Which nikon lens or a new camera???

L

lisamcconalogue

Messages
47
Name
Lisa
Edit My Images
No
I have started taking some wedding photography and I find I need more light and preferably not flash!!!! I have a nikon D90 with 18-55 mm lens, nikon 50 mm 1.8 lens, tamron 10-20 lens and tamron 70-300 lens. I hate having to stop and change lenses and want something to cover all, I mostly use the 18-55 and 50 mm prime. I considered buying another camera e.g. the next step up from D90 but wondered is this just a waste of money - I was thinking maybe a camera where I could bump the ISO up more.

I want a lens with a 2.8 aperature as I think this will give me more light.
I have been looking at the Nikon 24-70 2.8 but this is very expensive but I'm willing to save my money and purchase this but it's just going to take me longer to get it!!!!
I also looked at the Sigma 17-70 2.8 but apparently this doesn't have the 2.8 throughout.
A friend also suggested the Tamron 17-50 2.8.
Does anyone use any of these lens and which do they find the best. The only thing that puts me off buying the 17-50 is I have less of a zoom!

My price range is from £500 - £1000
I would appreciate any comments!
 
If you wanted to use the camera without flash, i'd say you need to upgrade your camera, as the D90 gets fairly grainy at high ISO's..........Not sure what the D7000 is like (supposed to be very good), or you could go for the D700 :D
 
I've noticed that with the D90 as was trying it out at the weekend with high ISO and anything past even 640 seems to have grain! I must price the D7000 or D700. Thank you.
 
Camera wise the D700 or D3 are your only decent updrades as they can shoot at high ISO. Getting better lenses will help a lot, an with your budget the only option. Until recently I have been usingthe Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which is very good and at around £200 second hand a big saving on the Nikon. Is it as good, No, but pound for pound it is excellent at more than 4 times cheaper and IQ is still very good.

In an ideal world you would want the Tamron and D700 - Second hand at a guess you should be able to get these for £1600, maybe £1500. Sell your D90 and kit lens for £500 and yoy may be close to the £1000 budget?
 
Save up and get the 70-200 f2.8. I am not sure how the Sigmas compare to the Nikon ones but they are great for weddings. Good glass is better investment IMHO
 
architectfadi said:
Save up and get the 70-200 f2.8. I am not sure how the Sigmas compare to the Nikon ones but they are great for weddings. Good glass is better investment IMHO
Click to expand...

Good glass is very important, but you won't be able to shoot indoors, without flash with a D90........would be grainy as hell! :gag:
 
if you're going to stick with DX bodies, then I can't recommend the sigma 50-150 f/2.8 highly enough - it seems a little overshadowed by the 70-200 f/2.8, but is half the weight, and unless you need the long end a lot, that bit extra at the wide end is very useful... I pocked mine up second hand for around £250 IIRC, and it's a brilliant bit of kit.

I've just ordered a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM to go with it, so will ahve a good range covered with 2 lenses...
 
I'm surprised no one has suggested the nikon 17-55 f2.8. I've got one for my d300 and it is a cracking lens. Brilliant build quality and is really sharp. That coupled with the 70-200 f2.8 and you have a great range.
There are plenty of 17-55's at under £600.
 
Thanks for all the replies.
It's just hard to make the right decision. I know good glass is very important, but I took photos at a friends wedding and the chapel was so dark that even trying out my 50 mm 1.8 I still didn't get light. I think the way forward is a new camera where I can bump up the ISO.
I have been looking at the D700 and D300 and I think I need to invest in one of these or is there any other nikon cameras which work well at a high ISO?
Does this mean that my lenses won't work on these???
I've also a nikon D60 which I could sell.
 
Sell the D60 to start off with then! ;)

Don't bother with the D300, as it won't be much improvement on the D90....

Look at either D7000 or D700 :)
 
viewfromthenorth said:
D700 = FX, which would mean a new selection of lenses (although the 50 and 70-300 will work).

D300 or D7000 is well worth a look as you can still use all your lenses.
Click to expand...

True about the lenses needing to be changed - didn't think of that! :bang:

Mind you, i doubt the D300 would be any better than the D90 at high ISO.....
 
Without going full frame, I think you're probably best considering a D7000. That should give you another 1-2 of stops ISO to play with. Maybe couple that with a 85mm and 35mm 1.8 payed for by selling the D90. That's going to give you the best part of 4 more stops to play with compared to using a 2.8 on your D90.
 
Save up for a D700, that's your only real upgrade option. The D7000 is nice enough for a crop, but you'll still find plenty of situations that need more light, and the IQ doesn't touch full frame sensors.
 
Ksanti said:
Save up for a D700, that's your only real upgrade option. The D7000 is nice enough for a crop, but you'll still find plenty of situations that need more light, and the IQ doesn't touch full frame sensors.
Click to expand...

It is a huge leap in cost terms though when you consider the cost of decent FX lenses to pair with it. I'd agree though that ultimately high performance in low light = full frame.
 
Ummmm, what to do. I know I should save up for the D700 and then sell the D60 and other lenses which will not fit the D700, but this will take time to save and I want it now!!!! Decisions, decisions......
I appreciate all the help but wonder should I upgrade to the D7000 which will do me another year or so, or is there any point in wasting £1,000 when I know I'll still not be happy until I get to full-frame!!!
 
Consider just how much high ISO stuff you'll be doing - if it's occasional then you're paying a heck of a premium for functionality that you're not going to be getting the most use out of. At lower ISO's I'm not convinced that you'd notice the difference (unless you were pixel peeping at 100%) between a D300 / D7000 and a D700, although I've not much evidence to back that up.

As a D700 owner for over 2 years, I can tell you that it is an exceptional camera, but you really do need top end glass to go with it. I bought a D700 instead of a D700 primarily for it's higher ISO performance (I use it quite a bit at 2000-6400), but if it wasn't for that, I'd be more than content with a D300 and I'd have saved myself nearly two grand changing my lenses from DX plus the extra £700 that the D700 cost me. But if you've got your heart set on full frame, hey, go for it!!!
 
Lisa...I apologize up front, because this will sound brutal, but you have neither the camera or the glass to do weddings consistently well. You can pull off some shots, but many will be poor.

Simply saying that you want a one-lens-does-it-all solution shows that you don't have the depth of experience needed to really do well.

I'm NOT saying you can't learn and/or buy the equipment needed to do superb work. I'm just suggesting you aren't there yet.
 
Y15HAL said:
These are all great suggestions, but can they perform indoors with low light on a D90???
Click to expand...

I've seen perfectly good indoor shots from a D200 which is much worse at high ISO than the D90, it's all in the lens and proper exposure.

There's sooooooo much more to it than high ISO.
 
Nawty said:
There's sooooooo much more to it than high ISO.
Click to expand...

There may be, but at the end of the day you want the maximum flexibility to cover the variation and range of shooting situations you may come across, so it's best to have access to kit that will buffer you for those potential situations.
 
Nawty said:
I've seen perfectly good indoor shots from a D200 which is much worse at high ISO than the D90, it's all in the lens and proper exposure.

There's sooooooo much more to it than high ISO.
Click to expand...

I have to agree here, seriously how did pro wedding photographers ever cope before d700's and d3's come along? D90/d300 and fast glass is a powerful combination. With good exposure and good pp software such as lightroom 3, noise should be the least of worries here. Much more to these cameras than noise. I here the d7000 is improved noise, but again, I think we get obsessed over this noise thing. Light, composition and creativity are most important here :)
 
hunter20ga said:
Lisa...I apologize up front, because this will sound brutal, but you have neither the camera or the glass to do weddings consistently well. You can pull off some shots, but many will be poor.

Simply saying that you want a one-lens-does-it-all solution shows that you don't have the depth of experience needed to really do well.

I'm NOT saying you can't learn and/or buy the equipment needed to do superb work. I'm just suggesting you aren't there yet.
Click to expand...

I appreciate what your saying, but I don't take bookings for just anyone it's mainly family and friends and so far they are very happy with their photographs. I do realise that there is not a "one-lens-does-all" solution but I was just asking general advice. We all have to start somewhere....
 
Thank you very much for this, it's very obvious that the D700 performs better at a higher ISO!
 
Hi Lisa,

Regarding your clients, have they raised it as an issue?
I appreciate you wish to get technically better photos but you don't want to rush into this, as with the money involved, you don't want to realise you've gone down the wrong route.

I think the first decision is if you want to go fx or stay dx. Stay dx and you can keep you glass and could also look at keeping the d90 as a backup for your weddings. Not only handy if your first camera plays up, but also means you can carry around the second body with a lens attached.

Go full frame and you are entering a whole new level of expense.

I think you're going to have a sore head thinking this one thru!
 
In my opinion spend your money on good quality lenses before you upgrade. The D90 is a cracking camera, your only real upgrade is moving to a D700 which isn't cheap!
D7000 although brilliant for the price isn't worlds apart from your camera in real world situations. Sure the images are a little better at high iso but with good PP you can minimise this very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top