# Nikon 18-200mm AF-S f/3.5-5.6 and Weddings



## D40 (Jun 21, 2007)

Well, I was wandering if this lense would make a good wedding/ portrait lens. If anyone has used it or heard anything about it, I would love to hear what you have to say. Also, I have the D40 and now that I am learning more I am wandering if I may want to upgrade to say a D80 or D200? I will first be getting a good lens like the one in question but for shooting weddings and portraits I was wandering if I would be better off getting a D80 body to go with the new lens and use the D40 as a backup? Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated


----------



## JIP (Jun 21, 2007)

First of all DO NOT BUY THAT LENS!!!!.  If you are seriously considering charging people to shoot their weddings you will be doing them a serious dis-service if you use that lens.  Second if as I previously said you are going to shoot weddings and you are trying to choose a second body get the D200.  The D200 is a better body to stand up to the day to day abuse of portrait and wedding photography.  If you need to wait to afford it do it you already have an acceptable body start with.  The D40 will be an acceptable backup to the D200 but your lens selection is limited.


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 21, 2007)

If you want to be a wedding photographer...it would be very advantageous to buy fast lenses.  That means zoom lenses with a maximum aperture of F2.8 across the whole zoom range.  

For example, the 17-55 F2.8


----------



## PNA (Jun 21, 2007)

JIP said:


> First of all DO NOT BUY THAT LENS!!!!.


 
Please state your reasons......I'm planning to buy one myself.

If it's just because of the wedding use, OK, but are there any other reasons?????


----------



## D40 (Jun 21, 2007)

Thanks for the advise, so you do think that I should save up for the D200? As far as the bads I have heard about that lens:

Lens creep is pretty bad on it.
Image quallity is not as good as it should be for a $750 lens.

Ok, I see your points on the faster lens but I would like something with a little more zoom than a 55mm. Do you have any suggestions that you feel are good quallity lenses?

Thanks, I love all the advise and yes the D40 makes a great backup as it is small and easy to carry


----------



## D40 (Jun 21, 2007)

I may be shaddowing a wedding photographer on Sat. and I think that will be some good experience I am looking forward to it a lot! Do any of you wedding Photographers have any tips, things to keep an eye on? I am hoping to learn a lot from this photographer who I will be shadowing but I know I can count on the fokes on this site as well which is comforting Thanks guys (galls)!


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 21, 2007)

The 18-200 VR is an excellent lens, but it is absolutely the wrong lens for wedding photography.

The 18-200 is super for candid photography, where you will be shooting in low light situations using long shutter speeds... it is also great for taking general pictures... my wife shoots hers exclusively at the zoo.

Being a superzoom, it gives up a lot of sharpness (especially at the 200 end), and it is way too slow for church work. You want fast lenses that are absolutely tack sharp at all distances... 

Weddings, if you do them right, are tricky. You need to be an absolute expert in lighting, posing, dealing with people, and you need to have the best equipment that you can get... and plenty of backup equipment. I shot weddings for years, and I tell you from my personal experience, it is very hard work that demands perfection (or as close as the shooter can get to it).

Having a D40 with a superzoom lens isn't going to cut it.

I love your idea of shadowing a pro to see how he or she does it... great plan.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 21, 2007)

D40 said:


> I may be shaddowing a wedding photographer on Sat. and I think that will be some good experience I am looking forward to it a lot! Do any of you wedding Photographers have any tips, things to keep an eye on? I am hoping to learn a lot from this photographer who I will be shadowing but I know I can count on the fokes on this site as well which is comforting Thanks guys (galls)!




Sit down over coffee and ask what he/she would like you to do and what the plan of action is along with any time table.  Also ask what you should not do -any pet peeves they have. After this you can ask what style they want you to shoot and ask for any hints/clarification on how to do what they want.  You may not be getting paid but you should act like it- never be anything less than professional.

You might want to take this time to get a 24/28mm f2.8. (these shouldn't break the bank and will prove useful if you learn what the hyperfocal is)

Good luck and enjoy.  With any luck you may just get to be in an honest-to-goodness fairy tail where they really do get to live happily after!

m


----------



## JIP (Jun 21, 2007)

PNA said:


> Please state your reasons......I'm planning to buy one myself.
> 
> If it's just because of the wedding use, OK, but are there any other reasons?????


Having that kind of range in a lens always causes problems at the far ends of the focal lengths. If you look at reviews from people who have not already purchased that type of lens so they have no stake in it being a good lens you will find the overall consensus is that it is not a good lens. I guess if you want to compromise image quality for portability that is your choice but I can figure out alot better lenses to buy for $750.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 21, 2007)

JIP said:


> If you look at reviews from people who have not already purchased that type of lens so they have no stake in it being a good lens you will find the overall consensus is that it is not a good lens.



So it's better to take the word of somebody who has never shot a lens over somebody who has put ten or twenty thousand images on one?

Interesting.

Also, just curious where this "overall consensus" that people find the 18-200 VR "not a good lens" is coming from. I Googled "Nikon 18-200 review", and started reading the reviews from people who had actually tested the lens, and I perhaps I am blind, but I am finding it hard to find ANYBODY that has actually taken one out for a spin saying that the 18-200 lens "is not a good lens".

You don't have to trust me on this, Google it yourself. Check the first 5 or 6 pages, and click on the review sites to find out for yourself it they are saying it "is not a good lens".


----------



## hawee99 (Jun 21, 2007)

I'm thinking of getting that VR lens to. Someone on here just offered to sell me there's. So any more info on the lens would be great. I have also read great reviews of it.  I'm weak on the technical side.  Can you explain why a F2.8 is better for weddings?


----------



## JIP (Jun 21, 2007)

hawee99 said:


> I'm thinking of getting that VR lens to. Someone on here just offered to sell me there's. So any more info on the lens would be great. I have also read great reviews of it. I'm weak on the technical side. *Can you explain why a F2.8 is better for weddings*?


 
To get a 2.8 max. aperture on a lens they need to use larger and sharper glass and more elements this translates to a higher quality lens.  Add to that the fact that weddings are often shot in dark churches where flash may not be allowed and for a situation like this a fast lens is a necessity.


----------



## hawee99 (Jun 21, 2007)

so even if my camera goes to that aperature, the lens will restrict it? maybe I should take a class. ahahaha


----------



## Stretch Armstrong (Jun 21, 2007)

hawee99 said:


> so even if my camera goes to that aperature, the lens will restrict it? maybe I should take a class. ahahaha



Think about pouring paint through a funnel into an open gallon paint can. The funnell is the lens; the camera is the can. 

It matters not what size the can opening is. The funnel controls.


----------



## AdamZx3 (Jun 21, 2007)

JIP said:


> To get a 2.8 max. aperture on a lens they need to use larger and sharper glass and more elements this translates to a higher quality lens.  Add to that the fact that weddings are often shot in dark churches where flash may not be allowed and for a situation like this a fast lens is a necessity.



+1

Also I have shot the 18-200 lens and It would make a great travel lens, or multi purpose lens. it has a very wide focal range and the VR system which on my 70-300vr is a lifesaver at times. While I agree using a trained eye, it may be a bit soft at 200mm however the portability makes up for it. A little unsharp mask and its all better. It is a bit pricey though, but for certain uses can be great. I am going to sell my kit 18-135 for one of these, a bit more focal length and VR. It may let in a lot of light but its easy to shoot at 1/30 and have sharp pictures, even at 1/15 with burst mode


back on subject however I would recommend these lenses for wedding (I prefer the canon's on a professional level however nikons glass is good too)

Bodys:
D200 or at least a D80 body (well maybey the D300 when its time to upgrade  ) While the D40 is a great value I would not shoot that as my main body, mainly lens compatibility and autofocus would be my concern

Lenses:

70-200 VR 2.8   for those candid photojournalistic style shots
28-70 2.8         great all around lens
85mm 1.4        good for low light situations

and maybe a fisheye used sparingly.


----------



## JIP (Jun 22, 2007)

AdamZx3 said:


> +1
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I hope you meant to say *not *rcommend right??


----------



## AdamZx3 (Jun 22, 2007)

no, I would recommend those for a nikon body, both are good lenses but I prefer canons because their autofocus in general is faster, and I like their 70-200 L IS better than nikons, from what i've read the canon trumps it in image quality, and is an inch shorter. I however have not used the nikon 70-200.


----------



## JIP (Jun 22, 2007)

What lens are _you _talking about.


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 22, 2007)

Presumably Adam was referring to the ones he listed, namely... 



> 70-200 VR 2.8 for those candid photojournalistic style shots
> 28-70 2.8 great all around lens
> 85mm 1.4 good for low light situations


 ...

as opposed to the 18-200mm.


----------



## JIP (Jun 22, 2007)

Well I'll wait for his confirmation if so I guess it was a mis-communcation with him.


----------



## PushingTin (Jun 22, 2007)

I have the 18-200 and although a great "general use" and "travel" lens, I would not even consider it for a wedding shoot.

I also have the 70-200 VR and the image quality from this lens is absolutely amazing and also has constant 2.8 aperture.

Would I sell my 18-200, no because of its versatility, but if it got lost/stolen would i replace it? Proberbly not...


----------



## jstuedle (Jun 22, 2007)

AdamZx3 said:


> no, I would recommend those for a nikon body, both are good lenses but I prefer canons because their autofocus in general is faster, and I like their 70-200 L IS better than nikons, from what i've read the canon trumps it in image quality, and is an inch shorter. I however have not used the nikon 70-200.



The current pro Nikkor AF-S line of  autofocus glass is every bit as fast to focus as the white lens guys. And yes, Nikkor pro glass is sharp, tack sharp. But this slooooow lens (Slow as in aperture, not focus acquisition. Even though it is much slower than the pro AF versions) is NOT suited for weddings. There is a reason wedding photography is expensive. Pro equipment is expensive. But pro's expect to get super sharp, high contrast and true color in poor lighting conditions. I had a guy tell me he was going to start shooting weddings with a D40 and the kit lens. Good Luck, the most skilled wedding photographer is severely handicapped with this class of equipment. A few years ago good wedding photographer would show up with a kit including 3 Hassy bodies, three fast lenses, a wide, normal, and portrait tele. Each rig typicaly had a Lunidyne flash, 2 external Lumidyne battery packs and a few film backs. He/she might also bring studio strobes, tripod and a makeup artist. Equipment wise, about 35K easily could be spent to start. The typical couple spending the same 2-3.5K expect the same quality from that D40 shooter as from the Blad shooter.


----------



## JIP (Jun 22, 2007)

jstuedle said:


> The current pro Nikkor AF-S line of autofocus glass is every bit as fast to focus as the white lens guys. And yes, Nikkor pro glass is sharp, tack sharp. But this slooooow lens (Slow as in aperture, not focus acquisition. Even though it is much slower than the pro AF versions) is NOT suited for weddings. There is a reason wedding photography is expensive. Pro equipment is expensive. But pro's expect to get super sharp, high contrast and true color in poor lighting conditions. I had a guy tell me he was going to start shooting weddings with a D40 and the kit lens. Good Luck, the most skilled wedding photographer is severely handicapped with this class of equipment. A few years ago good wedding photographer would show up with a kit including 3 Hassy bodies, three fast lenses, a wide, normal, and portrait tele. Each rig typicaly had a Lunidyne flash, 2 external Lumidyne battery packs and a few film backs. He/she might also bring studio strobes, tripod and a makeup artist. Equipment wise, about 35K easily could be spent to start. The typical couple spending the same 2-3.5K expect the same quality from that D40 shooter as from the Blad shooter.


Bravo!!! there are alot of "I got a D40 I can shoot weddings" types here but I wont get into that right now.  I agree to get into shooting medium format weddings when I started (in the stone age before digital) I invested $5200 and still felt I was short of the gear that I needed that was 2 ETRSI bodies a normal lens a short tele and 2 flashes.  When I got into digital another $3500 and I am nowhere near where I reallt should be to shoot weddings although I have.  So having said all that the 18-300 is a very inapropriate wedding lens.


----------



## D40 (Jun 22, 2007)

Hey, I am not trying to say I got the D40 so I could go pro. I bought it as an upgrade from a point and shoot camera (Fujifilm S5100) for everyday shooting. Onece I started learning about photography and I joined this forum I started getting more and more interested in maybe doing photography work on the side. I was shooting at a concert last Friday for practice and yesterday while I was in the store a guy came up to me who had recognized me from the concert and we started talking. Turns out he is a wedding photographer and once we got on that subject the conversation just ran away on a photography path. He asked if I would like to come and help/learn how Weddings are done and that is were I am at. If I do decide to do it on the side I will most deffinently be getting a D200 and a much better lens. When I got the D40 I thought it was just for my love of taking pictures, I wasnt thing of going pro or els I would have saved for the D200. If the photographer lets me I will use my D40 just to help and get into it while saveing for the D200 then I will, but I will not be using the D40 as my main camera if things work out 

It just sounds like some of you are not happy with me for owning a D40 and talking about weddings so I wanted to clear some things up I love the info by the way, Thanks!


----------



## JIP (Jun 22, 2007)

D40 said:


> Well, I was wandering if this lense would make a good wedding/ portrait lens. If anyone has used it or heard anything about it, I would love to hear what you have to say. Also, *I have the D40 and now that I am learning more I am wandering if I may want to upgrade* to say a D80 or D200? *I will first be getting a good lens like the one in question* but for shooting weddings and portraits I was wandering if I would be better off getting a D80 body to go with the new lens and use the D40 as a backup? Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated


This was your question if you may want to upgrade and I think the answer is a resounding yes.  I think you should have made your most recent post your first it would have been very helpful to get this kind of detail up front.  In your case to start out you may just be assisting you may never shoot for a while.  Another thing that is possible is your friend might let you use some of his gear to start with.  All the detail is important in a post.  So to answer your question "do you need to upgrade" I say absolutely if you laready have a D40 great save up for a D200 as a primary body and use the D40 as a backup.  When you mention the 18-200 as a "good lens" this may be the case to some but if you are buying gear for wedding photography it is not.  Save up for 2.8 lenses and learn as much as you can from your friend.


----------



## hawee99 (Jun 22, 2007)

so i have the AF-S DX 18-135 f/3.5-5.6.  I asumme this means I can only set the aperature on my D80 of a range from 3.5-5.6. Correct?  However the manual for the lens says "Aperature range f/3.5-f/22 (at 18MM) and f/5.6-f38 (at 135mm) I'm confused


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 22, 2007)

JIP said:


> When you mention the 18-200 as a "good lens" this may be the case to some but if you are buying gear for wedding photography it is not.  Save up for 2.8 lenses and learn as much as you can from your friend.



Now that I TOTALLY agree with. Additionally, to do weddings right you will also need to have professional quality lighting, the little pop-up flash isn't going to do it. As you are talking with people already in the business, pay special attention to how they set up their equipment, what they use and how they meter it.


----------



## selmerdave (Jun 22, 2007)

hawee99 said:


> so i have the AF-S DX 18-135 f/3.5-5.6.  I asumme this means I can only set the aperature on my D80 of a range from 3.5-5.6. Correct?



No, it means those are the maximum aperatures, plural because with that lens the maximum aperature changes with focal length (as you zoom).  So...



> However the manual for the lens says "Aperature range f/3.5-f/22 (at 18MM) and f/5.6-f38 (at 135mm) I'm confused



Those are your aperature ranges for each end of the zoom range, hence the maximum opening of "3.5 - 5.6".  Aperatures can always go smaller, and smaller is of less importance than how much it opens, so usually the point of interest in a lens is the maximum aperature.  

Dave


----------



## hawee99 (Jun 22, 2007)

whoa that actually made sense. i read it six times, but it clicked. hahaha


----------



## jstuedle (Jun 23, 2007)

D40 said:


> Hey, I am not trying to say I got the D40 so I could go pro. I bought it as an upgrade from a point and shoot camera (Fujifilm S5100) for everyday shooting. Onece I started learning about photography and I joined this forum I started getting more and more interested in maybe doing photography work on the side. I was shooting at a concert last Friday for practice and yesterday while I was in the store a guy came up to me who had recognized me from the concert and we started talking. Turns out he is a wedding photographer and once we got on that subject the conversation just ran away on a photography path. He asked if I would like to come and help/learn how Weddings are done and that is were I am at. If I do decide to do it on the side I will most deffinently be getting a D200 and a much better lens. When I got the D40 I thought it was just for my love of taking pictures, I wasnt thing of going pro or els I would have saved for the D200. If the photographer lets me I will use my D40 just to help and get into it while saveing for the D200 then I will, but I will not be using the D40 as my main camera if things work out
> 
> It just sounds like some of you are not happy with me for owning a D40 and talking about weddings so I wanted to clear some things up I love the info by the way, Thanks!



Please don't take my comments that way. I was reacting to the comment that the lens you asked about was appropriate for weddings. It is a capable lens, but not up to the quality level required to do weddings for hire. Wedding photography is a tough and competitive market. And truth be told, a lot were shot with D1X's and similar cameras. But the current digital market dictates more MP's and higher resolution lens that will do the job in difficult lighting conditions. That means fast f/2.8 or faster glass of great quality. The current crop of pro cameras are approaching medium format film quality. BUT, the high end pros are now going to medium format digital. Like the Hasselblad H1D with 22 MP back at about 22K or a capture 39MP back for the Hassy at about 32K (just the digital back, plus camera and lens) The quality of this type of equipment would be what a good photographer is up against in the wedding market. I don't say this to discourage you, just to let you be aware of what is expected of us when we tell someone we are a professional wedding photographer. No matter the price quoted, this is what our work is compared against. I wish you luck, and let us help where we can. A place you could start is shooting receptions. The D40 with say a 17-55 f/2.8 AF-S ED-IF G DX would make an acceptable choice considering the cameras narrow field of lenses. I am not a fan of DX format glass, but it's really the only choice you have in a fast zoom in a range appropriate for indoor receptions. Again, I didn't intend to sound harsh, and the comment was not directed at you concerning your choice of cameras. All of our equipment has limitations, we just need to recognize what those limitations are and learn to utilize our gear as best we can.


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 23, 2007)

hawee99 said:


> so i have the AF-S DX 18-135 f/3.5-5.6. I asumme this means I can only set the aperature on my D80 of a range from 3.5-5.6. Correct?


 
A minor correction - you can't set the aperture on your D80 to anything because the camera doesn't have an aperture; the aperture is in the lens (although on most SLRs you set it via the camera).


----------



## AdamZx3 (Jun 23, 2007)

ZaphodB said:


> Presumably Adam was referring to the ones he listed, namely...
> 
> 70-200 VR 2.8 for those candid photojournalistic style shots
> 28-70 2.8 great all around lens
> ...





> Well I'll wait for his confirmation if so I guess it was a mis-communcation with him.



Thats right, sorry for the mis-communication, I guess I could have typed it a little more clear, now I can see by spacing it out so far, at a glance it could easily look like my gear list (I wish it was  )

Also I am glad to hear the nikon line on lenses is on par with canon as far as AF speed, I know to my eye the image quality is the same, though others online may disagree. A couple of people said that they switched over to canon and the af and quality was much better (for the 70-200). I don't want to start a canon vs. nikon debate though...both are good brands that pro's use, and i'm still using nikon


----------



## D40 (Jun 23, 2007)

Thanks for to ideas and I am sorry I did not include as much info in the first post! Here is what I am looking at as far as possible future needs

D200 body
Lenses that are f/2.8 or less
SB-800 speedflash
2-3 batteries (D200 battery life is not as good I hear)
Lots of memory


Correct?

What zoom range will be best? I see some 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses that sound good but then I would want a lens to go with it that would be say 28-85mm f/2.8 or 17-55mm f/2.8? I am just getting ideas as to what I need to be looking for so I don't waist money on a lens that will not do me anygood


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 23, 2007)

D40, while you are looking, look at the Metz flashes.  For weddings and strict portraiture they are pretty amazing.

mike


----------



## D40 (Jun 23, 2007)

Thanks I will


----------



## D40 (Jun 23, 2007)

http://www.adorama.com/MZ54AF1N.html

Like this one? Could you explain what makes them better than say the SB-800, I don't know to much about external flashes?


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 23, 2007)

No, I was talking about the Metz 45 cl 4.  It has the wink light for catch lights in the subjects eyes and has a terrific color flash -skin tones are great!

You can find used ones around if the new sticker sends you into shock.  With care they will last a long long time.

If you want to know more, start a thread in the equipment section and ask.

I believe that JIP has one too btw.

mike


----------



## JIP (Jun 24, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> No, I was talking about the Metz 45 cl 4. It has the wink light for catch lights in the subjects eyes and has a terrific color flash -skin tones are great!
> 
> You can find used ones around if the new sticker sends you into shock. With care they will last a long long time.
> 
> ...


No from my medium format days I have a 60 CT-1 and a 60 CT-4 which are the next step up.  Personally I agree they are excellent long-lasting flashes but actually, I have yet to use them with digital.  When I went digital I bought an SB-800.


----------



## JIP (Jun 24, 2007)

Oh yeah.....

45 CL-4
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/413434-REG/Metz_MZ45042_45CL_4_Digital_TTL_Handle.html
60 CT-4
http://www.bogenimaging.us/Jahia/si...ollectionRequest=productDetail&detailPid=9005


----------



## D40 (Jun 24, 2007)

One thing the photographer mentioned and I abserved last night was that you really need a flash that piviots up and down but also rotates. Does the SB-800 do both, because I don't think the SB-600 does? I will deffinently be getting the 800 if it does!


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 24, 2007)

I am fairly certain the 600 has both tilt and swivel. The 800 too. Maybe you were thinking of the 400?


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 24, 2007)

The Sb 800 and 600 both have tilt and swivel.  Look up why people use Strobo frames though.  If it come down to a choice between the two get the 800.

JIP, I did buy the 60 CT 1 and it works wonderfully with my D200.  A hotshoe to PC adapter for your D70 is around $20, if your manual says you're good to 250V go ahead and use them.  Radio slaves would be better but you can even use optical slaves too (opti-slaves are great for portraits- not so good when there are other flashes besides yours going off).


----------



## D40 (Jun 24, 2007)

Ok I went and looked at the SB-600 and it DOES have tilt and swivel. I can get it for $229 and the SB-800 for $369. Now I learned my lesson about buying the cheaper and not thinking about the future so... I am more than willing to spend the money and get the SB-800 if it will be a better flash for what I do (or hope to do) Weddings and portraits. Could someone explain the features that make the SB-800 better other than the power? I deffinently don't want to buy the SB-600 and then down the road need to buy the SB-800 so I think that will be my next purchase while I search for a new lens and after that I will start saving for the D200. Thanks


----------



## JIP (Jun 24, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> The Sb 800 and 600 both have tilt and swivel. Look up why people use Strobo frames though. If it come down to a choice between the two get the 800.
> 
> JIP, I did buy the 60 CT 1 and it works wonderfully with my D200. A hotshoe to PC adapter for your D70 is around $20, if your manual says you're good to 250V go ahead and use them. Radio slaves would be better but you can even use optical slaves too (opti-slaves are great for portraits- not so good when there are other flashes besides yours going off).


I have used optical slaves for most of the time I have had my flashes and I have used them in conjunction with my D70s but thanks for the advice. We really should stick to the op's questions.


----------



## selmerdave (Jun 24, 2007)

D40 said:


> I am more than willing to spend the money and get the SB-800 if it will be a better flash for what I do (or hope to do) Weddings and portraits.



FWIW I don't think you're going to be using any camera-mounted flash for professional portraiture, for that you need a lighting setup.  The added power (of the SB-800 vs. the 600) is well worth the extra money, think of it as the equivalent to adding a stop of aperature on your lens (in other words, it can make the difference between being able to take a shot and not being able to).  

Dave


----------



## jstuedle (Jun 24, 2007)

The SB-800 can control 3 other, or three groups of other flashes wirelessly TTL. It will control the exposure of each flash/group independantly. For weddings this a great. Setup your flashes to fill shadows, setup your SB-800 to command them, fire and forget. It will control SB-400's, 600's or 800's and maybe SB-200's although they are fairly low powered. The 800 has a fair amount more power than the 600 and it also has the ability to add either a fifth battery or a external pack to more rapidly cycle the flash. Another real advantage in wedding photography.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 24, 2007)

Yes, the ability to use an external battery pack for faster cycle times and longer life is great for receptions.   And as to the power difference, think of the difference between f4 and f2.8.  

D40, I would get the Sb 800 but I would also exhaust all the possibilities of the 1 flash before I started to buy too many others simply to make sure I was getting what I needed to do what I wanted.  (much cheaper this way!!)

mike


----------



## D40 (Jun 25, 2007)

Ok, thanks! I will be getting the SB-800 hopefully soon. It makes such a big difference bouncing light off the wall and such, makes the photos look so much better and the power is a big factor to concider I was thinking about getting it from Ritz Camera (locally) good idea??


----------



## D40 (Jun 25, 2007)

The flash was the easy part to find The lenses are the problem?? Do they make a good 18-200mm or something close? I see some nice 70-200 or 80-200mm. but with those you will be swiching lenses a lot it would seem like. I like the range of the 18-200mm or even 24-200 but I don't see any that are f/2.8 or less? What do you Nikon Wedding fokes use to just give me some Ideas as to some spacific lenses to read on, if you don't mind? Thanks for being so patient with me guys (galls)


----------



## selmerdave (Jun 25, 2007)

The wider the zoom range the poorer the performance, particularly at the extremes.  Plan on switching lenses, one option is to use two bodies with two different focal lengths, but even then you're going to need more than two lenses. 

Dave


----------



## jstuedle (Jun 25, 2007)

For all but big outdoor receptions, 200mm is a little (lot) long. Take a look at the 24-70 f/2.8. Go into a photo shop and put one on your body, look around the store and frame groups of 2-5 people and see what you think. Then look at some other lenses and do the same. JMHO


----------



## JIP (Jun 26, 2007)

they do not make a fast 18-200 aside from the lens having sharpness problems at the extreme ends if you were to make a 18-200 2.8 I can't imagine how large the lens would have to be and how many elements you would have to have to have 2.8 throughout that range.  The 3 lenses I would recommend for wedding shooting would be the 17-55 2.8, the 24-70 2.8 and, the 70-200VR 2.8 this will cover the full range for you.  I would eventually plan to have this combination And mabye supplement it with something specialised like a macro for ring shots.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 26, 2007)

JIP said:


> I can't imagine how large the lens would have to be and how many elements you would have to have to have 2.8 throughout that range.



This came to mind:


----------



## D40 (Jun 27, 2007)

LOL, I love it I will look at the 24-70mm and I already like the 70-200mm f/2.8 Thanks. I do not have any good stores that carry these lenses, or at least no it the store. I have to order the expensive stuff


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 27, 2007)

The 70-200 is a lovely lens.


----------

