portrait, wedding shooters, pls chime in.

HI, yep long time.... everything is doing fine except for a surgery coming up. Yikes. No, not serious but nonetheless 6 weeks down time.

I think I am leaning towards the Sigma 18 - 55mm way. For the time being i.e.

What have u been up to ?

Babe

--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

Radu Grozescu said:

David Grabowski said:

I have my wifes Pentax on a Newton bracket, it's small and light
for sure but the S2 won't fit it, not enough room to swing it to
vertical.

Click to expand...

Newton Di 100 FR2 will fit the Fuji S3 and even, if extended to the
max., the Nikon D200 with grip

Their last model ( Newton Di 100 FR ?) , non colapsible, before the
current models, fits the S3 but not the D200 with grip.

Member said:

I think the nicest bracket out there today is the Custom Bracket
but it's costly, so I use two Stroboframes.

Click to expand...

Which one ? I had a look at their website and I found some very
high, complicated things

I would like to find out more about different brackets, but for my
use I can't think of something visibly better than the Newton.

--
Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

Click to expand...

--

I use the Stroboframe Pro RL with the Qflash, the D100 or S2 and this is one of the gangly looking ones you probably saw ( not worth a darn on a tripod either by the way, shakes like crazy !!). I use the Stroboframe Camera Flip for the D70, though I had to put it in a vice and do a little alteration to it to get the Nikon module to clear when vertical. Then the little Newton is the one my wife uses with the Pentax ( sorry, I don't remember the model number off hand but I know it was for the Nikon FM series).

Several folks in the Nikon forum I noticed over time have mentioned the Stroboframe Pro T, I tried that and returned it for the Pro RL.
David

Custom Brackets you build with their accessories, there is a main frame, then you add the attachments to make it work for your rig. It gets costly , as they charge for each part, but it works slick as can be once set up right. I tried one in a store one time, but it was going to end up costing me over $250 without the quick release as I recall, another $50 or $60 and I couldn't live without the QR very well.

David

Babe said:

which two nikon bodies are you using ?

Click to expand...

I'm almost ashamed in these forums to say that I'm still using the D100 and D70 Babe, but I can't see a good enough reason to change just yet. the D70 with autoflash like a 285 will flash sync to 2500th without frame cut off, after that you start to get darker images but it will even then still work. With the SB 800 it shoots iTTL BL to 500th sec. and shot inb RAW I find plenty of resolution for the sizes I print to. I love the handling and dependability of the D100, I use it with a cutom curve in jpeg or shoot RAW, the files are rich in RAW and I convert either cameras NEF files in BIBBLE PRO or NX.

Babe said:

well seems like the consensus is 17 - 18 to 55mm. I will go the
Sigma way for a change this time even though I am a diehard Nikkor
addict.

Click to expand...

If you are going Sigma I think they make a 17-70 now but I know absolutely nothing about either lens to be honest, except maybe they don't have anything like AF-S ? tHey should be lighter than the Nkon 17-55 though. Just the Nikon 17-55 is a perfect match to the 70-200 IMO, also fine resolution. I don't know the Sigma line well enough to suggest it.

Babe said:

I love 70-200mm VR for bokeh and just the fine-ness of the
resolution - there is just this quality about it. Just kind of
delicious. Can't think of any other description !

Click to expand...

You don't have to explain , anyone using one already knows what you mean !!!

Babe said:

Hey the roller case is a great idea! I lug my Lowepro back pack!
Hah, one third of the weight problem solved :-> )

Click to expand...

Just don't overload it Babe, you can roll it anywhere but getting it in and out of the car is another matter.

Babe said:

The image is just lovely. The sepia conversion discreet and sweet.
Wish I had more weddings to shoot like that but it is very very
practical here although once in awhile, some will splash. I don't
have an image on my notebook to post but will when I am home and
can access my desktop.

Click to expand...

Glad you like it, it's just kind of tossed up here but in the album it looks great ( slightly different version plus I'm still on dial up so I can't load really big stuff here).

Babe said:

Thanks for sharing, brainstorming ! Keeps our grey cells lively.

Click to expand...

Sure thing,
David

The 18-55 Nikon is also a plastic lens and something like 3.5-4.5, the 17-55 is the af-s 2.8, weighs a pound and a half or something and I agree, it gets heavy by the end of a wedding. However, by then I can usually change to the 24-85D ( or someone could even use the G) anyway, all the fancy stuff is done.

David

Walter S Matthews said:

I own the Nikon 18-55 F2.8 lens and it is a
great lens. It is a supurb optic and it focuses beautifully. It
also is just too darn heavy. Every third wedding I pull it out and
fit it up and shoot with it, I tell myself, I can do it and by the
middle of the reception that lens is sitting in my bag and another
lens is on the camera after I have spent 10 minutes stretching out
my back muscles. I love the lens and I do not recommend it. I would
not get one again.

Click to expand...

well I am in Germany and not much difference here to the weddings you are shooting. Some have bridal gowns etc etc but no church ceremony, just at the AMT and then celebration lunch, brunch, dinner etc etc or just at the registrar. Not so lavish as in the US, UK as well. Pity.

cheers,

--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

my sentiments exactly about expectations and reality. I think they will understand - hard to not see it for oneself with the arrangements and cramped situation. Nonetheless, I feel very responsible to deliver top notch one way or another (just personally very ambitious) - I don't think they will be unhappy with the images I shot, just that I am disappointed with the lack of opportunity to make tremendous images.

cheers,
babe

--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

I know the Tamron 24 - 135mm is a good lense. IF I remember correctly, I think Bob Whiteman used it quite alot sometime ago. It was his walk around lense. I will go two bodies. I don't have a choice. Being already cyberspanked (and rightly so). Now is that Sigma 18 - 55mm or 18 - 50mm? Walter quotes 18 - 55mm ????? I'll have to look into it and it seems to be quite well liked and feasible. I love my 70 - 200 mm VR, that will be on my 2nd body plus another faster lense for changing (35 or 50mm 1.4) Could u please give me the details of the Sigma or do they have just one zoom offering in this focal length.

I am not concerned with the accessory photography. Usually the B&Gs here only appreciate it in a small way so even a cropped image is good enuff.

Thanks for chiming in.

cheers,
--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

It's a 2.8 straight through, Tamron in general has been a good brand for me and the colors run fairly true to Nikon color generally speaking. I don't know much about this particular lens, you can do the research but I know a lot of people even high up wedding guys that have had good luck with Tamron lenses. I have had a couple myself with no complaints, I know the 24-135SP I use outdoors at different events has been a sharp and colorfull performer and a 28-80SP in the old adaptall mount was a very good lens for me. The 90 macro is stellar and used by professionals and hobbiests alike, I bet if you get a good one this lens is a very good bet.

No AF-S though.

One guy in the Nikon forum I remember sold his 17-55 to get some money back out of it after he tried one of these lenses out and bought one.

David

You know what David, I must be an odd one because I am one of the few if at all others, who does not quite like the Tamron 90mm! I have one, maybe should sell it too hahahaa. I have alot of photo equipment that I should liquidate. For macros, subject permitting, I pick the 60mm Nikkor anytime. I haven't done macros lately so I don'T know what are the better offerings out there... oh yes, maybe the latest 105VR Nikkor. But that's another chapter.

I have to check out all the suggested lenses in the 17 - 18 - 50 - 55mm focal length category. Not quite sold on the 17 - 55mm, believe the superb optics just not the weight AGAIN.

The AFS is nice but not necessary the way weddings here go.

cheers,

David Grabowski said:

It's a 2.8 straight through, Tamron in general has been a good
brand for me and the colors run fairly true to Nikon color
generally speaking. I don't know much about this particular lens,
you can do the research but I know a lot of people even high up
wedding guys that have had good luck with Tamron lenses. I have had
a couple myself with no complaints, I know the 24-135SP I use
outdoors at different events has been a sharp and colorfull
performer and a 28-80SP in the old adaptall mount was a very good
lens for me. The 90 macro is stellar and used by professionals and
hobbiests alike, I bet if you get a good one this lens is a very
good bet.

No AF-S though.

One guy in the Nikon forum I remember sold his 17-55 to get some
money back out of it after he tried one of these lenses out and
bought one.

David

Click to expand...

--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

Sigma actually makes TWO 18-50mm f/2.8 lenses. The differences are that one version is macro capable, while the other version is not "macro" and has two aspherical elements. I believe the non-macro version to have fewer aberrations and both lenses of about equal sharpness.

Anthony

Babe said:

I know the Tamron 24 - 135mm is a good lense. IF I remember
correctly, I think Bob Whiteman used it quite alot sometime ago.
It was his walk around lense. I will go two bodies. I don't
have a choice. Being already cyberspanked (and rightly so). Now
is that Sigma 18 - 55mm or 18 - 50mm? Walter quotes 18 - 55mm
????? I'll have to look into it and it seems to be quite well
liked and feasible. I love my 70 - 200 mm VR, that will be on my
2nd body plus another faster lense for changing (35 or 50mm 1.4)
Could u please give me the details of the Sigma or do they have
just one zoom offering in this focal length.

I am not concerned with the accessory photography. Usually the
B&Gs here only appreciate it in a small way so even a cropped image
is good enuff.

Thanks for chiming in.

cheers,
--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

Click to expand...

--
check out my blog at http://anthonyonphotography.blogspot.com

In doing some checking after posting, I see that people are finding the newer macro version to have fewer aberrations. So there you go.

Anthony

Anthony said:

Anthony

Babe said:

I know the Tamron 24 - 135mm is a good lense. IF I remember
correctly, I think Bob Whiteman used it quite alot sometime ago.
It was his walk around lense. I will go two bodies. I don't
have a choice. Being already cyberspanked (and rightly so). Now
is that Sigma 18 - 55mm or 18 - 50mm? Walter quotes 18 - 55mm
????? I'll have to look into it and it seems to be quite well
liked and feasible. I love my 70 - 200 mm VR, that will be on my
2nd body plus another faster lense for changing (35 or 50mm 1.4)
Could u please give me the details of the Sigma or do they have
just one zoom offering in this focal length.

I am not concerned with the accessory photography. Usually the
B&Gs here only appreciate it in a small way so even a cropped image
is good enuff.

Thanks for chiming in.

cheers,
--
I wasted time, so time wasted me - Savatage.
Heaven forbid! - Babe

Click to expand...

--
check out my blog at http://anthonyonphotography.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

--
check out my blog at http://anthonyonphotography.blogspot.com

Babe said:

You know what David, I must be an odd one because I am one of the
few if at all others, who does not quite like the Tamron 90mm! I
have one, maybe should sell it too hahahaa. I have alot of photo
equipment that I should liquidate. For macros, subject
permitting, I pick the 60mm Nikkor anytime. I haven't done macros
lately so I don'T know what are the better offerings out there...
oh yes, maybe the latest 105VR Nikkor. But that's another chapter.

Click to expand...

The Tamron 90 as used the way I'm thinking of is more for portraits than macro ! I agree, I had the Nikkor 60 for macro work but turned it in on another lens since I don't do many macro shots. Sometimes I wish I still had it but I get along ok without it as I can get "close enough" in wedding and portrait work with several of my existing lenses .

Babe said:

I have to check out all the suggested lenses in the 17 - 18 - 50 -
55mm focal length category. Not quite sold on the 17 - 55mm,
believe the superb optics just not the weight AGAIN.

Click to expand...

It's heavy ( not quite as bad as the 28-70) but solid, not for everyone and it gets old even for me ( my back sucks, thus the rolling case !!!). It never hunts though, it's great for the early action and we do go 8 hours here too, so I'm looking for back relief a few hours into this stuff.

Babe said:

The AFS is nice but not necessary the way weddings here go.

cheers,

Click to expand...

Well anyway, just thought I'd toss up the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
David

Babe said:

Thanks for sharing. Exactly. I want to go light-er since I have
to be very mobile and on my feet alot. I have a Metz 54-3 and
a 70mz 5 (which is like major flash) but will get another Metz 54,
the sca module will allow for slave mode even TTL but I am not
interested in that. Usually will set my flash manually and if I
use two, I will also set the 2nd flash manually.

Click to expand...

Than maybe you should look to the Nikon SB 800. It is lighter and smaller and your camera will not be so much top heavy, which will save your wrists.

Babe said:

However, having said that, I do not anticipate using such a
comprehensive set up for weddings here, at least not the weddings I
have had to date. The weddings are practical and smaller.

Click to expand...

Nothing comprehensive: 1 camera, 2 lenses, one flash on the camera and if needed, the second one on the stand. For indoors, with a brollie.

Back-up in the car.

The dream setup will be the Fuji S5 with 2 SB 800 which can do wireless TTL (or manual) without being triggered by the guest flashes
Same as the current Nikon cameras do.

--
Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

Though I am usually not in favor of lenses with a floating aperture I would recommend the 18-70 3.5/4.5 lens that came with my D70s. If you are in tight quarters, the lens speed is fine. The lens is very sharp although it is not a rugged design.

This lens is one of the few amateur lenses that is actually worth having. Many serious testings have been done and they all confirm what I said. Another benefit is the low price. This one is easy to add without breaking the bank. It may leave you with money for a new camera body.
Happy shooting
--
Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna

Babe said:

I have to check out all the suggested lenses in the 17 - 18 - 50 -
55mm focal length category. Not quite sold on the 17 - 55mm,
believe the superb optics just not the weight AGAIN.

Click to expand...

I have both Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Nikon 17-55/2.8. I used the Tamron for wedding work and I would not hesitate to use it again.

The difference in size and weight is more than you can think from the specs.

The Nikon is visibly better at 2.8 but for the event type shots you may close the aperture to 5.6 just to get enough DOF, so the difference will not be visible anymore.

I can not speak for the Sigma lenses, I did not try any 17-50 by Sigma.

--
Radu Grozescu

http://www.RaduGrozescu.com
Corporate & Editorial Photography

With the Metz flash, the floating aperture is not much of a problem. I recently read flash tests and the Metz is on top. One of the few flashes that can handle the floating aperture well.
--
Rinus of Calgary/Kelowna

I agree with Rinus on the image quality of the 18-70 lens. It is a very very good lens and we own and use two of them. The only problem with them is part of the problem with the S3/S2 in lower light situations, the S3 or S2 cameras will fire when the image is not in focus. Usually it has caught something in the background to lock in on but regardless of where it thought you were shooting, you get an OOF shot and lots of irritation. I'm not sure why but the newer longer focal length Zoom that came as a kit lens with the D80 doesn't show the OOF problem nearly as often.

Walter S Matthews said:

I agree with Rinus on the image quality of the 18-70 lens. It is a
very very good lens and we own and use two of them. The only
problem with them is part of the problem with the S3/S2 in lower
light situations, the S3 or S2 cameras will fire when the image is
not in focus. Usually it has caught something in the background to
lock in on but regardless of where it thought you were shooting,
you get an OOF shot and lots of irritation. I'm not sure why but
the newer longer focal length Zoom that came as a kit lens with the
D80 doesn't show the OOF problem nearly as often.

Click to expand...

--

I compared high ISO shots taken at the same place and time with my 24-85D using my own camera body and the contrast as well as sharpness weren't there in the 18-70 images by comparison. I did try just the one lens then went on a search for the 17-55 and found one at full retail, maybe one of the first to purchase one here in the forums. That lens is sharper than the 24-85D and my most used lens for weddings now.

All I read about are rave reviews of this lens ( 18-70), it must be true but it didn't prove out for me personally.
David

Hi, Walter.

I have a few questions if you don't mind.

I couldn't find a 24-135 VR like you mentioned.
Did you mean the 24-120 VR?

You use the Sigma 18-55 for the formals?

What lens do you use to cover the bride getting ready?

What do you use to cover the ceremony when
no flash is allowed?

Do you find the AF of the Sigma 18-55 and Nikor
35 f/2 to be fast enough to capture the candids?