Hello folks.

I'm trying to build a system around the F-100 for environmental portraiture and wedding photojournalism. I'm stuck on which lenses would be best to start with.

I'm told a zoom in the 28-70 range with a constant aperture is a good choice for what I want to do. The Nikon is about $1500.00, which is rich for my blood but seems very highly rated. Sigma has one for $340.00, and while it is not as highly rated, neither does it have bad ratings as far as I can see. $1200.00 is a lot of difference for me.

Then I'm looking at the Nikkor 24 f2.8 for $289.00, but I wonder if there's enough difference between it and the low end of the 28-70 zoom to justify the money. And on the medium telephoto end the 85 f1.8 Nikon for $359.00 looks good for it's speed, and is considerably cheaper than the 105 f2 with defocus control at $849.00. But is it enough longer than the long end of the 28-70 zoom to bother with?

Or maybe I should skip the zoom entirely, following Greenspun's sugggestion that anyone with a zoom is a "dickless yuppie," and buy a 24 f2.8, a 50 f1.4 and an 85 f1.8.

Can anyone suggest a place on the web to find ratings and reviews of equipment? The only thing I've found is at Photozone.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Richard

-- Richard Evans (evans@dbtech.net), August 01, 1999

Answers

I use a AF 24/2.8 D, AF 35/2.0 D, AF 50/1.8, and a AF 105/2.8 D Micro. I don't do any wedding photography, so I can't really help you there, but for environmental portraitures, the four lenses I list on an F4s work well for me.

-- Jim Bridges (jcbejb@worldnet.att.net), August 01, 1999.

Don't buy a Sigma anything unless you want to replace it in a year or two. Spend the money on Nikon lenses and they will serve you for a long, long time! I like zooms but if you go with primes perhaps a 28mm, 50mm and a 105 with works for you.

-- 7290 (70761.3531@compuserve.com), August 01, 1999.

For weddingjournalism I think you better opt for the convenience of a zoom (although 70mm is sometimes not enough). The Nikon is indeed expensive but for this kind of photography I would surely recommend it. Don't forget to invest in a top quality flash. Ivan.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), August 02, 1999.

I believe 28-70 is not the right choice. Portraiture requires intimacy and you aren't going to get that at 28-70 unless you are oppressively close to your subjects. I believe the 80-200AFS will give you the working distance and autofocus speed you will need.

-- Chris Hawkins (peace@clover.net), August 02, 1999.

As far as the reports say, both Sigma EX and Tokina ATX series are good alternatives and you won't go wrong with either. For photojournalism you better off with zoom as you may not be able to move back and forth quickly to capture the right composition. Get both the Sigma/Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 and 70/80-200 f/2.8 and you'll set. Good luck.

-- Yusuf Apsoro (y.a.r.apsoro@lr.tudelft.nl), August 02, 1999.

Don't forget the other f/2.8 zoom Nikon makes in that range -- the 35-70 AFD for about $600-700. It has a mighty fine reputation. A lot of walking-around, reception, and small group shots could be handled without resorting to the 28mm: square wedding shooters use their 50's, which is only the equivalent of 30-32mm. For the group shots where the 35-70 doesn't cut it, try the 24mm AFD prime, or the 28mm if you want more distance.

For a portrait lens your choices are more limiting. The 85mm f/1.8 is what I use for portraits, but it's too close for me for a headshot, so you might need something a bit longer -- unless you're going to skip the traditional head and head & shoulders shots. On the plus side, it blurs backgrounds nicely and is high quality. If I could, I'd get the 105 DC for the ability to take a soft focus shot without having to slap a filter up, notifying your subject that "THIS IS A SOFT FOCUS SHOT." There are other new and used 105 options (the old 105/2.5 MF lens has a good rep for portraits). 135mm isn't very popular anymore, but it might be perfect for you. I liked working with a two lens set for bridal portraiture, so I'd personally want either an 85/1.8 and 180/2.8 set or an 80-200/2.8 zoom (the zoom is cheaper unless you go AFS). The advantage of the multiple focal lengths for brides is the surreptitious headshot without moving the camera position... handy.

I'd have the 24/2.8, the old AFD 35-70, and one of my portrait choices. That's not cheap -- $1500 at least, but that's a whole pro quality set-up for the price of that AFS, and it affords backup lenses for inevitable breakage. (What's your backup body, by the way?)

Good luck with the weddings.

-- John O'Connell (oconnell@siam.org), August 02, 1999.

Oh. I forgot:

The reason I recommend the Nikkor glass is that you'll already have to contend with using the same equipment as some of the guests. I showed up at a wedding last week with an F3/MD-4 and some primes, to find the pro using an N90s and the fast zooms. All I was doing was getting some availably-lit B&W for my cousin the bride, but he was visibly annoyed when I showed up with my little camera and started swapping lenses -- even though I didn't scavenge his shots. I think he'd have been even more annoyed if he'd had a third-party lens. Don't compromise your quality, but more than that don't compromise appearances.

-- John O'Connell (oconnell@siam.org), August 02, 1999.

For lens tests and subjective ratings, look at photo.do and photo.zone.

-- Jim Meyer (jim_meyer@compusa.com), August 04, 1999.

I bought the Tokina ATX 28-70 f 2.6-2.8 about a month ago to use with my n90s for some of the weddings I do. I have used it for some of the shots at my last two weddings. I am using the same film in it and my bronica, Portra 400nc and I am hard pressed to see any difference in the proofs. I have not had any enlargements made from the 35mm but I have looked at the negs. under 10x and they look great. This lens does come up short on the tele. end sometimes but for 399.00 after mfg. 40.00 rebate and 5 yr warrantry it seems like a lot of bang for the buck.

-- Jeff Harville (f.harville@worldnet.att.net), August 06, 1999.

I think you'll find 70mm isn't long enough for a lot of what you say you want to do. I do a lot of similar work (non-pro), and it's certainly too short for me. I've got the Tokina ATX-PRO 28-70 2.8, and I've actually added a Tamron 28-105 f2.8. The optical quality of the Tokina is excellent, but it's too short. The optical quality of the Tamron is excellent except it flares a lot (imagine that, a 3.75:1 f2.8 zoom, flaring!) if there is a lot of light coming in (high-key studio setups are right out, for example; but I didn't buy it as a studio lens).

You might look at a 35-105 lens. Not sure who makes a good one, though. And then a 24mm. Definitely personal preference here -- but 28mm isn't a good length for me for people. It's too intermediate; I tend to take badly composed shots with distorted faces. I get nice results often with the 24, though.

At the risk of being considered a dickless yuppie :-), I'd say 24mm, 35-105, 80-200 would be a good set.

-- David Dyer-Bennet (dd-b@dd-b.net), September 22, 1999.

If budget is limited I would recommend buying a few prime lens rather than wasting your money on a cheap zoom. For starters the 35/2 AF-D is a must have in any Nikkor kit. This lens is equal to any of my Leicas of the same focal length. The 85/1.8 AF is a true portrait lens - pleasantly soft wide open but razor sharp by f/2.8. For what you are doing these two lenses are all you need. Have fun!

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), September 28, 1999.