Hi Coleman and fellow Nikon users,
>with the 43-86, which I understand is not one of Nikon's best. However, it
I used to own that lens, twice (at different times). Sure its not razor
sharp as my AF-D 105/2.8 Micro but I like it for portraiture (esp. when used
with a diffuser).
>has served me very well. I take lots of people candids, as at wedding
>receptions and the like.
I used to (and would when the opportunity arise) do some dinner & dance
shots. I find that for hassel-free shooting, I use a ISO400 print film, set
the camera in Manual mode, set the aperture to f/5.6 or f/8 (depending) and
the shutter to 1/60 sec. The flash is in TTL mode. This setting works for
generally most every lighting and 95% of the pictures comes out great. The
rest 5% sometimes is under or overexposed, but being print film, the photo
developer can help me compensate during printing. I thought the photogrpahy
students out there who suppliments their income with some part-time shooting
assignments might like to know this.
On my first assignment, I used a AF-D 24/2.8, MF 43-86/3.5, AF-D 105/2.8
Micro. Although that got me through the first assignment, I made up my mind
to use a zoom the next time. That night, the 24/2.8 was quite underused,
the 105/2.8 was too long (for most situation and short for head shots from
across the room) and I found the focal length on the 43-86/3.5 a bit
restrictive.
Now, my preferred lens is a 35-135. The 35 end is just nice for group
shots and the 135 end is just nice for those shots of the CEO making a
speech (or generally a fool of himself after 12 shots of whisky straight up).
>The 24-120 seems like it would work very well for me but I am concerned
>about picture quality. Maybe the 35-105 would be a better choice for the
Certainly, if you're looking at D lenses, the 35-105/3.5-4.5 is a good
choice as it's IF and quite compact. However, if you're looking at a non-D
lens, maybe you want to try the AF 35-135/3.5-4.5 as it offers a longer
focal length, just in case and saves you running across the room to nail
that money (CEO) shot.
If you're doing shots up to less than 8" x 10", I guess the 24-120 would
give you greater satisfaction and the difference in picture quality isn't
that noticeable.
>separate jobs. But I have the same concern for quality with the 70-300
>lens. Maybe I should consider the 80-200 or a 70-210.
You didn't specify which 80-200 you're considering. If you mean the
consumer grade (non 2.8) 80-200, then you're better off with the 70-300 ED
as it offers better picture quality (due mostly to the ED lens). And
compared to the 70-210/4-5.6, the 70-300 ED is much more compact and offers
greater focal length.
The above is my opinion only. Of course, the best way to find out which
lens suit you is to have a hands on experience. I believe most shops do let
you try (maybe take a few snaps around the shop) or rent out these lenses
(albeit 2nd hand ones or display models) before you purchase.
Regards,
Deric Soh.
