'm looking for one more fast lens (1.4, 1.8, 2.0) somewhere in the middle of these two lenses. I'm wondering

whether I should grab the 30mm f/2 (which gives an angle of view on DX similar to a "normal" 50mm lens) or whether I

should grab a 50mm, maybe wait a few months for the new AF-S 50 1.4's.

 

Can anyone weigh in on this? I _just_ got the 11-16, so I don't really need to buy anything within the next month or

two at least, but it'd be nice to know what the better idea would be. As far as I can see, the 50mm is probably the

best idea if I plan to move to FX in the future (though at that point I'd have to sell the poor 11-16 and pick up the 14-

24. :P).

 

Thanks!

It's funny, the photo.net forums don't seem as rife with the rumors of lenses like that the way the dpreview.com forums are.

They already have one, technically, so long as you don't mind AI-s vs. AF. :P

For those who have suggested that I'm leaving a gaping hole in the middle of the zoom range, that's why I'm banking on Nikon releasing an AF-S 50mm at Photokina. Maybe even an f/1.2. :D Seriously, though, I want something super fast for low-light, and about a 50mm will fill the niche nicely.

It's going on a D300, incidentally, but I don't think my eyesight is good enough for me to do a lot of manual focusing.

The only reason I don't consider the 60mm is that, looking back at everything I took with the 18-200, 95% of it was at 18mm or 100-200mm. I did very, very little in between that. I'm picking up the Tokina 11-16 (whenever my local store gets some stock) to cover the wide end, and want something to cover the long. The 85 would do (and I have eventual plans to pick up a dedicated telephoto), but I think the 60 would be too short for most of what I end up doing.

I'll keep this short and to the point:

 

I'm replacing my 18-200 with a prime for most walk-around stuff. I'm just not sure whether to go with the 105VR

Micro or the 85 1.4.

 

Thoughts? I think the Micro would give me more versatility as I constantly find myself trying to get closer to little

fiddly things as I walk around, but I don't know how its IQ compares to the 85 1.4.