From DX to FX on a budget

MartinKynde

Hey everybody!
I'm upgrading from an Olympus DX and want to buy a Nikon D610, because of the fantastic image quality and the full format.
I'm 17 years old, so I don't have a huuuuge budget so I'm in a pain when it comes down to choosing lenses.
I have thought of this setup to the D610:
1) Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, Tamron 70-300 VC, 50mm f/1.8 prime and 85mm f/1.8 prime

As many other photographers I like to shoot all kinds of photograph - portrait, nature and perhaps some weddings. Since i plan on shooting some weddings and some portraits for money, do i need a 70-200mm F/2.8 Nikon or Sigma more than the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. I can't afford both. But within a year I plan on raising the money for the one i don't buy from the start.

Thanks
Martin

Killerbob

If you are trying to save some money, without sacrificing quality, take a look at the Tamron 24-70mm. Also, my advice would be to get the 24-70mm (in some version) for sure. It is one of the most versatile lenses produced.

Photobug

If you are trying to save some money, without sacrificing quality, take a look at the Tamron 24-70mm. Also, my advice would be to get the 24-70mm (in some version) for sure. It is one of the most versatile lenses produced.

+1 Killerbob on the 24-70 - Nikon or Tamron to save money

@MartinKynde - Those lens would make an idea set of tools for your shooting. Go with the 24-70 initially..it's a must have for general shooting and portraits. Later look for a new, refurbished, or gently used 70-200 F2.8. You can get buy without it to start. Be sure to allocate $$$ for a good UV filter for your lens. Welcome aboard Martin.

tcole1983

Portraits and weddings are two different situations. I think the somewhat standard setup on FX for weddings during most parts would be the 24-70 and the 70-200 with possibly the 85 for posed/portraits of just a few people. There are plenty of parts unless it is a very small wedding that you will need a bit more reach and I don't think the 24-70 or the quality of the 70-300 would do. I don't know enough about the newer third party options to comment on them. A few years ago when I was buying most of my lenses the third party options were not really options and the quality wasn't there. The 85 is probably a dead ringer for portraits. I think the 70-200 is going to be a good addition there also.

But before you spend tons of money you might rethink making all this money doing wedding photography. I did one and it will be my only.

Killerbob

We are sometimes forgetting that a good 24M FF camera with a 24-70mm will allow for significant cropping, and easily make up for the lack of reach. That will never replace a 70-200mm, but it is easier to zoom into a decent photograph than zoom out to something which was not captured in the first place...

haroldp

If I had to mount one lens on an FX camera for weddings, it would be the Nikon 24-120/4 VR.

It is sharp at all lengths at f5.6, which will give good bounce flash exposures in most venues (watch out for tall or colored ceilings) and god DOF. It is a fair portrait lens at 90-100mm F4.

You should always correct distortion in PP with this lens. It is easy with capture nx-d.

... H

heartyfisher

why have you decided to switch systems? What Olympus DX do you currently have(didnt think Oly had DX) ? its almost always better to stay in the system you currently have.

Pistnbroke

Welcome to the forum .Good to see young people on here and great to be ambitious but at 17 shooting weddings I dont think so ....how are you going to get respect from people 2 or 3 times your age ? Maybe 100 of them ..you would have to be very cheap or go for bottom end weddings but good luck . Work with another photographer to earn and build up a portfolio . The D610 is certainly the best buy in FX at present.
To be future proof I would stick with Nikon lenses.And if shooting weddings the last thing you want is a bag of primes ..one do it all zoom IMHO Sadly nikon dont have a perfect FX wedding zoom the 24-120 is a bit short and the 28-300 right focal length but not everyones cup of tea. ( as they say in the UK)

sevencrossing

For weddings you need a mid range zoom
I would also recommend sticking to Nikon lenses and the 24 -120 f4
Nothing wrong with 24 -70 other than, you will also need a 70 -200
Depending on venues and size of wedding, you might also need

a f 1.4 prime eg the 24mm
and ultra wide zoom or the new 20mm f 2.8
something longer than 120mm

but I would start with a mid range zoom,
then rent or buy extra lenses for situations, the mid range zoom does not cover
dont worry about your age I started professional photography at 15

spraynpray

Weddings - at your age? +1 Pistnbroke. First get the 24-120 VR tho, then when you find that you can't actually get the whole couple sharp with an f1.4 or 1.8, spend the rest on plane tickets to see the world while there's still some to see. Oh, and don't forget to x2 the cost for your backup camera and lens.

IMHO people who get arty-farty with weddings are missing the point: it is about giving the couple (read that as bride) a great memory of the day and if she or the groom are out of focus (albeit with beeoootiful bokeh), those images are failures. The photographers ego may be satisfied, but the bride will be unhappy. Get a body that nails focus, works well in low light and buy a decent wide to short tele zoom lens and you're away.

sevencrossing

Although I started working at 15; I was not doing weddings
I suggest you get some experience shooting Birthday Parties. These should give you experience without being mission critical
Don't work for free, just try to make a small profit
(and make sure you understand what a profit is)

MikeGunter

Hi all,

'If you are trying to save some money...' You might be better off not listening to any of us. ;-)

+1 to KillerBob, I have the Tamron lens and like it a lot and I also have the two prime lenses you are planning to get and like them a lot, too.

I plan to get the Nikon 70-200 f4. It isn't as fast as the f2.8, but I think it will be more usable for me.

My best and good luck.

Mike

haroldp

Weddings - at your age? +1 Pistnbroke. First get the 24-120 VR tho, then when you find that you can't actually get the whole couple sharp with an f1.4 or 1.8, spend the rest on plane tickets to see the world while there's still some to see. Oh, and don't forget to x2 the cost for your backup camera and lens.

IMHO people who get arty-farty with weddings are missing the point: it is about giving the couple (read that as bride) a great memory of the day and if she or the groom are out of focus (albeit with beeoootiful bokeh), those images are failures. The photographers ego may be satisfied, but the bride will be unhappy. Get a body that nails focus, works well in low light and buy a decent wide to short tele zoom lens and you're away.

@spraynpray

Your perspective on this is exactly right. I did about one thousand weddings, mostly in the film days, and when the couple look at the pics years later, it is about their memories, not our art.

Never forget it may be the only picture they have of some family members.

.... H

spraynpray

Comparing the Nikon 24-70 with others, the usual head and shoulders superiority just isn't there. In fact it is looking pretty ordinary. The 24-70 is way past an update I reckon. I don't even think I would swap my 24-120 VR f4 for one even though I am not totally impressed with that lens either.

Pistnbroke

Well thanks to a couple of people for agreeing with me ..makes a change from the pasteing I usually get .