Reddit mentions of Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (New, White box)

> They paid $4500 for the photographer and didn't get rights to make digital copies to distribute to guests? Who the fuck did they get, Ansel Adams?

you'd have to pay a lot more for ansel adams: he wasn't a wedding photographer, and he's been dead a few years.

"$4500" doesn't really tell me a whole lot. what does that include? is that just to show up? does that include a professionally-produced album? what did the photographer cover? what were his costs (assistants, gear, etc)? for a whole package, $4500 isn't too bad. if that's just to be there, maybe we're looking at "ripped off" territory. if the photographer sucks, definitely.

> I can see making people pay for prints (high res, photo-quality isn't cheap),

i'll let you in on a secret. printing a high-res, good quality photo is dirt cheap. i can get an 8x10 printed for about a dollar. but this is sort of like looking at a painting in a gallery, and thinking it should cost the same as the blank canvas. you're ignoring all of the other materials that went into it and of the artist's work, talent, and skill.

1. one part of this equation is gear. i list this first because it's the easiest to quantify. though it's true that the camera is not the only factor in making a good picture, it is a factor. good lenses, good camera bodies, and good lighting means you can do more things -- like capture the ambiance of the reception, instead of having blacked-out background and washed out faces. do the math for me. if someone shows up to the wedding with two professional SLRs, two or more flashes, a midrange professional 2.8 zoom, a telephoto professional 2.8 zoom, and all the appropriate batteries and memories cards, and maybe a backup camera and fast prime for nice portraits... well, i'm gonna start playing tiny violins for $28 for an 8x10.
   
2. skill. wanna know what a college education costs?
   
3. talent -- and this is the hardest to quantify. do you want uncle fred shooting the wedding on his disposable camera? or do you want someone who knows what they're doing and will make beautiful memories? you really do get what you pay for.
   
   so, when you're paying for a print, it's not the cost of physically producing that print that you are paying for. you're paying for all of the other stuff -- the quality of the image, etc. the photographer has set his prices at what he thinks is fair for his time and effort and skill, and so that he can make enough back to cover his other costs as well as doing things like eat and pay his rent.

I wrote a huge thread about buying Nikon as I am studying photography and am one of the biggest Nikon fanboys on the planet. I'll paste it all here. The D3100 and the D5100 are EXCELLENT cameras, and will blow your mind as an entry level DSLR. Do not fall into the D7000 trap, it's not worth it due to it's AF problems. I own a D300, D80, and GF1. Here's everything I had to say... It's lengthy. All about which lenses you should go for with your D3100/D5100
--------------------------------------------------------------

The 35mm f1.8: The lens is fixed at 35mm, so no zooming. However, the fact that it is f1.8 means it has AWESOME low light capabilities. I always recommend wide angles to new DSLR owners because it really introduces you to what the camera is capable of. You'll get a grip of aperture values and creative bokeh use; it is wonderful. Plus it seems like everyone loves that 'large sensor' look with beautiful background blur (bokeh) and very sharp foreground details, and wide angle lenses at very low apertures will definitely give you that. Just mind you that 35mm is kind of a short length, but you can live with it. (My GF1 only has a 20mm lens attached to it, and it is still one of my favorite lenses to date from Panasonic.) The price is to DIE FOR.

55-300mm f4.5-f5.6: While I don't exactly like variable aperture zooms, they are are fantastically priced. Don't expect ridiculous zoom levels though, but it'll still zoom pretty well; 300mm is a fairly good zoom. The reason why I don't really like variable apertures is that sometimes you completely forget about them, and if you are shooting in manual that will absolutely kill your shot if you weren't shooting in RAW.

So I'll be zoomed at 100mm, probably at f4.9, and then zoom to 280mm. Suddenly, I'm at f5.5 without changing it myself because the lens doesn't support f4.9 at that zoom. Kind of a downside, but you just have to keep it in mind and shoot in RAW.

There is another option if you don't want variable apertures however.

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR II: This is the beast lens. If you want to save up money for a lens, I promise this is the one you want to do that for.

My 70-200mm VR is a lens I refuse to leave at home when going on a trip, it is simply my favorite lens EVER. This is the next version of it, but it is cheaper because of demand.

But now you see the downside to low aperture telephoto: price. $2,400 isn't exactly the most affordable lens on the planet, but that's why it is worth it to buy this a while after you have had your DSLR and have saved up some money for that killer lens. This, paired with the 35mm f1.8 I put above there, would be a killer kit. It would be fantastic for low light conditions, even with the telephoto.


I'm a loyal Nikon shooter for a reason: They are quality. While I'm a bit disappointed with how long it took them to jump into DSLR video, the quality of their cameras have always pleasantly surprised me ( Not counting the D7000 of course ;) ). The D3100 was one of those cameras that I just loved, the price is fantastic and the quality of the camera itself is mind blowing for the price.

My first camera was a D80, and I fell in love with it. That was a while ago though, and once I picked up my D300... Magic. I had never used such a powerful camera before, and it blew my mind what the D300 was capable of. While it is getting a bit old (Older Sensor, still an old 12MP with lesser low light capabilities than the newer cameras), the auto-focus points are fantastic and the overall speed and RAW processing power of the camera have never failed to make me smile.

I have a nice little savings account for a D3x or the D4 line once it is released. ;D

The D3100 is a camera that you'll probably keep for a long time. It is a quality camera, like all Nikons. It is powerful, and is considered to be one of the 'new age' DSLRs: lower price, greater power. Hopefully this camera will turn you into a life long Nikon fan. ;) Have fun with it, that's the one major rule. Don't pay attention to any of the shooting rules if you feel like you have a better idea; follow your eyes, not some other person's laws (Rule of thirds, etc.).
Good Luck! And Have Fun! :D

• 200mm f2G ED VR II
  
• 70-200mm f2.8G VR II
  
• 14-24mm f2.8G ED
  
  https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F
  
  https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_what_type_of_lens_should_i_look_for.3F

So one thing that's largely overlooked is the amount of refraction within camera lenses.

See, camera lenses are INCREDIBLY complex (source: I'm a photographer). I have a lens that is fixed, meaning it does not zoom at all. It's got 11 pieces of glass in it. My big 70-200 lens, which I love for headshots, has 21 pieces of glass, 7 of which are known as Extra-low Dispersion (ED) glass. They are in there for the express purpose of letting more light through. Here's the Amazon link to the lens which explains it even better and even has a cutaway of the lens that shows all of the elements inside.

We actually use something called a T-Stop to measure how much light comes through a camera lens. The lower the T-Stop (the "T" is for Transmission of light), the more light makes it through to the sensor or film.

So while atmospheric refraction has a much larger effect for sure, the lens itself will distort and change things to some degree. This is true of all lenses made, (some light is always lost or reflected/refracted by the glass) just by varying amounts.

Sweet! Enjoy. Start saving your pennies, you'll want one.

I am saving for a $2500 lens that will allow me to apply for jobs in my dream career. I've been saving for years, but I have met with several set backs every time I make a little headway. I've taken on a lot of extra work to try and buy it by the end of this year.

Advancing in my career and obtaining my dream job relies entirely upon that lens, so I'm literally exhausting myself by working all-nighters regularly so I can afford it.

The 70-200 VR2 sells new for $2200.

I paid 1200 for my Vr1, which when new sold for around the price of the Vr2.

Dumb question, but for Nikon is an f2.8 FX-format lens going to perform the same (from a light-gathering perspective) as an f2.8 DX-format lens?

Specifically considering this lens for my DX body:

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-200mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002JCSV8U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1488235979&sr=8-2&keywords=70-200+f2.8+nikon

Will I get f2.8 performance out of it, or would it be closer to something like 5.6 or something since it's an FX lens?