Woohoo, another help me spend my money thread...

[Kerbouchard]

So, the company I used to work for went bankrupt and I switched to a new company. The new company has graciously agreed to pay out our PTO(paid time off) from the last company(which we all thought was going to be tied up in bankruptcy court for years).

In any case, getting about $5500 back which the wife will let me spend around 3500 or so. As most of you know, I primarily shoot the kids and I also assist weddings.

So far, I've been getting by with a 35-70 2.8, 70-300, 50mm 1.8, Sigma 150 2.8 macro. Definitely not where I want to be as far as equipment, but I work within the limitations and typically do fine.

So, obviously, the 24-70/70-200 would be the right thing to pick up, and I can probably just swing it if I go with the VR1 version of the 70-200 and look for a deal.

But, I'm thinking about going a completely different direction. Thinking about picking up the Nikon 17-35 2.8 and the Sigma 120-300 2.8.

Help talk some sense into me...

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Nikon 17-35 2.8 <--- a little wide to be shooting children and wedding folks
Sigma <--- is Sigma

I like the 1st plan! 24-70 and 70-200 and don't look back except to smile which you'll be doing a lot of.

 

[matthewo]

if you want the 300 range, just get a 1.4x converter for the nikon 70-200, i think it would be far better in the 70-200 range without the converter, then when you need the 200-300 range with the converter it probably wont be any worse then the sigma...

also question, are you talking about the OS version of the sigma 120-300 or the apo ex version non OS. i guess the difference is about $2000 vs $3000. as far as its little brother of the non OS version, the 70-200, i wasnt all that impressed compaired to the nikon 70-200 vr II. even when i put the sigma 1.4x converter on the nikon is was pretty sweet.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Nikon 17-35 2.8 <--- a little wide to be shooting children and wedding folks

But great for overall room shots, etc. Plus, a very close focusing distance and great for boquet/garter tosses and it gives me another angle(as an assistant) that isn't already covered.

Sigma <--- is Sigma

I love my Sigma 150 2.8. I don't think anything Nikon produces matches it. It truly is a gem of a lens. I've heard the 120-300 may be in that class.

I like the 1st plan! 24-70 and 70-200 and don't look back except to smile which you'll be doing a lot of.

Still thinking about it.

Thanks for the input.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I can't disagree. Truthfully I love my 50mm Sigma prime over Nikon's too, but nothing could get between my 24-70 and 70-200....you won't regret those in any way =)

 

[Kerbouchard]

The more I think about it, the more appealing having 17-300 at 2.8 sounds to me.

 

[Mach0]

The more I think about it, the more appealing having 17-300 at 2.8 sounds to me.

Say what ? Lol

 

[o hey tyler]

The more I think about it, the more appealing having 17-300 at 2.8 sounds to me.

Say what ? Lol

He's not talking about one lens, but rather having a few lenses that cover that focal range with an constant f/2.8 aperture.

 

[Derrel]

The 120-300 is a massive lens. Weighs like 6.4 pounds or thereabouts. Has a huge front element. It's basically a monopod lens. Are you good with that? it would be a good lens choice for outdoor sports work, like track and field and soccer, other field sports, stuff like that. For wedding work, I think its size and profile would make it a less than ideal choice.

I am assuming you are shooting FX bodies.

 

[Kerbouchard]

The 120-300 is a massive lens. Weighs like 6.4 pounds or thereabouts. Has a huge front element. It's basically a monopod lens. Are you good with that? it would be a good lens choice for outdoor sports work, like track and field and soccer, other field sports, stuff like that. For wedding work, I think its size and profile would make it a less than ideal choice.

I am assuming you are shooting FX bodies.

Yes, although if I really needed it, I could throw it on a D90 for a bit of extra DOF and reach.

As far as the wedding work, a lot of times, I am up on the balcony using a tripod, so I would think it would be just about ideal for that situation. Wouldn't be a lens I would be shooting the reception with...

Being able to use it for sports or some outdoor stuff would just be an added bonus.

 

[Kerbouchard]

The more I think about it, the more appealing having 17-300 at 2.8 sounds to me.

Say what ? Lol

He's not talking about one lens, but rather having a few lenses that cover that focal range with an constant f/2.8 aperture.

Yes, except missing 70 to 120...for now. But, I could always mount the 35-70 to a DX body to pick up that focal length.

 

[Overread]

+1 to what Derrel said - the 70-200mm f2.8 is a heavy lens but one most people can get used to using for a day without much trouble without needing support - the 120-300mm f2.8 is a totally different beast and, as he said, you'll fast be on a monopod with it unless you are strong (even then fatigue will come a lot earlier in the day from using it).

They are - very different beasts.

That is a 120-300mm next to a 70-200mm f2.8.
There are times when I'll take the 120-300mm because I want the long reach - other times when weight/size are more important or I don't need the massive reach the 70-200mm is far more suitable.

 

[Kerbouchard]

+1 to what Derrel said - the 70-200mm f2.8 is a heavy lens but one most people can get used to using for a day without much trouble without needing support - the 120-300mm f2.8 is a totally different beast and, as he said, you'll fast be on a monopod with it unless you are strong (even then fatigue will come a lot earlier in the day from using it).

They are - very different beasts.

That is a 120-300mm next to a 70-200mm f2.8.
There are times when I'll take the 120-300mm because I want the long reach - other times when weight/size are more important or I don't need the massive reach the 70-200mm is far more suitable.

Yep, I saw that pic in the other thread about the 120-300. Like I said, I'll be on a tripod for the most part, so I'm not worried about handholding. Honestly, the wait doesn't concern me at all.

How do you feel stands up in the overlapping range?

 

[Overread]

I've got the 70-200mm f2.8 MII which is a stunning lens (similar to the VR2 from Nikon) and its so long since I used the M1 of that lens that I can't honestly say how the quality overlap would be. That said I find the 70-200mm MII superior for the range it covers. If all I need is that range then its the choice for the day without question.
If I need the 300mm end (or typically in my case 420-600mm with teleconverters) then its the 120-300mm; Delivering very good image quality in its 120-300mm range when I need it and giving me the ability to get longer reach. For me its my long reaching zoom lens and that's the slot it fits in my setup.

For you it might be a harder choice as indoor and outdoor portrait work might not call for the 200-300mm range as often. I'd be tempted to say that unless you really feel you need 300mm+ go for the 70-200mm f2.8. Use it and shoot with it for a while and then if you still feel you need more reach, I would consider longer reaching glass as an option. For kids and weddings I suspect the 70-200mm will be all you need for most of the time; if you had sports/wildlife or other situations typically more demanding in long reach then I'd be suggesting the 120-300mm more so.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I've got the 70-200mm f2.8 MII which is a stunning lens (similar to the VR2 from Nikon) and its so long since I used the M1 of that lens that I can't honestly say how the quality overlap would be. That said I find the 70-200mm MII superior for the range it covers. If all I need is that range then its the choice for the day without question.
If I need the 300mm end (or typically in my case 420-600mm with teleconverters) then its the 120-300mm; Delivering very good image quality in its 120-300mm range when I need it and giving me the ability to get longer reach. For me its my long reaching zoom lens and that's the slot it fits in my setup.

For you it might be a harder choice as indoor and outdoor portrait work might not call for the 200-300mm range as often. I'd be tempted to say that unless you really feel you need 300mm+ go for the 70-200mm f2.8. Use it and shoot with it for a while and then if you still feel you need more reach, I would consider longer reaching glass as an option. For kids and weddings I suspect the 70-200mm will be all you need for most of the time; if you had sports/wildlife or other situations typically more demanding in long reach then I'd be suggesting the 120-300mm more so.

Well, again, I think it would be something I would use every wedding, from a tripod, on the rear balcony for the ceremony shots.

Appreciate all the feedback, but I think I am pretty much sold on it. I'm buying it used at a pretty good price, so worst case scenario, I can resell it and get most of my money back and pick up the 70-200 2.8. Also probably going to pick up an 85 1.4, so I don't think I'll miss the 70 to 120 range that I would be sacrificing.