so much to buy

[bigsarg7]

Hello, well I've got another wedding to photograph and its got me thinking about my current glass.(lens) I love my 50mm 1.8, and my zoom lens isn't to bad. But i am wanting to look into for future purchase a zoom lens that would work well in low light - churches / buildings etc. I am curious to know what everyone else uses and their reasons as to why they use them and recommend them. The local camera store guy was suggesting a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG (thanks tom for helping me realise my typing error). In all honesty I am unsure if it is even suitable for my d200 - he had no idea himself. He just suggested I take my camera in and have a fiddle in store before making my mind up.

But as this forum has so many members who have a collection of some amazing lenses, i would love to know what you use and if you suggest it. Most of you know I am no way claiming to be a pro (far far from it) but I am wanting to photograph weddings, babies, portraits. I am wanting a zoom lens so i can zoom up on an object and have a lens that can work well in all lighting situations.

Look forward to hearing from everyone.

Kristen

[tommyg]

I'm thinking that you mean the Sigma 70-200 2.8?

I have the Nikon 70-200 2.8AFS, and this is a great lens, very sharp at most of the range, works well with a 1.4 if you need a little more reach as well.

Either lens though would go well on a D200, with the crop frame. I'd say the Nikon one is a better lens, but it is also higher priced - although with the new VRII version out, there are some good second hand ones available under $2,000. Still a fair bit more than the Sigma though.

Another lens that would go well for you might be the new Nikon 35 DX prime they released not too long ago - a little wider than the 50 so works well indoors.

Cheers
Tom

[bigsarg7]

thanks for that tom, i have looked at the nikkor version and it does sound really good, but is there a big difference in the quality of shots from that lens to the sigma lens?

[Mj]

Kristen,

In that zoom range and apeture there are probably four options worth looking at.
1. nikkor 70-200 vr II - the most expensive and newest option and ideal if you have deep pockets and a need for vr II level stability
2. nikkor 70-200 vr I - the previous vr model that is still an excellent lens with slightly less stability control but a lot cheaper
3. nikkor 80-200 - there are 2 models in this actually (with and without AFS) but basically this is what most pros used for years... no vr but built like a tank and half the price of option 2 (or nearly a third of option 1)
4. sigma 70-200 - similar to option 3 but less metal, more plastic, also no vr like option 1 and 2... but still a very good lens and a couple of the guys here did a shoot out a few years back and decided that it was pretty line ball in comparison.

hope this hasn't just done more to confuse... I think that you would be happy with any of these lens but if low light is a key issue then vr becomes quite useful. The only other suggestion is to really make sure that this range is what you need... I've often used a 50/1.4 and an 85/1.4 and also the 24-70/2.8 quite happily.

[Matt. K]

There is only one lens that you need for weddings...the 28 - 70mm F2.8. There is a second hand one currently for sale on this forum. If you can't afford this then try for a second hand 35 - 70mm F2.8 at around $400 for a good one and perhaps a 28mm f2.8 for wides. Nikkors of course.

[aim54x]

I am with Matt here, the 28-70 f/2.8 would be a worthy addition. As you are on DX maybe have a look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 as well.

In that zoom range and apeture there are probably four options worth looking at.
1. nikkor 70-200 vr II - the most expensive and newest option and ideal if you have deep pockets and a need for vr II level stability
2. nikkor 70-200 vr I - the previous vr model that is still an excellent lens with slightly less stability control but a lot cheaper
3. nikkor 80-200 - there are 2 models in this actually (with and without AFS) but basically this is what most pros used for years... no vr but built like a tank and half the price of option 2 (or nearly a third of option 1)
4. sigma 70-200 - similar to option 3 but less metal, more plastic, also no vr like option 1 and 2... but still a very good lens and a couple of the guys here did a shoot out a few years back and decided that it was pretty line ball in comparison.

There are actually 3 versions of the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 (AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 - shortlived and very sought after, AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 - available new, AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 push-pull)

I would hunt a 2nd hand 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (original version) as they have gone for less than 1500 lately.

[bigsarg7]

thanks folks for your comments, i've taken it all in, and currently trying to source some finances. I think i'll go for a 28-70mm 2.8 it would be nice to have the further zoom but in reality I don't think I wouls use it as often as I would like to. So practically it would be wiser to go for the 28-70mm. No doubt everyone will find out when and what I buy as I buy it.

Although my husband jus showed me an olf 64 EH holden for sale.....shucks thats just nasty....my dream car!! lol if only we all had unlimited finances to buy what we want when we want!

[DaveB]

Just to mix things up a bit, Sigma have two lenses at these lengths.
One has "OS" (Optical Stabiliser: their version of IS/VR) and is roughly twice the cost of the non-OS lens.

So many options...
My problem is they don't make the lenses I want.

[wendellt]

i haVe a refurbished Nikkor 80-200 AF-D for sale