Help with my set-up

[brapodam]

not forgetting about flash, which you would most probably be using alot for portrait and wedding.

There are some people who like to shoot with only available light, but they probably can because they're using a D3s. I doubt a D3100 can handle the freakishly high ISOs you need for low light photography without flash.

 

[Alan Chan]

There are some people who like to shoot with only available light, but they probably can because they're using a D3s. I doubt a D3100 can handle the freakishly high ISOs you need for low light photography without flash.

yup, agree totally.

 

[wilb87]

Lighting/flash setup is very important also. i have seen some lousy wedding photographs with harsh shadown and practically "dark" faces. I think one of the most important aspect of wedding or portraiture photographers is their mastery of lightings and flash photography.

 

[daredevil123]

For me, if I can afford a FF body, I wouldn't get third party lenses. Remember, lenses > cameras, so if you want to have a good camera body, make sure you have good lenses on it. I'm not saying that the Tamron 28-75 is not sharp or good - it is, but still, the sharpness and AF speed is not on par with the Nikon 24-70 f2.8, and you're wasting your FF camera if you don't have a good lens.

It depends on what body you use it on. The non-BIM version I think focuses faster than the BIM one, especially if you're using it on a D300s, D700 or D3s. The BIM version (which TS has to use since he's on a D3100) is slower than my kit lens (at least for the Tamron 17-50, not sure about the 28-75)

I find the 28-75/2.8 good on FF. I also use several 3rd party primes. And they are good on FF. And some 3rd party lenses are better than the branded alternative... just look at the Tokina 16-28/2.8 compared to the 16-35/4VR.

 

[brapodam]

I find the 28-75/2.8 good on FF. I also use several 3rd party primes. And they are good on FF. And some 3rd party lenses are better than the branded alternative... just look at the Tokina 16-28/2.8 compared to the 16-35/4VR.

Yup I know it's good, but I suppose it's more a matter of personal preference.

 

[daredevil123]

Yup I know it's good, but I suppose it's more a matter of personal preference.

Most of it is personal preference, but it is hard truth when reviewed by independent and respected groups and agencies or people with real scientific test results followed by professionals in the field.

The 16-35VR is simply no match for the Tokina 16-28/2.8, feel free to check up any of the reviews out there. They are comparing the Tokina 16-28 to the Nikon 14-24. The 16-35 simply cannot match the Tokina. The Sigma 85/1.4 is on par and, in some scenarios, better than the Nikon equivalent. The Nikon 10-24 or 12-24 are no match for the Tokina 11-16. The amazing Samyang 14/2.8 (5 full stars from photozone), the Sigma 50/1.4... the list goes on and on and on. And I did not even start talking about 3rd party brands like Carl Zeiss or Voigtlander.

Nikon makes a lot of good lenses, Canon makes a lot of good lenses. But they also made a lot of lousy lenses as well. To say that original brand lenses is always better than 3rd party? That is really a stretch and sounds akin to fanboyism.

 

[brapodam]

Most of it is personal preference, but it is hard truth when reviewed by independent and respected groups and agencies or people with real scientific test results followed by professionals in the field.

The 16-35VR is simply no match for the Tokina 16-28/2.8, feel free to check up any of the reviews out there. They are comparing the Tokina 16-28 to the Nikon 14-24. The 16-35 simply cannot match the Tokina. The Sigma 85/1.4 is on par and, in some scenarios, better than the Nikon equivalent. The Nikon 10-24 or 12-24 are no match for the Tokina 11-16. The amazing Samyang 14/2.8 (5 full stars from photozone), the Sigma 50/1.4... the list goes on and on and on. And I did not even start talking about 3rd party brands like Carl Zeiss or Voigtlander.

Nikon makes a lot of good lenses, Canon makes a lot of good lenses. But they also made a lot of lousy lenses as well. To say that original brand lenses is always better than 3rd party? That is really a stretch and sounds akin to fanboyism.

I do not claim that original brand lenses is always better than 3rd party...In fact my DX dream team does not even contain any Nikon lenses...all of them are third party.

 

[daredevil123]

I do not claim that original brand lenses is always better than 3rd party...In fact my DX dream team does not even contain any Nikon lenses...all of them are third party.

Which makes me confused now, why u said what you said in your previous post.....

For me, if I can afford a FF body, I wouldn't get third party lenses. Remember, lenses > cameras, so if you want to have a good camera body, make sure you have good lenses on it. I'm not saying that the Tamron 28-75 is not sharp or good - it is, but still, the sharpness and AF speed is not on par with the Nikon 24-70 f2.8, and you're wasting your FF camera if you don't have a good lens.

 

[brapodam]

Which makes me confused now, why u said what you said in your previous post.....

Well, my DX dream team is all 3rd party, but for FX, it would be mostly Nikon only lenses...

 

[daredevil123]

Well, my DX dream team is all 3rd party, but for FX, it would be mostly Nikon only lenses...

Well, individual experience may vary. Cheers.