I'm confused. This went from "a Canon body and 50/1.2" to an entire system with huge 200/1.8 AFS VR and stuff like that?
You need lenses like that to shoot an event, and precocious kids like another hole in your noggin. :ROTFL:
Not enough lens choices in the Sony system? Get real. More than enough to shoot what Woody is after, and then some. Sony is missing T/S optics and that's about it. Personally, I've never seen a need to shoot running Grand Kids with a $2,500 T/S manual focus lens ... but hey, maybe that's just me.
Nikon 100/2 or 135/2? What? Old Nikon "snail paced" AF with paper thin DOF?
I swapped over from Nikon to Sony for weddings because IMO 1) the Zeiss lenses and their incredible micro contrast and 3D focus fall off 2) the best color right out of the camera due to the mid-range tonal skew and sacrifice of super high ISOs ... no small issue when slogging through 500 to 800 wedding images.
Question is, do you shoot that much at a crack, and how much of it is converted to B&W?
I'll stick with my org. reco: D700 and a Nano Coated AFS 24-70/2.8. Nikon has their zooms (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) in order now, and IMO they beat the snot out of the aging Canon equivalents. I'm talking near prime lens IQ territory here. Also, on the D3 or D700 they produce the best B&W conversions with the least amount of effort bar none ... including the Canons and Sonys.
Here are a few with the D700 and D3 (basically the same camera including AF accuracy and speed in my experience ... except the D700 is small and promotes "take with"). The New Year's "Balloon" image was the D700 done one handed over the shoulder of a guest as a Hail Mary shot. The "Bouquet Beat Down" tryptic shows the swift AF abilities of the Nikon.
The guy "admiring the feminine landscape" was the Sony A900 ... which focuses fine and gets the decisive moment shots when commanded to do so :thumbup:
-Marc